20040714.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
Ow NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS
� ilrryl
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
M i
uj LL-AC
t ADDRESS
I CITY
NAME
ul�
ADDRE�
CITY
STATE LICENSE NUMBER
TAX ACCOUNT
7 . -�?
ADDITION
REMODEL
REPAIR
DEMOLISH
GARAGE
CARPORT
(TYPE OF USE, I
ZIP TEi EPHONE
e---
, st
ZIP TELEPHONE
P I TELEPHONE
NO.
M COMMERCIAL
MULTIFAMILY
fiQ GRfN
CYOS
TANK
RETAINING WALL
ROCKERY
OR ACTIVITY), EXPLAIN:
I
I
Iu/- ll
I
P E
L RMIT EXPIRES
F
IONF
L
PERMIT
NUM ()'71
BER
JOB
ADDRESS I-D -
SUITE!APT#
Ave 500�
PLAT NAMEISUBDIVISION NO
C',
LOT NO
I
LID NO
LID FEE S
PUBLIC RIGIII OF WAY FIER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
EXISTING PROPOSED
HFOUIRED DEDICAIION� Fi
Uscp Approved
RW Permit Roquiled
Street Use Porma Roqd
ln"ojon Requited
sidewalk Required
underground
Wifing taquired
0
[3
0
13
13
E3
METER SIZE
LINE SIZE
NO. OF FIXTURES
PFIV REQUIRED
YES NO
REMARKS
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
CBL
ri 2?A 1
KPLUMBING
/ MECH
COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
SIGN
FENCE
( X FT,
OTHER
FIRE SPRINKLER
FIRE ALARM
NUMBER NUMBER OF; CRITICAL
OF DWELLING AREAS Ann
STORIES UNITS [NUMBE
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE 19- -
_15t M L>/ f�� A) T>V_AL9_
GLAZING % I I LOT SLOPE %
PLAN CHECK NO: I VES,�EJD,(AT
-Z
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK T
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS
PERMIT LIMIT., I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFX WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.4
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE XTFTM� STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
WORKMEN'S COMPENSA�"N AfkCE AND)RCW 18.27.
"-,A
IG RE (OWNER �G DATE SIGNED
EERING R
FIRE REVIEWED BY
DATE
DATE
z
E5
z
ul
w
gr
CL
VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR AD13M INSPECTION BOND
RIEQ 'D POSTED
---------- OYES KNO IS -
SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT
COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWE� PROPOSED
41 /
EXP10/031 D,5 k"I
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT) PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.)
ALLOWED PROPOSED. FRPNT S)DE REAR FRO � REAR
/WT U�SIDI�
1 z
-35' 0/c) 3 V Xo ao 5; 30 ;k 0 2
0,5 z
PARKING I-& AREA NNNG REVIEWEQ BY DATI� -
REO'D
OV D
PR a IDE ) V �/� lo q
REMARKS
CHECKED BY TYPE F CONSTRUCTION E OCCUPANT
GROUP 17-7-
SPECIAL INSPECTION AREA OCCUPANT
REQUIRED0 YES LOAD
REMARKS z
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/ IBC109/ IRC109 FINAL INSPECTION REQ'D
1-� A 1-7 io /7 1 .. I — j — ___4 5m
VALUATION
$
Description
FEE
Description
FEE
Plan Check
state surcharge
Building Permit
City Surcharge
trnbing
�7
Base Fee.
Grading
Engr. Review
Engr. Inspection e�7
Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit
Fire Inspection Receipt 9
ZIA/
sp.
Landscapeln Total Amt. Due ZY-2 —,xq;)
Receipt # I_Z 12
Recording Fee
APPLICATION APPROVAL
This application is not a permit until signed by the
CALL Building 011icial or hisfhar Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
OFFIC IG U DATE
(425)
AT(/1 /Cj
771-0220 'Rttl�ASED B'Y- DAf E
A17ENTWN Ex 1 1333
IT IS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILA FINAL
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL ORA CERTIFICATE OF OCCU-
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/IBC110/iRC110.
1/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
0
MtZIM/1 92h,�1201-11
ORIGINAI��E YELL&V - INSPE/CTOR
PINK - OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR
*14
z
0
I
0
M
—1 -n
M
M C3
0
0
0 C:
M
M z
IC)
3:
0)
0 _n
n
M M
0—(/)
0 r_
0 M
C Cl)
9 Cl)
M 0
Z
z
z
0
1
0
M
0
'CEPTABLE TMITLINE '�rML)vCu /AQ viv L-6
MATERK BY ENGINEERIN�
-'MR 35 ALL EXPOSED SURFACES T '&VE. GRADE
SCH 40 BE COVEREO WITHIN 2 LC A. 247.65'
rn m
N-12 250 0' B. 250.10'
(n c-j .1 te: 7/
C�i C. 251-35' Z-6 t
;—�'4 D. 248.05,
13
/4 = 249.29'
MAX HEIGHT: 274.29'
10-00' ACTUAL HEIGHT- 274.04
20 PROPOOED
FOOTING= 245.04'
HOU67 1ST FL = 249.04'
�W 2NDFL. = 259.04'
c'
IMPERVIOT S AREA
LOT 1091
BUILDING: 2,52-4.50 SQ. FT.
'i m DRIVEWAY: 770.40 SQ. FT. 0
-lA PATIO: 175.12 SQ. FT.
-AT & SEWER : -
(0 TOTAL: 3,470.02SQ. FT.
INSPE IONS REQ'D.:
LOT C:)VERAGE: -
A25 1 -0220 EXT. 10
L 2.090.75/6,151.10 = 34%
C PTA: 207-3250-0217-100
10, U TY
FILTER FENCE :z
E EMENT
-------------
R F PRAIN
MICHEL
W CONNE ION --v CONSTRUCTION, INC
915 8TH AVE
c\1 EDMONDS, WA. 98020
Im
64.20'
*j
25�76 WATER METER LOCATED AT
IE (N) = 246.0-IN TOF'=
IE (5) = 245.90 IE=2 THE SW CORNER OF LOT 1
-- - PAR. "All ON,5TH AVE
Zone P�� 6 VERTICAL DATUM:
aetbacks CATCH 13A51N KIM RECEIVED
BMuired Actual LOCATED AT 5.E.
FOOTING DRAINS NOT Front INTEK5ECTION OF JUN 3 0 2004
8TH AVE & FINE 5T,
TO BE TIED INTO Sides L ELEV: 247.00 BUILDING DEPARTMEN-1
DETENTION SYSTFJA Rear 3� CITY OF EDMONDS
Other
'77r7-777-
5
"'ITY COPY
-TR A DTNTC.. PT A T\T
LOT-/C
qCA,r.F. 1 11 = )n nni
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
July 2, 2004
JIJL 6 2004
0
Mr. Rob Michel PERA417- COLW�
M
Michel Construction, Inc.
7907 - 212th Street S.W. #102
Ui -1
Edmonds, Washington 98026
0 M,
C
M 0
0
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation "Soils Report"
0 0
Proposed (2) 4 Lot S.F.R. Development
M
8 th Ave. S & Pine Street, Edmonds, Washington
M z
C —Z
This engineering report p resents the results of a geotechnical evaluation
Cn
of the property at the N.E. corner of 8h Ave. S. and Pine Street, Edmonds,
0 -n
A
Washington, with respect to the proposed 8 lot development. This evaluation
was required due to owner developer concerns as well as City of Edmonds
rn M
requirements.
0
0
0 M
C Cn
C Cn
REFERENCES:
Q 0
Survey by L.S.A.
Location map
Site plan
Project drainage plan by Donna Breske, PE
CITY COF017
6
Photographs
z
0
BACKGROUND:
0
M
The proposed eight lot project, to be constructed by Michel Construction,
Inc., will occupy the majority of the overall property, with access drive to 7 lots off
8 1h Ave S.
SOILS FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX 546-8442
Michel Construction, Inc. / 8 1h Ave. S & Pine Street
Pagetwo
CHARACTERISTICS:
A survey of the subject property was conducted on June 12, 2004 by
L.S.A. The property is rectangular, and consists of approximately 62,510
frontage feet along the east side of 81h Ave. S and 179.26 frontage feet along the
north side of Pine Street. The adjoining properties, as well as the neighborhood,
consist of single family residences on similar size lots.
The subject property contains mature trees, shrubs, and lowland grassy
areas. The property is moderately sloped (less than 14%), and drains
southwesterly to the existing wetland.
EVALUATION:
Visual assessments of the property at the N.E. corner of 81h Ave. S and
Pine Street revealed no evidence of any geotechnical distress. No slides, no
settlements, no creep, nor any significant erosional degradation were observed.
This engineer has considerable experience in the immediate vicinity and
understands the foundation subgrade conditions.
Experience has proven that the subgrade soils are fully capable of
properly supporting the proposed 8 new single family residences.
This engineer evaluated the 8 1h Ave. S & Pine Street property on July 1,
2004. Significant clearing, grading, and drainage work had already occurred.
(see photographs).
The S.W. corner of the property is understood to be designated a W.Z., in
accordance with drainage plans by Donna Breske, P.E.
The utility work has exposed a large number of "soil test trenches"
throughout the property. Subgrade conditions were uniform.
0 -8" "Former" grasses, roots, organic silt (removed as of July 1,
2004)
8"-16" Sandy loam, medium dense
16"-4' Dense to very dense slightly sandy SILT.-
Z
9
0
M
111111111
1h
Michel Construction, Inc. 8 Ave. S & Pine Street
Page three
Ground water was present in the southern portion of the property. See
photographs.
Z
This engineer has reviewed drainage plans by Donna Breske, P.E. and
0
concurs with the system of drains and detention for geotechnical integrity.
M
The very dense subgrade soils will provide excellent foundation bearing
with proper drainage controls.
0 M
C
M
0
0
0 C
CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
M
M Z
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar
C
> Z
E:
1h
sites in the area, the property at 8 Ave. S and Pine Street is geotechnically
CD
approved for the proposed Michel Construction 8 lot S.F.R. development,
subject to the following:
rn M
Standard reinforcing continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
0
pressure: 2,000 p.s.f.
0 M
C 0)
CO
Q 0
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining
.Z
wall design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this
engineer.
Z
• For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure
of 350 p.c.f.
Cn
Z
0
• Geotechnical inspection by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete
0
placement.
M
The proposed structures can be supported on conventional continuous
and spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed
above native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and
Structural Fill for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations.
Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of
Michel Construction, Inc. 8" Ave. S & Pine Street
Page four
eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed
at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower adjacent finish ground surface.
Depending on the final site grades, some overexcavation may be required
z
0
below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to
M
fill the over excavated hole, the width of the overexcavation at the bottom must
be at least as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the overexcavation and
the footing width. For example, an overexcavation extending two feet below the
0 M
C
bottom of a three-foot wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base
PH 0
of the excavation.
0
-40
0
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be
C
-4
X rn
M z
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of two thousand (2,000) pounds
C _Z
per square foot (p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may
>
be used when considering short -term wind or seismic loads. For the above
�
design criteria, it is anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings
o -n
founded on competent, native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in
thickness) will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of
3:9
M M
one -quarter inch.
Cl)
0 r,
0 M
C Cn
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction
9 Cn
rn 0
between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure
Z
acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter
X
condition, the foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil
or the backfill placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural
>
fill. We recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's
z
resistance to lateral loading:
z
0
Parameter Design Value
i
0
M
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid
density.
Michel Construction, Inc. 8 1h Ave. S & Pine Street
Page five
A safety factor of at least 1.5 is recommended for design of the
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
z
0
0
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native
CD
0
soils or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils
M 0
provided these soils can be recompacted prior to placement of the free -draining
0
sand or gravel underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a
0 0
C
minimum of four (4) inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier
M
M z
such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12
_Z
inches for sealing purposes.
C
>
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
0 -n
M M
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist
Cn
lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The
0 r-
0 M
following recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12)
C CD
9 Cn
feet in height which restrain level backfill:
M 0
Z
Parameter Desian Value
Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f.
z
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
X
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Cn
z
Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f.
0
M
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent
fluid densities.
For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
Michel Construction, Inc. 8" Ave. S & Pine Street
Page six
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent
foundation and retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be
applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at
least 1.5 for overturning and sliding.
The above design values do- not include the effects of any hydrostatic
pressures behind the walls -and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be
placed above the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be
added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind
the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the
backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining
and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the
walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the
equipment. Placement and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be
accomplished with hand -operated equipment.
Retaining Wall Backfill
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation
walls should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill
should contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no
particles greater than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles
passing the No. 4 sieve should be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70)
percent. Due to their high silt content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a
drainage composite, such as Mirafi and Enkadrain, should be placed against the
retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to
the foundation drain system. the purpose of these backfill requirements is to
assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall as not exceeded because of a
build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The subsection entitled General
Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding placement
and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls.
z
0
1
0
M
0
0 C
M
M z
_Z
V)
0 -n
M M
0
0
0 M
C Cj)
9 CO
M 0
z
z
0
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc. / 81h Ave. S & Pine Street
Page seven
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in
local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a
height of four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary
cuts having a height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination
no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontai:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of
the excavation. Under specific recommendations by the geotechnical
engineer, excavation cuts may be modified for site conditions. All permanent
cuts into native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes
should not exceed 1:1 (H:V). it is important to note that sands do cave suddenly,
and without warning. The contractors should be made aware of this potential
hazard.
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any
temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be
seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve
stability of the surficial layer of soil.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining
walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -
minus washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N,
Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert
should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for
drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the
foundation drain system.
The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed
off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to
stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed.
Any exposed slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site
grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent
away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
Z
0
4
0
M
M
rn 0
0
__10
0 C
M
M Z
C
CD
o -n
-n
M M
0
0 M
C Cl)
MO
Z
X
__1
>
Z
Cl)
Z
0
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc. / 8 1h Ave. S & Pine Street
Page eight
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and
cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious
material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any
materials to be used as structural fill.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind
permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying
soils needs to support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions
during and after excavation prior to placement of any structural fill.
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content
at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that
moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The
moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled
during the filling and compaction process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type,
compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. in
no case should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The
following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
Location of Fill Placement Minimum.- RelativeCompaction
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways 95%
Behind retaining walls 90%
Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12
inches of subgrade, 90% below that level
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Use of On -Site Soils
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when on -site soils
are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and
Z
9
0
M
C
M
0
-10
0 C
-4 K
X M
M Z
g) --I
C
C0
o -n
n
M M
0 5
0 r-
0 M
C cl)
9 C/)
Q 0
Z
Z
C/)
Z
0
i
0
M
I
Michel Construction, Inc. / 8 1h Ave. S & Pine Street
Page nine
the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally silty and
thus are moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the
moisture content of these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content.
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
11pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is
greater than the optimum moisture content.
Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of
a granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The
percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that
portion of the soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the
upper organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monitored by
engineering inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
The overall property at 8 1h & Pine contains upsiope seepage. The road (8'h
Ave. S.) has created a long term historical "dam". Thus, the S.W. corner of the
property has become a man-made "moisture -zone".
Drainage plans by Donna Breske, P.E. have incorporated intercept drains,
tightlines and detention/ orifice mitigations.
Geotechnically, this engineer will provide onsite inspections to verify
proper foundation subgrade conditions exist prior to any concrete placement.
CONCRETE:
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls,
etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of
concrete mix.
INSPECTION:
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction:
Z
0
i
0
M
=n-
M
M
0
0
0
M
M Z
,C) --I
C
CD
0 -n
n
M M
0 Vi
0 r-
0 M
C Cl)
K C/)
Q 0
Z
Z
0
Z
0
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc. 811 Ave. S & Pine Street
Page ten
Soil cuts
Foundation subgrade verification
Retaining wall, or rockery placement
Any fill placement
Subsurface drainage installation
Temporary and final erosion control measures.
SUMMARY:
1h &
The proposed Michel Construction 8 lot SFR project at 8 Pine
Edmonds, is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the
recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and
requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction.
CLOSURE:
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in
accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and
practice. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions
are based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface
conditions between explored locations. If conditions are encountered during
construction that appear to be different than those described in this report, this
engineer should be notified to observe the situation and review and verify or
modify the recommendations.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Dennis M. B ruce, P.E.
Geotechnical Civil Engineer
C
MAL
[ban- -7-.f-6 12t23/ 00
R 7
z
0
i
0
M
-1 -n
M
C
M
0
O�
0 C
M
M Z
r') --1
C —Z
cl)
0 -n
n
A
X9
M M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
9 CO)
M 0
Z
;U
z
-1
X
F0
z
0
1
0
M
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M. S. C. M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
September 29, 2004
City of Edmonds Z
121 5�h DIVISIOR 0
Ave. N.
0
Edmonds, WA 98020 M
Subject: Field Reports / Geotechnical Inwections
Michel Construction Project 48"' and Pine-)
8 New Single Family Residen�es
This report presents the ongoing results of geotechnical inspections for
the 8 new residences at 8�h and Pine (by Michel Construction Inc.).
REFERENCES:
• Geotechnical report by D. Bruce, P.E. July 2, 2004
• City of Edmonds approved project plans for 8 new residences
• Inspection authorization by City of Edmonds
• Construction photographs
BACKGROUND:
Michel Construction has received permits for the construction of 8 new
residences at the northeast intersection of 8th Ave. and Pine St.
This engineer prepared a geotechnical report dated July 2, 2004 with criteria for
foundation work, excavation, and rockeries.
Excavation for the project began in August of 2004 (see photographs).
This engineer provided ggL onsite inspections during periods of active
excavation and foundation work.
915 8" Ave. S. (2004-0714): All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p-s.f. verified. "OK'to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
SOILS - FOUNDA rIONS - SITF DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN 8 PERMtr - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 * (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
M
M
0
0
0 C'
M
M Z
0 -n
n
--4
t
M M
0
0
0 M
C: CD
9 W
Q 0
Z
X
Z
Z
0
M
I
9
City of Edmonds
September 29, 2004
Page 2 of 3
921 8" Ave. S. (2004-0713): All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. verified. "OK' to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
925 8 Ih Ave. S. (2004-0698): All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. verified. "OK' to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
933 8 Ih Ave. S. (2004-0710): All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. verified. "OK' to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
945 8t' Ave. S. (2004-0712 : All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. verified. "OK to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
953 8 Ih Ave. S. (2004-0711): All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. verified. "OK'to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
0 959 8�h Ave. S. (2004-0709 : All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. verified. "OK'to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
0 821 Pine St. (2004-0697): All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p-s-f- verified. "OK'to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
SUMMARY:
Geotechnical inspections verified proper work through this date
September 29, 2004.
0 The excavations for all 8 lots are stable and approve .
z
9
0
M
--I -n
W
0 M
C
M 0
0
--10
0 C:
--j C
:E M
MZ
M
C/)
o -n
n
M M
055
0 r-
0 M
Cj)
M 0
Z
z
0)
z
0
1
0
M
IN I
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
RECEIVED
December 30, 2004 JAN 0 � 2005
ENGINEERIPIG
City of Edmonds
th Z
121 5 Ave. N. 0
Edmonds, WA 98020 0
Subject: Field Reports Geotechnical 11napeCtions
Michel Construction Project(-8f"--a�nd P'ine
8 New Residences X
M
C 0
This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical
th and
inspections for the 8 new homes constructed by Michel Construction at 8
Pine.
REFERENCES:
0 City of Edmonds approved project plans
* Geotechnical reports by D. Bruce, P.E. July 2, 2004
9 Previous inspection reports
0 Photographs
INSPECTIONS:
This engineer has provided and continues to provide onsite geotechnical
inspections as required by City of Edmonds authorization.
Pine St. (2004-0697): This engineer verified proper placement of
compacted structural fill (crushed rock) to improve constructability on sub -
grade soils. This engineer previously verified dense native sub -grade soils
providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. The structural fill was effectively
placed as a construction expedient and is geotechnically approved.
Subsurface drainage was properly placed in accordance with approved
plans and normal practices.
The rear soil cut required erosion stabilization and this engineer verified
proper placement of the rockery. Base rocks were properly founded in
dense native sub -grade soil. Rock size, rock linkage, and batter were
properly installed.
959 8" Ave. S. (2004-0709): Subsurface soil bearing previously verified
and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading
approve through this date (December 30, 2004).
SOIL S - FOUNDA TIONS - S1 TE DE VEL OPMEN 7' - INSPEC TION - DRA INA GE - DESIGN & PERAW 7' - L EGA L
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
C —Z
W
o -n
n
M M
0-
0)
0
0 M
C Cl)
9 C/)
M 0
Z
Z
Z
0
0
M
City of Edmonds
December 30, 2004
Page 2 of 3
953 8" Ave. S. (20Q4-0711
1: Subsurface soil bearing previously verified
and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading
approved through this date (December 30, 2004).
945 8 Ih Ave. S. (2004-07121: This engineer verified proper placement of
compacted structural fill (crushed rock) to improve constructability on sub -
grade soils. This engineer previously verified dense native sub -grade soils
providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. The structural fill was effectively
placed as a construction expedient and is geotechnically approved.
Subsurface drainage was properly placed in accordance with approved
plans and normal practices.
The rear soil cut required erosion stabilization and this engineer verified
proper placement of the rockery. Base rocks were properly founded in
dense native sub -grade soil. Rock size, rock linkage, and batter we I re
properly installed.
933 8 Ih Ave. S. (2004-gZ101: Subsurface soil bearing previously verified
and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading
pppLoved through this date (December 30, 2004).
925 8 th Ave. S. (20QA-0698 d proper placement of
This engineer verifie
compacted structural fill (crushed rock) to improve constructability on sub -
grade soils. This engineer previously verified dense native sub -grade soils
providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. The structural fill was effectively
placed as a construction expedient and is geotechnically approved.
Subsurface drainage was properly placed in accordance with approved
plans and normal practices. tabilization and this engineer verified
The rear soil cut required erosion s
proper placement of the rockery. Base rocks were properly founded in
dense native sub -grade soil. Rock size, rock linkage, and batter were
properly installed.
921 8 Ih Ave. S. (2004 0713): This engineer verified proper placement of
structural fill material atop the dense native soils. As previously verified,
the dense native soils easily provide a minimum of 2,000 p.s.f. bearing
capacity. Contractor chose to place rock as an improved sub -grade
material. Placement of structural fill and compaction were inspected and
are geotechnically approved.
This engineer verified proper placement of subsurface drainage in
accordance with approved plans and good practices.
Z
0
A
0
M
--I -n
0 M
C
M 0
0
C-)
0 C:
4 C
M M
M Z
r') --i
C
W
o -n
n
M M
0 —C/)
0 r,
0 M
C Cl)
r, Cn
M 0
Z
.A
X
Z
Z
0
1
0
M
E''
City of Edmonds
December 30, 2004
Page 3 of 3
915 81h Ave. S. (2004-0714) Subsurface soil bearing previously verified
and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading
approved through this date (December 30, 2004).
SUMMARY:
z
0:
Ongoing geotechnical inspections verified proper foundation, drainage,
0
M
a d rockery work through this date (December 30, 2004).
n
No adverse geotechnical impacts have occurred to this site or neighboring
a rn
C
properties as a result of the construction activities.
M 0
0
-to
0 C
All geotechnical aspects are approved through this date (December 30,
x rn
M --V
ZUU4).
0 Geotechnical inspections ongoing as required by City of Edmonds.
If there are any questions, do, not hesitate to call.
C.C. Michel Construction Inc.
7907 212 th St. SW #102
Edmonds, WA 98026
DMB:jpb
I V'F. ()04
1�041
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
I=
JE) -1
C
co
o -n
n
M M
0 5
0 r-
0 M
(n
Cl)
M 0
Z
M
z
Cf)
z
0
1
0
M
Date:
To:
November 4, 2004
File
z
0
A
0
M
Cc: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Jeannine Graf, Building Official
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer
Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Program Manager
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Technician
Jaime Hawkins, Engineering Tec icl
c ic
_r
From: Dave Gebert, City Engineer
i
Subject: Private Storm Drain Line 11 City Right of Way — Rob Michel
Development at 8 Ih Avenue South and Pine Street, S-03-153 & S-03-154
Attachments: 1. Drawing showing location of 8 inch private storm drain line in City right of
way. -i Water Facility Ownership and Maintenance Policy,
2. City of Edmonds Storn
dated September 28, 2004
The site civil work for the development of the subject short plats by Rob Michel at 8"' Avenue
South and Pine Street includes installation of a private stonn drain line from the private stonn
water detention vault located on private property to the City stonn drain system catch basin in 8'11
Avenue South. Because of the site constraints (wetlands), approximately 82 lineal feet of 8 inch
PVC private stonn drain line was installed in the City right of way on 8 Ih Avenue South. See
Attachment 1.
A question has been raised as to whether any type of permit or agreement is required for the City
to authorize this private stonn drain line to be in City right of way and for the property owners to
acknowledge ownership and maintenance responsibility for the line.
City of Edmonds
---- . - -Ivt I
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
0
City standard procedures generally do not require any type ofpernlit other than a right of way
construction permit for private storni drain lines to enter the right of way to connect to the City
system. However, the more typical situation is that the private ston-n drain line is approximately
perpendicular to the edge of the right of way and tile portion of the private storm drain line in tile
right of way is only in the portion of the right of way that fronts the single private property which
it serves. What makes this situation different is that the storni drain line in question is a
considerable length of pipe installed parallel to the edge of the right of way.
After reviewing this situation with the City Attorney, we have concluded that no additional
permit or agreement is required based upon tile following facts and considerations:
• The private storrn drain line is shown in the City right of way oil the approved civil plans.
• During the review and approval of the civil plans, the developer originally proposed to
install this storni drain line from the detention vault through the wetland to the City storm
drainage system, but the City required tile storm drain line to be installed in the right of
way to avoid disturbance of tile wetland.
• The vast majority (all but a few feet) of the ston-n drain line that is in the right of way is in
right of way that abuts the wetland tract, which is jointly owned by the private property
owners of the development. Therefore, the vast majority of the underlying property
within the right of way where the private storrn drain line is installed is jointly owned by
the private property owners of the development.
• City policy (Attachment 2) states that "Unless otherwise clearly and specifically indicated
in a legally binding document which dedicates the facility to the City and which has been
accepted by the City Council (e.g., plat, deed, etc.), storrn water facilities located within
City right of way. —that serve... private property only shall be the ownership and
maintenance responsibility of the private property owner(s) whose private property they
serve, to the point where the facilities connect to the City owned ston-n water system."
• The storm drain line in question serves all the private properties within the development,
and only the private properties within the development.
• The short plats do not dedicate this stonn drain line to the City and the City has not
accepted ownership of it.
Therefore, the storm drain line in question is clearly a private line, for which ownership and
maintenance is the responsibility of the private property owners of the development, and no
additional permit or agreement is required to authorize it to be in the City right of way or to
document that it is the ownership and maintenance responsibility of tile private property owners.
z
0
1
0
M
--I -n
M
C
M C)
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
g) --i
C —Z
W
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C Cn
9 Cn
M 0
Z
z
Cn
z
0
1
0
M
A I'
CYc:1.
FFNCr RST-26
L 11N'� 0
X. SS M11 79,20' 89.00,
MIN CRAWL SPACF '.148.2
2 1` 0
F), 151 SI- 6,305 SF
rL C9#I-TYPE I-STA 0-138,9
> I
W/ LOCKING GRAIII) 1.11)
< IOP=24B.70
IE(N)=246.0 -IN
N c!
0 I[(S)-245.9--OUT
YD #3 6" PVC SIDE SEINER
10' UIILIIY IOP-251.76 SIUF3 0 2% MIN. k I TF,) 9.57'
R=20' EASEMENI IE-249.27 RD
(Tyr.) TYPICAL
RD
SPC P
45.30'
64.20
.... ... IE,
&
D
F
in
Ell.
30
IE
.Y
N,
3 2400
Vill
It
EAST-137.73' ;ra LT 6� �vcc 6,5v.
1.
NEW 94.00' 43,73-
41
WNIS PUD TRANSFORMER
TYP PU
SSCO AT PRIPERIY
LINE, (tYP.
10' UTIL11Y
EASEMENT
IL CB#2-TYPE I-STA 0+38.5, !IR TYPICAL
X 0 to W/LOCKING GRATED LID YD #2
N I'd TOP-248.20 10P-252.25
in in IN(N)-245.72-IN > IE-248.75
IE(S)-245.62-OUT
MIN CRAWL SP'(,F-l= 248.2 to
In
EX A RV C YD#1 - IOP-247.5FA no
d IE-244.97
/ 7,9B7 SF 2
%8 5-0 RD 6,023 SF
30, 01 1100-YR WATER LEVEL
Q ..,,,,-ELEVATION IN VAULT=248.07
65- "00. 1
V 12 LF 6" PVC 02% RD
"'P TFIA I<
INLET #1
to 4" PVC-PECIIARGE THE w/i' sump ron
I Oil WEILAND V4114 Dl�Eci SEDIMENT TRAP
FLOWS FROM LOT 4
0 IOP=252.3FA
1 4 n. ROOFTOP AREA. IE=246.97 4
YD #8 12,552 SF
6,886 SF NE T
TOP=252,4FA
WETLAND OUARRY SPALL IE-251.7
BOUNDARY DISPERSION PAD TIE ROOF -DRAIN
q'I v -t1w V I'D FLOWS TO YD.
Al a i T-Y F)
AFSS FIIJ RIP-,,
D #7
TOP=246.5FA bx MA,
IE-243.9
-EX. 6* GONG.
0 '1. 0 7.q
to NEW WM 9.2�
IN . `V
I , . . a . . 4 A 1 4-
63
U
z
0 EX. CB
E X.
10" ss
APPROX. LOCATION
OF LOT 4 DRIVEWAY
V WIDE GRAVEL
FLOW SPREADER
99.26'
4 . 4. 4
Y
T
DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE PER
DWG NO. E2.26-30' MAX. W10114 PIN
EX. SS Mll
EX. CB ATTACHHE�JT_ I
IER - 6
I
11
z
0
1
0
M
--I -n
CO
M
c
M 0
0
0
0
M
M z
K) 4
c _Z
o -n
n
M M
0 C—/)
0 r_
0 M
c cl)
c cn
M 0
Z
z
cl)
z
0
11
0
M
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH * EDMONDS, WA 98020 1 (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwxi.edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
C. B V Manning * Building * Engineering
September 28, 2004
z
0
CITY OF EDMONDS
0
Storm Water Facility Ownership 'and Maintenance Policy M
Cn
This administrative policy statement is to clarify and document the longstanding City 0 M
policy on ownership and maintenance responsibility for storm water facilities within the C 0
M 0
City of Edmonds. --10
0 C:
—4
X M
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.30.010 defines a storm water M z
facility as a constructed component of a storm water drainage system, designed and g) --I
C
constructed to perform a particular function, or multiple functions. Storm water facilities
include, but are not limited to pipes, pumping systems, swales, ditches, culverts, street
� Cn
gutters, catch basins, detention basins, wetlands, infiltration devices, and pollutant 0 -n
n
removal devices.
M M
Storm water facilities located on private property. Unless otherwise clearly and 0 Uj
0 r-
specifically indicated in a legally binding document which dedicates the facility to the 0 M
C Ch
City and which has been accepted by the City Council (e.g., plat, deed, etc.), all ston-n 9 Cn
Q 0
water facilities physically located on private property shall be the ownership and Z r-
maintenance responsibility of the private property owner(s).
Storin water facilities located within City right of way, easement, or other City owned
property. Unless otherwise clearly and specifically indicated in a legally binding z
document which dedicates the facility to the City and which has been accepted by the
City Council (e.g., plat, deed, etc.), storm water facilities located within City right of Ui
z
way, easement, or other City owned property that serve (e.g., convey, detain, treat, or 0
otherwise handle stormwater from) private property only shall be the ownership and i
0
maintenance responsibility of the private property owner(s) whose private property they M
serve, to the point where the facilities connect to the City owned stonn water system.
Unless otherwise clearly and specifically indicated in a legally binding document, storm
water facilities located within a City right of way, easement or other City owned property
that convey, detain, treat, or otherwise handle stormwater fr in a City street, easement, or
other City owned property, shall be the ownership and mai enance responsibility of the
city.
NOEL F. MILLER, PE DUANE V. BOWMAN
Public Works Director Development Services Director
/+TT/i C/y 1167x)
IncorDoratt-ri AtimiSt 11. 1890
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
121 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221
Websile: www-dedmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning Building Engineering
C
Z
June 8, 2005
.0
0.
M
Michel Construction
7907 212"' St. SW #102
Edmonds, WA 98026
3:
0
M
M 0
Re: Building Permit: 2004-0714
0
0 C�
Site Address: 915 8"' Ave S.
M
Expiration Date: 08/26/05
M Z
ID
_Zr
>
Dear Michel Construction,
3:
CD
The purpose of this letter is to inforril you that the last remaining inspection oil your
there
0 -n
-n
project is a final inspection(s). The final inspection(s) determines that are no
lows the Cit to close your perrilit file.
outstanding life -safety issues and approval at y
M M,
0 W
0 r
The City considers the final inspection to be one of tile most important inspections
0 M
C CD
conducted on a project. In order to grant final approval the following must be complete:
9 Cn
smoke detectors, house numbers, guardrails, handrails, self -close doors between garage
M 0
Z
and residence, egress from sleeping rooms, safety glazing, weather-stripping, any
Engineering department requirements etc. Of course not a It of these things may
specifically apply to y our project but it does give you ail idea about the kinds of things
>
that must be complete as well as some items that do not need to be installed such as:
Z
paint, carpet, moldings, wallpaper, etc. Please be advised pen -nits expire one year from
the date of issuance. If you will need more time to complete the work, permits can be
U5
Z
renewed prior to expiration for one half fees. If the permit expires without a final
0
approval granted by the Building Inspector, full fees are required in order to renew tile
pennit. This can be very costly to you and we strongly encourage You to Check your
M
permit expiration date and call for the required Final inspection(s). Note: If more than
one department is required to final your project, this is noted oil your J ob Card.
Please feel fi-ce to contact me at 425-771-0220 if You have any questions.
Sincerely,
JoAnne Zulauf
Permit Specialist
iV1'emp\1)S*r'sVv1aster i_etters\S1twaamLtrSFR
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
_e*m
W,
Height Calculation Worksheet
Address: A i < P ' h %/ e- �
Date: r
Inspector(s):
1. Datum Point:
2. Datum Point Elevation: 9. C4 1.
3. AverageGrade: �2-qq.�Lj
.4. Maximum Elevation Allowed: (avera&, &ade)'+' 25
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
jq I (datum elevation) + e.. (grade to transit level Une shot to house)
153, -7
6. Measurements from line shot onto house to roof ridge:'
'4,
Total 1 3
7. Actual Elevation: 9-r:,3 (reference point elevation) + 11., 9, (measurements
from #6) = 2-3 L. . '53
Conclusion:
2-71 �<'
A (actual) is greater ARthan 2,'14 J.(I (allowed); therefore the house is/
is not over the height requirement per ECDC 16.20.30 requirements
z
9
0
M
0
Mar 28 06 09:31a D. Bruce, P.E. 2013-5413-8442 P.1
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
March 25, 2006
City of Edmonds
121 5" Ave. N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: FINAL Repor Geotechnical Inspections
Michel Construction, Inc. BNewHomes
8th and Pine, Edmonds, Washington
915 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0714 945 8th Ave. S / Permit No. 2004-0712
921 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0713 953 8th Ave. S / Permit No. 2004-0711
9258 th Ave. S I Permit No- 2004-0698 959 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0709
8th
933 Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0710
821 Pine St / Permit No. 2004-0213 (final report submitted June 14, 2005)
e
This engineering report presents the final results of ongoing geot chnical
inspections for the 8 new homes constructed by Michel Construction at 81" and Pine in
Edmonds, Washington. NOTE: Final report dated June 14, 2005 completed inspections
at 821 Pine St.
REFERENCES:
City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
Geotechnical and inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E.
Site photographs
INSPECTIONS:
This engineer provided on -site geotechnical inspections as required by City of
Edmonds in accordance with special inspection agreements. Geotechnical inspections
occurred gg�y during key aspects of excavation, foundation preparation, fill placement,
subsurface drainage, rockery construction and grading activities.
The following summaries refer to all 7 homes listed above (821 Pine St. already
completed).
0 Excavations: The excavation for all 8 homes encountered dense nativ i e sub-.
grade soils as anticipated by the geotechnical investigation and report.
SOILS , FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX ( B61 F-5!p F44 IV E E)
MAR 2 8 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CIR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
� i
Mar 28 06 09:31a D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 p.2
City of Edmonds
Pea Michel Construction Inc
March 25, 2006
Page 2
All excavations werestabic and are approved.
a Soil Bearing: This engineer verified dense native sub -grade soils easily
providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. Subsequent foundation formwork
reinforcing steel and concrete placement occurred in accordance with City of
Edmonds approved Plans and good practices. Approved.
0 Fill Material: No significant quantities of fill material were required for
geotechnical purposes. Contractor brought in localized amounts (less than 10
cubic yards per lot) and placed as a sub -base in order to optimize foundation
formwork procedures. All placement of fill material is in accordance with this --
engineer's geotechnical inspections. Approved.
Rockery Construction: This project required a number of rockeries both between
lots and at the up -slope east portion of the project (see Project Plans and
photographs).
This engineer verified the following: Base rock embeddment in dense sub -grade
soil, rock linkage, rock size, rock chinking, drainage zone, face batter, and final
"blending in" with existing grades.
All project rockeries comply with approved Project Plans, this engineer`s on -site
recommendations and normal good practices. All rockeries are approved as
constructed.
Subsurface Draing_qe: This engineer inspected and verified placement of
subs irface drains in accordance with City of Edmonds approved Plans and good
practices. All subsurface drainage is d.
Erosion Control: Contractor properly established temporary erosion control
measures consisting of: Rocked construction entrance, siltation fencing, straw
bales as required, inlet catch basin filter socks, and diligent. cleanup. All
temporary erosion control measures were properly maintained throughout the
project.
Permanent Ero;ion ;ontrol Measures: Permanent erosion control measures
have been properly established for the entire 8-home project: Final surficial
grading has been completed, all driveways have been paved, rockeries
completed, landscaping consisting of lawn, shrubbery and small trees have been
properly installed. Additionally, the native growth zone at the southwest portion
of the overall property appears to comply with City of Edmonds approved Plans.
Z
0
nl�
Mar 28 06 09:31a D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 P.3
City of Edmonds
Re: Michel Construction, Inc.
March 25, 2006
Page 3
All permanent erosion control measures have been installed. There are no
geotechnical instabilities or exposed earth surfaces on the project. Approved.
SUMMARY:
All special geotechnical inspection items have been properly completed, M
including permanent erosion control measures.
This report completes the geotechnical inspections by D- Bruce, P.E. 3:
M
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. M
—10
0'
0 C
M z
w
> z
17403 -n
3:
0
0 A16 M M
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
V�XNRFS Geotechnical Civil Engineer 0 M
C Cn
9 CD
Q 0'
DMB:abj
Z
cc: Michel Construction, Inc.
;U
>:
z
0)
z
M
E, -
Q)Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers
PO BOX 523
Olalla WA 98359
C:206 356-7790
P:253 857-4939
AII/CRO
FILM
August 18, 2004
To: Michel Construction
7907 212 SW # 102
Edmonds, WA 98027
Re: Michel Single Family Home
lh
959 8 Ave
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Client's Reference Number # 04-301 EECE ED04-25
This prqject is approved for " Architectural Structural, PlUmbing, Mechanical, VIAQC
and Energy " Permit only. The drawing review has been completed and accepted for
permit with the Approved Stamped drawings returned to the City of Edmonds on August
18,2004.
Your plans are being reviewed concurrently with the Building Department, Fire
-ient and Public Works Engineering. Changes, clarifications
Department, Zoning Departn
I rt an
or additional corrections may be required subsequent to the Bui ding Depa ment pt
review, when comments are received from the other concerned departments.
-4151
Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please Hoyt Jeter at (253) 857
between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm.
City of Edmonds
By: ::e
Hoyt Jeter, PE
President
0\11ocutnents anti Seltings\ I loyl\l)tNklop\NFle Eye Consulting Engineers\111an lteview\Fdniontls\2004\ED-(M6004M\rD-04600-0.1 approval.doc
z
0,
0,
M
=i 9
5 --1 i . I'�
3:1
OM
C
M C)
0
--1 0:
0 C
--i
3: M
M z
0 -n
n
M M
0
0 M
C
r, CO)
M6
Z
3:
Z,
z
0
0
M
-t"? C. 1 so \3
June 30, 2004
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 * FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.dedmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering I -)I(Plol
(� 0-11 K
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
7907 212"' Street Southwest, Suite 102
Edmonds, Washington 98026
RE: Soils Reports
Dear Mr. Michel:
As you may know Section 1804 of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code allows the
building official to require the classification of the soil at each building site. Further, this code
section states, 'the building official may require that this deten-nination be made by an engineer
or architect licensed by the state to practice Such.'
During the April 10, 2002 pre -application meeting for your development, you were inforined that
all plan check submittals for the eight lots on the 8th and Pine Street project shall require a State
Licensed Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist soils investigation report pursuant to
the criteria of Uniforin. Building Code Section 1804.2 and 1804.3.
On June 28, 2004 on behalf of your office, Mr. Dwight McGrew submitted a document entitled,
"Soils Report" (8) Proposed Single Family Residences 81h & Pine Street, Edmonds Washington",
this document was signed by Mr. McGrew without a title or professional stamp. According to
State RCW Law 18.220, only a State Licensed Geotechnical Engineer or State Licensed
Engineering Geologist may submit a report including collection of geological data, investigation,
evaluation, interpreting, or related service or work that applies to geology. Be advised, your
project is now delayed due to your failure to submit a proper soils report and review will not
commence until received.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact my office at 425-771-0220.
Sincerely,
Jeannine L. Graf
Building Official
Incorporated August 11, 1890
z
0
M
CHEL
UCTION., INC.
V"::
JUNE 14, 2004
Z�
0
0
M
"Soils Report"'
(8) Proposed Single Family Residences
=i 9�
8th & Pine Street, Edmonds, Washington
0 M
C
M 0
-10'
CHARACTERISTICS:
0 6
A Survey of the subject property was conducted on June 12, 2004. The property
M
M Z
is recta ngUl a r, and consists of approximately 62,510 square feet. The property coi -isists
C
of a proxin-tately 261.92 frontage feet alono- the east side of Sth Ave and 179.26 frontaae
p
>
feet along the north side,of Pine. Street. The adjoining propei ties, a s well as the
UY
neiahborhood, corisist of single family residerices on sirnilar. size lots.
0 -n
-n
-id -ass), areas.
The SUbject,property contains mature trees, shrubs and lowlai -i
The property is moderate]), sloped (less than 14%0), and drains southwesterly to the
M MI.
existing Nvetland.
CD
0.
C CD
TEST PITS:
9 uy
Mo
Z
Visual assessi -rient of the property at Sth & Pine Street appeared stable. No
slides, settlernents, creep, nor any sigi -tificant erosional degradation \vere observed.
;U
ThrOUgh experience in the inimediate vicinity I understand the foundation s b ar de
U . a
coi iditions. Experience has proven that the sub grade soils are fully capable of properly
Z
supporting the proposed single fanifly residence project.
Cn
In order to au-ment the existing site geotechnical inforn -iationj soil test pits �,\rere
Z
0
machine dug on October '00, 2003. A total of two (8) soil test pits were dug. Soil test pits
revealed similar sub -rade conditions in Lots 3&4 of Plat A&B, namely:
0.
M
0" to 8" Grasses, roots, and organic silt
8" to approx. 4' Relatively clean sands, with occasional gravels, dense to
very dense
The soil test pits in Lots 1&2 of Plat A&B also reavealed siniflar subgrade
conditions:
0" to 1.6" Grasses, roots, and highly ororanic loani
1611 to approx. 4' Relatively clean sands, with occasional gravels, dense to
very dense
7907 212TH SW, #102 EDMONDS, WA 98026 (425) 776-2211 9 FAX (425) 778-9086 #MICHEC106ID5
Ground water was obsei -ved in all of the test pits. All test pit walls ren-lained
vertical and stable.. No sloughing or caving occurred.
SOIL PARAMETERS
on previous o rty at 8th &
Based c nstruction on sh -nilar sites in th6area, the prope
Pine Street is stable as proposed under the following conditions.
Standard'rein forced coritinuo d f6otinas. Allowable bearina,
us and sprea
pressure:. 2,000 p.s.f.
0
Equivalent fluid pressure of-35 PXJ. is recommended foi- art), retainin- wall
M,
desicyn'.
For retaining wall design, use frictioi -i factor of 0.55 aric passive pressure Of,
_n
f
350 p.c....
M
C
M 0',
ii be Supported on coi Iveritional cbritin ci s a
The proposed structure cai U U d
0
d footings bearing Oil Und urbed native soils or on'struCtUral fill placed'above
sprea 0 iStL
0 1 � ,
.
native soils. See the later SUb-section for structural fill placernent and con-yaction
M,
:Mz
tions. Con. irigs.shoLild have minimum
recon-irnenda tinUOus and individual spread foot.
C 2
veilty.401.11- (24) inches, resl DecOvely,.c
-i. of ei -hteen (18),,and t� and shoi-ild b&
Mdtl S , g
__4
d' 'cei t finish 01round su.rf6ce.
b6ft med 'at least ejahteen (18) inches belo,xv the lower a ja i
0
3:
b e -I d a t i i s ay be designed
F otin&s cons -Licted accordin- to'.the. a ove recomP 1 01, ill
0
0 _n
, 0 ,
d
able'soil bear' . ressure of1three'Ah,ousand (3)"000) poun s pei
for an:allow mg p� square foot
or aybeUsed Nvhen.
p.s.f.).,�, A one-third increase in, this,desi n.�bearfiig- pressure. in,
M M.
Cn
Cr -n 0 S.
considerin short-tei id oi- seisi-nic I ad For the above desi n criteria, it is
0
construction S fi O's founded on c6m.petent,
anticipated that total ettlernentof4foo n
0 M
�.0 CD
ct iral fi.11 up to five (5Y feet in thickness) vvill a OU 0 IC
native soils (o' oil strU L be b t ne-I alf
r
9 C/)
M 0:
e -ie -ter inch.
inch, with'differe'ritial settlernelilts on the ord r of.oi -qUai
z
sisted bet
-ces rn a), by friction ween
Lateral loads dtie'.fo wind or seisinic f61 be re
is n -i beci�iii�,s6i]-�;,,orb)lpa,-,si\,eeai-tlipi-essLil.-eacti,iicroii the
the foundatioi a d tl e
vertical, ernbedd6d, portions of. the foundations. For the latter co,i iitilolvthe.
z
i -ed'dii-ectly a&ainSt undisturbed soil or the back, fill.
-id 'ti rIS ITILIst eithei. e POW
foui a o
placed around tl.-ie outside of the,foundation.must be level structural fill. The followil
C/):
design ' alues Should be used foi- the fOUndation's resistance to lateral loadilng-,
v
Z'
Oarameter Design alUe
0
M
Coeffici'nt of. Friction 0.55
e
Passiv e' Earth Pressure 150 P.C.f.
p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is comp Uted using the equivalent fluid density.
A safety factoi of at;least 1.51s recornniended foi- desigii of the fOUndation's
resistance to,lateral loading
FOUNDATIONS AND RETAINING WALLS:
Retaining walls back filleci oil one side only should be design ed to resist lateral
earth pressures imppseLl.by the soils retah led by these Sti-LICtUres. The followin-
recon-imended design parailleters are forwalls less than twelve (1,2) feet in heigl -it which
restrain level back fill:
Parameter Design VaILIL
:Z�
0
Active Earth Pressure* 35-p.c.f.
'50 p.c.f.
Passive Earth. Pressure 1)
M i
Coefficient of. Friction 0.55
Soil Unit Wei-l"I 125 p.c.f.
CO
C M
For restrained wall whi. h cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall
s c
M 0
L llifOVM.lateral,pre�'sure of: (100 p.s.f'shOLIld be
height, a I 01-16JILLIndrect
01,
0
OCI
added to the a.ctive' eqUivalet -it fluid pressure).
to be used for desian of Oermanent foundation 'and
The values given"above are 0 -
MM
M Z'
af ty fa cast 1 .5 hOUld be used for overturnin- al ld.
retaini. a waits on0y.-A s e c.tor of. at, le I I I s
z
sliding
The above CleSi alUes do�n ot it-ICILI Lie the I effects of an), h yLirostatic pressures
-11 Vc
0 , ,
0 -n
-n
lind the walls'' rid askinie that no surcharge slopes 6r loads,N,,vitl be placed above the
bet a
-MA
walls. If - these' cond itions !exist, then those pressures should be ad.ded:1to the, above 11
M M,
ateral p resSLIres.
0:
Heavy construction equipment ShOUILI not be. operatec:1 bet l ind retainin,� and
OMI
C C/);
CrY
foundation walls within a iistance equal to the height of tl le Placement and
M 01
z r-�
Lo, vvatl back fill Should be acconlplishecl with: hand -operated
-)action of retainiti,
corn�
equipment.
Me
I atio
Back fill placed within eighteen (18) inches, of a n re ta i n ij orfoundc n walls
z
Or
ltab nics. This back fill should
should be free -drain ng strUCtUral fill coi lin no &rga
contain no more tha�n five,(5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater -
than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentagge of particles passing the No,.4 sieve
�z
-five (25) a'nd seventy (70) percei to their, hi h silt
should be between twenty l t. Due
content, if the native soils are used as back fill, a dra.ina-e com osite, such as M irafi and
p
Enkadrain, should be placed against the reta iniil,� walls. The draii lage composites
M
should be hydraulically connected to the fOUnclation drain systern.
SITE EXCAVATION -
In no case should excavation slopes be reater than the liniils�specified in, local,
ight of
state ancl national -overnillent safety regulations. Temporary Cuts up to a he�,
four (4),feet deep in LI nsatUrated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
hei-lit areater than four (4) feet, the Cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1
(1-forizonta-Wertical) frorn the top of the slope to the bottorn of the excavation.