20040890.pdfDATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS
1 4
'V�
MAILINd ADDRESS
. 'I
�LO) 0� -
CITY
ZIP TELEPHONE
�_ )
NAME
U WA'\ X\ 1,
W
L- ADDRESS
CITY ZIP TSLEP14QNE
�W 5%
NAME CBL #
ADDRE�S
Y�klc Vf,
C q j zip E
[T(f_EPI1
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DIT�
C 'D BY
'Y�
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
NEW
RESIDENTIAL
El ADDITION
E] COMMERCIAL
REMODEL
1:1 MULTIFAMILY
REPAIR
-0 CYDS
E] DEMOLISH
1:1 TANK
19 GARAGE
RETAINING WALL
11
CARPORT
ROCKERY
(TY.PE OF USE,-QUSINESS OR CTfyITY) EXPLAIN:
NUMBEA
NUMBER OF
OF
DWELLING
STORIES
UNITS
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
I
11!�r,r
I
PLUMBING / MECH
COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
SIGN
FENCE
( X FT)
OTHER
F
FIRE SPRINKLER
FIRE ALARM
PERMIT EXPIRES
USE PERMIT
ZONE
6
A
UMBER
ion
ADDRESS W\
SUITE/APT#
r\ �.
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. J LOT NO.
LID FEE S
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
TESCP Approved E3
9W Permit Requi d
EXISTING - PROPOSED
Street use PorZ0Fjrrq'd
Inspec,;en Requ,'rod
REQUIRED DEDICATION FT
SideakR.mri' d
UndmUtOLind
Wiring required
METER SIZE
LINE SIZE
NO. OF FIXTURES
PRV REQUIRED
YE NO 13 iE
z
Lu
REMARKS
z
z
OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CON1ROL/DRAINAGE
5
z
W
�) -710101- L_
ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY D TE
7 YT ?' �m 11 r2
FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE
uj
VARIANCE OR CU
SHORELINE OR ADB#
INSPECTION
BOND
RE04&.
11
POSTED
I
[3YES ANO
S ---------
SEPA REVIEW
SIGN AREA
HEIGHT
COMPLETE EXEMPT
ALLOWED PROPOSED
ALLOWED PROPOSED
0
,
EXP
LOT COVERAGE
REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT)
PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
ALLOWED . PROPOSED
FRON SIDE/' REAR e
FROtf Up SIDFe REAR/
3 5
�z
z
PARKING
LPT AREA
PrNNING REVIE D BY DATE"
5
(L
RE�� I PR�ZIDED
� 166(
I
REMARKS
CHF,QKED BY ITYPE FJV I Cru39: OCCUPANT
if, � I AUCTION GROUP
CRITICAL
'TION
SPECIAL INSPEC AREA OCCUPANT
AREAS
NUMBER LOAD
REMARKS 0
z
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/IBC109/IRC109 FINAL INSPECTION REO'D
VALUATION
$ 'A'�7a
.-T I -
L
Description
FEE
Description
FEE
Plan Check
State Surcharge
fflj�T SOURCE G % LQT SL 'r
Building Permit
L�96
City Surcharge
I
q
Base Fee
PLAN CHECK NO: VESTED DATE
Plumbing
Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Grading
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION. —
Engr. Review
PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS
a.
PERMIT LIMIT 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
Plan Chik. Deposit
U)
OAPPLICANI ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE. HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
Fire Review
q IN INTERE�T,' AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
2
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
Fire Inspection
Receipt 4
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
Landscapeinsp.
Total Amt. Due
M
DEEMED TO MODIF� WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT
,
x 0
I
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.*
Recording Fee
Receipt #
e
77
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE 114FORMATION
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF APPLICATION APPROVAL
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the
' ;NF;gIN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
T'O
IN V'; ION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
K
W . K S �KyEkp�ON INSURANCE AND RCW 10.27. DATE
2 OFFICIALS SIGNATURE
IGNATU Lrh/b AGEN DATE IGNED
0.
771-0220 IEA
A17 ITION E)ff 133
I ITM
TISU WFULTO USE OR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE ANDAPPROVALOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCU-
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/IBC110/IRC110.
09/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
I
ORIGINAL - FILE YELLOW !INSPEJOR
PINK - OWNER GOLD I ASSESSOR
z
0
M
. I
0 M
C:
M 0
0
0
0 r-
M
M z
JD --I
o -n
n
M M
0 Fn
0 r-
0 M
C U)
9 Cn
M C-)
Z
X
z
C0
z
0
Il
0
M
:z
CL\
. .......... .. ...... .. .........
... ...................... ........... W.Tr.44-- . "..
lour IIA.Ir LOT COVF.RAGE CAL.Q.
SIDI! LOT AREA= 6,600 SO. FT.
utweft
CoNpieCTION BUILDING SO. FT. INCLUDING HOUSE, DECKS, FRONT
PORCH= 2308 SO. FT.
L 2-
2308/ 6600" 34.96%
35% MAX, ALLOWED
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREAS BUILDING STRUCTURE AS
NOTED ABOVE=2308 50. FT.
DRIVEWAY & WALK=800 SO. FT.
DUCK
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA=3108 So. FT.
31108/ 6600= 47.09%
MAX, HE GHT CALC
A = 110. 5*
PRoposso B=1117
z AACWTH — . .0
' I *N 01 RIESIDIE-NCrm lqo' C= 113.5,
tj - .0 c3i . j0' D = 12 4. 0'
> AVG.=465 / 4=116.25'
SITE PLAN MAX. HEIGHT=116.25' + 25'=141.25'
SCALE: I" = 10'-0" ACTUAL RIDGE 0 137.0' 1,4,1�6— 140'�K-40-
0.
TOP PLATE @ 132.0'
0
-09
Joc
'u
2 -9
LZI C/) C4
— 13
0 x
0
L. ii. vr-zsIilKsr unjim DECK ru MAIN FLOOR @ 123.0'
Parcel
# 00434208400400 GARAGE SLAB 0 113.5'
BLOCK 84, CITY OF
Lots 4
EDMONDS, occ�jrding !a tne P:ut recc-"jed WORK SCOPE
:4
in Vcl;vne 2 Qf F -'T TO CONSTRUCT A WOOD FRAMED
'lo� nt P�j "i.. jyj...'
39� in Snurtoni%;ll Coufil�', W.-J. -1 bwvgw�y ID Cow:. WALK 2 STORY HOUSE W/ 2 CAR
A A R A G E.
174.25'
15'WIDE ALIXY
z
PRINIARY CONTACT:
X APPLICANT/OWNER/DEVELOPER:
z EAGLEWOOD HOMES RECEIVED
SI Tr_ 18607 01-YMPIC VIEW DR.
SEP 0 3 2004
EDMONDS, WA 98020
DALEY ST.
AUN. CRAIG REIMER BUILDING DEPARYMEN"
PHONE: '42f,--)) 771-6822 CITY OF EDMOND5
�?A G U E T. ) -7
FAX: (425 75-8395
SITE ADDRESS:
716 DAL.E'( SI'REET -7
BELL S1. L-EDMONDS, WA 98020
g7l;
1.11 C. 1 BC)Z
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 * (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwxi.edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
October 14, 2004
Craig Reimer
z
0
Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
18607 Olympic View Drive
0
M
Edmonds, WA 98020
-n
SUBJECT: Sidewalk Construction — 716, 726 and 730 Daley Street
U5
M
C
Dear Craig,
M
0
0
The City is in receipt of your request for a waiver of the sidewalk installation and street
C
M
M Z
widening requirements, dated October 12, 2004. While sidewalks are required as a
JO -q
condition of approval per the Sidewalk Construction Policy contained in the adopted in
C= 2
the December 2002 update to the City of Edmonds Transportation Plan and ECDC
18.90.030, you have requested that the City review this project site and code
0 -n
requirements for a determination of econornic unfeasibility (Sidewalk Construction
Policy 3.2.b).
M M
As stated in your letter, there is a 10 foot and greater grade change between the existing
0 Cn
0
edge of pavement and the property line. In order to construct sidewalks along this section
0 M
C (n
of Daley street the asphalt roadway would have to be widened and a sizable retaining
K Cn
M 0
wall would be required in order to support the cut in the slope.
Z
X
The benefit of a sidewalk and retaining wall within the City right-of-way at this location
does not out weigh the cost of engineering, design and construction, and therefore, the
>
z
City is in concurrence that this is economically unfeasible in accordance with ECDC
18.90.030.13
55
z
0
DETERMINATION:
q
0
M
The City of Edmonds has determined that sidewalks will not be required as a condition of
approval for the construction of the single family residences at 716, 726 and 730 Daley
Street.
.............. -
ave Gebert, City Engineer Rop Chave, Planning Manager
c: street file
MIF
Incorpoi-ated August 11, 1890
18607 Olympic View Dr.
Eaglewood Homes, Inc. Edmonds, WA 98020
(425) 771-6822
(425) 775-8395 fax
October 12, 2004
Dave Gebert
City Engineer R E CD E
City of Edmonds OCT
121 5� Ave. N. 1 1 2 2004
Edmonds WA 98020
DEVELOPMENT SE9VICES
Re: 716 Daley St. building permit, plan check #04-411
Future building permit applications for 726 and 730 Daley St.
Dear Dave:
I am writing to request a waiver of the sidewalk installation and street widening requirements for the
above referenced building sites pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code 18.90.030 which
states that"with the approval of both the planning director and city engineer, the requirements of this
chapter may be waived, if it can be demonstrated by the applicant that there are special circumstances
related to topography or other factors which make the construction of the sidewalk economically
unfeasible or practically impossible."
The lots are on the south side and above Daley St. The topography rises from an elevation of 98'at
the edge of pavement of the road to an elevation of between 108' and 114' at the property line.
Widening the street and installing a sidewalk on Daley St. is practically impossible. It would require the
installation of a 6'to 1 Utall retaining wall in the City right of way. This retaining wall would increase the
city's exposure to liability. The cost of the installation of the retaining wall and the hookup of utilities
under the retaining wall make this requirement economically unfeasible.
Due to the topography, it is not possible to take access off of Daley St., but rather all vehicle and
pedestrian entries and exits will be from the alley that accesses to 7 th Ave. N. The development of
these lots will not affect pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic on Daley St., where these improvements are
proposed to be made. The future homeowners will have no impact on, or use of the proposed
sidewalk. The benefit to the city is low because Daley St. is a dead end, low vehicle traffic street with
no current or foreseeable traffic hazard.
As requirement of approval, Eagiewood Homes is already required to improve the City alley to a paved
width of 12' along the entire south property frontage. Requiring frontage improvements along both
north and south property lines would impose excessive economic requirements.
I appreciate your looking into this matter. Please call me if you have any questions.
jSir erely,
Cr Reimer RECEIVED
President OCT 12 2004
e,NGINIEERING D1'Jj(_,i0N
Z
0
M
--i -n
U5 --j
r
M
0
0
—10
0
M
M Z
0-1
—Z
3:
C'n
0 -n
n
--i
3:
M M
a
0
0 M
C Cn
90
rn 0
Z
Z
Cn
Z
0
i
0
M
-71 to Dab� �+ -
CITY COPY
Dennis M. Bruce, RE
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
RECEIVED
SEP 0 3 2004
July 4, 2004 BUILDING DEPARTMENT
cm OF EDMONDS
Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
18607 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Gootechnical Evaluation I Foundation Recommendations
Reasonable Use Exemption
Eaglewood Homes proposed 3 residence development
722 Daley, Edmonds
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
Eaglewood Homes property at 722 Daley, Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was
required due to owner / developer concerns, as well as City of Edmonds requirements
for reasonable use exemption to steep slope standards.
REFERENCES:
• Location Map
• Property Survey (furnished by Eaglewood Homes)
• Photographs
BACKGROUND:
The property at 722 Daley, is rectangular in shape and is understood to consist
of several 30 feet wide parcels. (See survey map).
Currently, the overall property contains a si ngle family residence. Access to the
existing residence is via the alleyway south of Daley Place.
The property contains some slopes in excess of 40 percent. The slopes are
primarily abutting Daley Place (to the north) and the private property to the east.
The sloped portions of the property steeper than 40 percent are heavily
vegetated with mature trees, shrubs, and grasses.
The existing garage structure (at the eastern portion of the overall property)
contains some lower stabilization walls consisting of stacked concrete segments. See
photographs.
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
Z
0
1
0
M
—i
V5
M
0
0
--10
0
M
M Z
CJ)
o -n
n
M M
065
0 r-
0 M
C cl)
9 C/)
Q 0
Z
Z
Cl)
Z
0
i
0
M
� . I
*Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July 4, 2004
Page 2
It is understood that Eaglewood Homes proposes to "short plat" the overall
property to result in 3 new single family residences. It is further understood that access
to the new 3 residences will be via the existing alleyway.
Visual evaluation of the overall property reveals no evidence of any geotechnical
distress: no slide, no sloughing, no soil tension cracks, nor any evidence of erosional
degradation. This engineer observed that the existing residence does not have a
functioning tight line storm water system. Rather, gutter down spouts merely "dump"
onto the surface. Nevertheless, no evidence of erosional degradation was observed.
EVALUATION:
In order to augment site geotechnical information, and acquire data for the
reasonable use exemption to sleep slope standards, 4 soil test holes were dug by
power hand auger to depths of 5.5 feet on July 1, 2004.
The findings of all four test holes revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely:
0" to 6" Duff, roots, and intermittent organic silt.
6" to 5.5' Dense sand. Relatively clean dine to
coarse sand.
No water was encountered in any of the test holes. Test hole walls remained
vertical and stable for six hours (prior to backfilling). No sloughing or caving occurred.
This engineer has performed numerous geotechnical investigations in the
immediate areas and verifies that the dense native sands are stable and provide
excellent bearing support for foundation development.
The sub -grade soils are consistent with the deposits on the geologic map of the
Edmonds East and part of the Edmonds West quadrangles by James P. Minard
(Department of the interior, United States Geological Survey, 1983, Map MF — 1541
Advance Outwash).
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this engineer's investigation as well as experience in the
area with similar projects, the Eaglewood Homes property at 722 Daley is
gootechnically appro for the proposed 3 new residences, subject to the following:
z
0
1
0
M
--I
M
M 0
0
--10
0 C
--4 K
3: M
M Z
JD
C
0 -n
n
--I
3:9
M M
0
0
0 M
C C/)
K CO
Q 0
Z
z
C1)
z
0
1
0
M
- 'Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July 4, 2004
Page 3
• Geotechnical review of specific house plans by this engineer prior to permit
issuance.
• Temporary shoring may be required, depending on specific house plans.
• Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
pressure: 2,000 p.s.f.
• Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
• For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
p.c.f.
• Temporary Shoring: For the south property line cuts (up to 12 feet in depth)
temporary shoring consisting of staggered Ecology Blocks may be used (see
attached Eco-Block Shoring Design.
• Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete
placement.
The proposed structure 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 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 over -excavation may be required below
footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over
excavated hole, the width of the over -excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide
as the sum of two times the depth of the over -excavation and the footing width. For
example, an over -excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-footwide
footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (2,000) pounds 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 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 one -quarter inch.
Z
0
i
0
M
C
M
0
0
0
M
M Z
01
C
cl)
0 -n
n
—i
3:9
M M
0
0
0 M
cf)
C/)
M C)
Z
.'T
X
Z
Z
0
4
0
M
*Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July 4, 2004
Page 4
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter 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 resistance to lateral loading:
Parameter Desiqn Value
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
kTff"=
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
-ON-GRADE:
SLABS
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or
on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils
can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height,
which restrain level backfill:
Parameter Design Value
Active Earth Pressure*
35 p.c.f.
Passive Earth Pressure
350 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction
0.55
Soil Unit Weight
125 p.c.f.
z
0
i
0
M
-n
M
C
M
0
--10
0 C
M
M Z
r
J)
0 -n
n
M M
0 U;
0 r-
0 M
C C/)
9 0)
M 0
Z
z
—i
X
C/)
z
0
1
0
M
-'Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July 4, 2004
Page 5
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 defect 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).
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 backrill 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 Mirafl 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 is 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
M
--I -n
0 M
C
M 0
0
--I (-)
0
M M
M Z
g:) -1
C
3:
Cn
0 _n
n
MM
0 _C/)
0
'M
C C2
9 C/)
M C)
Z
X
z
C/)
z
0
M
Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July 4, 2004
Page 6
EXCAVATION -AND SLOPES:
NOTE: Excavation greater than 3 feet will require temporary shoring. At the time of this
report project developer had not finalized house plans. Experience has shown that
temporary shoring consisting of eco-blocks will provide sufficient stabilization for cuts up
to 10 feet in depth.
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
(Horizontal: Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
specific recommendations by the gootechnical 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 2H: 1 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
s of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial
appropriate specie
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.
No groundwater was observed in any of the 4 test holes. Seepage into the
planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during winter months,
and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches,
perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow
connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation of the 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
Z
0
1
0
r�
=i =R
M
C
M 0
0
--I (-)
0 C
M
MZ
10-1
C
C/)
o -n
n ;d
--i >
M 9
M M
0
0
0 M
C C()
9 CO
M 0
Z
Z
Z
0
1
0
M
Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July 4, 2004
Page 7
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.
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.
NOTE: Specific clearing limits to be established at pre -construction meeting
with City of Edmonds building officials.
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
ct
soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compa ion
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 Relative
Compaction
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways 95%
Behind retaining walls 90%
Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of
Sub -grade, 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).
Z
0
i
0
M
—i -n
Fn
M
0
0
--10
0
M
M Z
JO --I
C
cl)
0 -n
n
--I
3:9
M M
0
0
0 M
C C/)
9 Cn
Q C-)
Z
7-1
Z
Z
0
i
0
M
Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July 4, 2004
Page 8
Use of On -Site Soils
if grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on -site
soils are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and
the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are sandy and thus are both
particularly moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture
content of these soils greatly exceeds the optimum moisture content.
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
"pumping" 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 thre"uarter-inch sieve.
The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper
organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
No drainage problems were evident with the existing residence and property at
722 Daley. As noted, the existing residence has downspouts "dumping" on the surface.
Nevertheless, the sandy sub -grade soils obviously infiltrate storm water runoff properly.
An open drainage course exists to the east and under Daley Place.
It is understood that the future 3 residence developments will comply with City of
Edmonds drainage standards and release storm water flow into the existing City of
Edmonds storm system.
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.
REASONABLE USE EXEMPTION:
Based on the geotechnical investigation in dense sub -grade sands present on
the site, as well as specific experience with similar properties in the immediate area, this
z
0
i
0
M
q 9
in --j
M
M 0
0
0
0
M
M Z
04
C
cl)
0 71
n
M M
q
0
0 M
C C/)
K co
Q 0
Z
X
z
Cl)
z
0
M
Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July 4, 2004
Page 9
engineer recommends that the City of Edmonds grant a "reasonable use exemption" to
the geologic hazardous development standards.
The property at722 Daley complies with ECDC 20.1513.170 (A)
The proposed 3 residence development will not decrease stability on any
adjacent property, and the site following the permitted activity will be stable within
the meaning of chapter 19.05 ECDC, as demonstrated by engineering analysis
meeting requirements of the state building code as adopted by this code, when
inspected by this engineer.
• The sub -grade soils qualify as: advance Out Wash.
• As previously stated, final house plans are not complete. This engineer shall
review final house plans for recommendations regarding temporary shoring and
excavations.
• Any retaining structures shall be reviewed by this geotechnical engineer for
specific recommendations and inspections during construction.
• None ' of the following exist on the steep slope portions of 722 Daley:
impermeable soils inter -bedded with granular soils, springs or groundwater
seepage, significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, previous land
sliding, or instability, or existing landslide deposits.
• The only organics present on the site are the upper 6 inches of forest duff and
vegetative roots.
Thus, it is geotechnically recommended to grant a reasonable use exemption to
steep slope development standa
INSPECTIONS:
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction:
• Soil cuts
• Temporary Shoring, if required
• Foundation sub -grade verification
• Retaining wall, or rockery placement
• Any fill placement
• Subsurface drainage installation
• Final erosion control and grading
Z
0
4
0
M
--i -n
V5
M
0
0
-10
0 C
--i K
X M
M Z
3:
CI)
0 -n
n
M M
051)
0 r-
0 M
C (1)
90)
M C)
Z
M
Z
Cn
Z
0
i
0
M
Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July 4, 2004
Page 10
SUMMARY:
The proposed 3 residence development at 722 Daley, Edmonds, Washington is
geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the recommendations
herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and requirements, and key
geotechnical inspections by this engineer during construction.
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS:
As stated, final house plans for the new 3 residences are not completed at the
time of this report.
Excavations may require temporary shoring depending on final house plans.
Prior to final permit issuance, this engineer should review final house plans to verity
compliance with the recommendations of the report.
Upon satisfactory review, a uStatement of Minimal RisW will be issued.
CLOSURE:
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
warranty, either expressed 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.
k�00
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
DMB:jpb
P
z
0
A
0
M
-n
M
M
0
0
0 C
--I K
X M
M z
0
n
M M
0 Y)
0 r-
0 M
cl)
Cn
M 0
Z
X
z
--I
3:
C/)
z
0
1
0
M
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
PER INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R1 10
AT, 716 Daley S Building Permitt 2004-0890
occupancy established by this certificate: R3 Dwelling Units:
� W1 No. Stories: 2 Basement: N/A Type of Construction: VB
owner of building: Ea-glewood Homesi"Ing-.'.
The Sin-gle Family Residence at 716DaleySt has:beent inspected and approved complying with the requirements of the
2003 edition of the -international Residential Code as adopted by the City-f6r-the group and division of occupancy and the use for which
the proposed occupancy is classified.
issued this 101 day of June 1 2005
Chief Building Official
By:
Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a now Certificate of Occupancy Issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official.
I
NUV-28-2004 09:4i4 I'M ERGL.E.14C)CID HUMES 425 77!j 8695 P. 02
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M. S. C. M. S. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
November 22. 2004
City of Edmonds
c/o Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
18607 Olympic View Dr.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Field Reports - GeotechnIcal Inspections
Now Residence by Eagiewood Homes, Inc.
722 Daley, Edmonds, Washington
Plan Check No. 04 - 411
This engineer has provided on -site geotechnIcal Inspections for the now
residence being constructed at 722 Daley, Edmonds, Washington by Eaglewood
Homes, Inc.
REFERENCES:
• City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
• Inspection requirements per City of Edmonds
• Geotechnical reports by D. Bruce, P.E. f S.
• Photographs
INSPECTIO :
This engineer has provided ��il on-s!te Inspections during active grading and
foundation work for the new residence at 722 Daley.
Erosion Control: Contractor successfullY Installed siltation fencing at the
perimeter and down -slope portions of the site. Additionally, contractor provides
diligent alleyway cleanup for access to the site (see photographs). Temporary
erosion control measures are ApDLoved through this date (November 22, 2004).
Excavation: This engineer ygIffled dense, native sands during the excavation
process. All excavation cuts were stable with no adverse Impacts.
This engineer closely monitors the excavation soil pile at the east portion of the
site. Excavation is approv through this date (November 22, 2004).
S011S - rOUNDArIONS . stnEaevELopiweNr - INSPj5CrION - DRAINAG6 , DEslolv& Penmlr - LECA1
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 * FAX (206) 546-8442
z
0
i
0
M
-1 -n
M
0 M
C
M 0
0
0
M
M Z
0)
0 _n
M M
0
0 M
C U)
90)
M 0
Z
z
Cl)
z
0
A
0
M
NUV-28-2004 019:49 PM EAGLEWUU11 HUMES 425 775 8595
City of Edmonds
c/o Eaglewood Homes
November 22, 2004
Page 2
gpj��in: This engineer verified dense, native sub -grade solls easily
providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity.
"OK" to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel and foundation
concrete In accordance with City of Edmonds approved Plans and inspections.
$Ub j _g
do e DgOnage: Not yet.
Rockeripp or Stabl'-���H Not yet.
SUMMARY:
• All geotechnical inspection aspects that have been completed to date are
02Mved.
• Geotechnlcal inspections are ongoing.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
W1 j�
DMB:abj
�.E.
Geotech nical / civil Engineer
Fi). F, "-- IF: V F'. '4_')
20011
F. W-3
z
0
i
0
M
--I -T1
M
0
0
0
M
M z
-Z
:M
W
0 _n
n
M M
0 U;
0 r-
0 M
C ch
9 Cn
M 0
Z
z
--I
3:
W
z
0
1
0
M
0
Jun . 00 05 11iQGp D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-9442 P.1
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
6;90�lcal! Civil Enginoer
M F. =CEz:.5M
June 6, 2005
city of Edmonds RECEIVED
c/o Eagl9wood Homes
18607 Olympic View Dr. JUN f 0-2005
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject'. Final Re'll).ort (Pending Final Landscaping) PERMIT COUNTER
716 Daley St., Edmonds, Washington
Now SIngla-Fornily Residence
permit No. 2004 - 0890
This engineering report presents the final results of geotechnical inspections
(pending final landscaping) at 716 DaI6Y St., Edmonds, Washington for the now
residence by Eaglewood Horngs, Inc.
FERENM'
City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
09otachnical and Inspection Reports by D. Bruce, P,E.
INVECTIOMt
This engineer t1as periarmed on -site geotechnical inspections for the new
residence at 716 Delay St.
Erqsign Ccntrol� Contractor successfully Installed and maintained erosion control
measures consisting of rocked construction entrance, siltation fencing and
diligent cleanup. The sandy soils minimized potential for siltation erosional
runoff.
Final arcmion control measures consisting of rockeries have been installed and
are gootechnically approved. .1
NOTE: Final landscaping has yet to be installed as of the date of this report
(June 6, 2005). it is understood that Eagiewood Homes proposes to install
ground cover, plantings and final alope grading at the north 51de When all Mnal
landscaping Is Installed, this engineer will perform a final Inspection to YK&
compliance with the approved Plans and good gootachnical practiceG,
SITEDEVELOPMENr - INSPECrla'V - DRANYAG.' ' DEsIalva PERYIr , LEV-'
P.O. Box 38502 - Shorellne, WA 98155 - (20e) S46-9217 9 FAX (206) 546-8442
qztp Sq-WOH ff00M7]15U*;1 We] TZ:f;O q(3oz_6c3—Nnr
Z
0
M
3:
M
M
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
C _Z
X
0
n
m M
0-
0 r-
0 M
C (1) 1
K CD
Q 0
Z
Z
Z
0
m
Jwn 08 05 11:06P D. Bruce, P.E.
City of Edmonds
c/o Eaglewood Homes
June 6, 2005
page 2
20G-S49-8442 P.P
Fx_qavAtjjLn: Previously inspected and . verified. All excavation for this projert is
q*019 mhn!qj1Y1Vy 5
It A "n"ll
aajEj2±N: previously verified and approved.
allkaUffIgg in
__gjj�.�ae: Previously verilied and approved
Rack d bilijajiQn v
This engineer inspected and Yerified that all
keystone block window -well wall we..re, P ro�p�erli n stalled.
site rockeries and the
block walls are geotechnically stable and approy
All rockerles and keystone
gyKMARY'
All 9got9chnical inspection aspects, with the exception of final 12ndscaping, havP
been property completed and are ARpLro
.VX_yt2d -
If there are any questlors. do not hesitate to Call-
M.'&
I WA2
bs' - k
M. S'uce, RE.
rootechnical t Civil Engineer
wc, zz:go
S_RWOH CrOOM*-q_10U71
z
0
m
—i -n
m
M 0
0
0
0 C
m
m z
0 71
n
m M
0
0
0 M
C C/)
9 C/)
M 0
Z
z
C/)
z
0
q
0
m
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
PIXASE SIGN
KY? 1; ENGMERING DIVISION DATE
PLEA. 1: 1
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
PLEASE SIGN
PROJECT— el;,rt-
SITE ADDRESS- 7,116 D
PERMIT #,2004 0P)L?r/).ADB# DATE INSPECTED 4�V,6
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED A1,7471—
A field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with -approved plans. Final approval
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of:
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
0 Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/co n tractor by inspector
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
0 Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owncr/contractor by inpector
I .
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PIZOJECT APPROVAL
Date Signature
1:temp:b1dg:fonns:ocaprv1 3/25/04
z
0
i
0
M
=-n
M
M 0
0
0 C
M
M Z
JC) --i
C
o -n
n;u
_j >
M 9
M M
0 —C1)
0 r-
0 M
C Cn
9 co
Q C-)
Z
z
--I
X
U)
z
0
i
0
M
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
Footing ...................... el
Wall ..........................
Pier/Porch .................
Retaining Wall ........... z
0
Slab Insulation ..........
0
PLUMBING: M
Underground .............
Rough -in ...................
M
Commercial Final ...... C 0
ITI
0
HEATING: 0 C:
Gas Test .................... M
ITI z
Gas Piping ................. 1-3 f - o<
C: 2
Equipment .................
3:
Commercial Fin al
o -n
n
EXTERIOR SHEATHING —1
NAILING .......................... ME
MITI
FRAMING ........................
0
0 M
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING ... C cl)
9 C/)
Q 0
INSULATION ................... Z
Floor Insulation ......... ;0
Wall Insulation ........... M r -3 - IV -06 --1
>
z
Ceiling Insulation .......
SHEETROCK NAILING ...
Cn
z
SPECIAL INSPECTION ... 0
0
1711
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY ..................
The Initials MT are Milton
Thompson, a temporary contract
inspector for the City.
FS
Height Calculation Worksheet
Address: :11. j—
Date:
Inspector(s): m ', k 4- en
1. Datum Point:
2. Datum Point Elevation: 01 LI
3. AverigeGrade: 1�1.,zS
4, Max.imum Elevation Allowed: jL�_,zs (�vera& grade): 25'*--- .1 4-H
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
3'4,7 (datum elevation) +hf- LI g�
,7gt (grade to transit level Une'shot to house)
6. Measurements from line shot onto house to i6of ridge:
CI
Total:
7. Actual Elevation: i i--�,L
lj�5 (reference point elevation) +2-3. S 4, (measurements
from #6) I's -1 Oq:5
Conclusion:
-I /"an Iq X5 (allowed); therefore the house is/
(actu al) is greater � S
-requirement per ECDC 16.20-30 requirements
is not over the height
z
0
i
0
M