20050443.pdfDATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OW14ER NAME/NAME OF DUSINESS
DAN �T. K i M FINE
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
I��aNvsj ��t
5026;ir 14251 77E� 4U
NAME
�d� M C' N OPLeJ A"/ IE. T 5
t'12r� I I PERMIT EXPIRES
ZONE 17 % PERMIT /- L
NUMBER r7l L� C./ 053
JOB SUITE/APT#
ADDRESS
PLATcNAME/SU `D V SION No. LOT NO.� LID NO.
LID FEE S
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RApproved
RWW Pe rmit Required
/" Streol Use Permit Roq'd
EXISTING PROPOSED Inspection Required '
Sidewalk Required
REQUIRED DEDICATION FT underground
Wiring required
METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED
YES ❑ NO ❑
REMARKS z
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE�V•L /\/GIwV,.
CITY ZIP
TELEPHONE
O ( "
SN040 ISR (162 ,*6�3/3"O --C24` 2 3
+NAME ` _ ft CBL k q
t ► I , C7` " A iz4 l Cj r �W .i U51` INEERING REVIEWED BY a DATE
ADDRESS
FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE w
CIT LEP ONE IE
1 r-. .
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPI ATION DATE 4ECKED BY VARIANCE OR Cu SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION BOND
OYES Q� S POSTED I
Y�
A)A SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED
OCA �G? CSO � Z ,
EXP
NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
ALLOWED PROPOSED EOR/fFRO�NT SIDE REAR FRO T UR SIDE REAR t7
❑ ADDITION ❑ COMMERCIAL ❑ OlvIPLIAN
CHHANGE OF USE / — v �O z
REMODEL MULTIFAMILY PARKING LOT AREA PLANNI REVIEWED BY OAT .CL
5
❑ ❑ ❑ SIGN RE'Q/D PROVIDED
❑REPAIR G FENCE / ��
CYDS ❑ ( X FT) REMARKS
❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ OTHER
GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER .0441ee.
ZOE
CARPORT ❑ ROCKERY ❑ FIRE ALARM
PE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIV TY) EXPLAIN:
CHECKED BY TYPE OF N�iF 1CTION C WE/. OCCCCGROUPPANT
NUMBER 02 j- NUMBER OF CRITICAL 1/�
OF DWELLING AREAS ^_ SPECIAL INSPECTION JAREA OCCUPANT
STORIES UNITS NUMBER REQUIRED Jar LOAD
YES
DESCRIBE
WORK TO BE DONE
REMARKS z
L CIN uC NEW
S �C �� PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/IBC109IIRC11009+ FIIN—ALINSPECTIO14 REO'D g
lv ', f-c,�
/�►. _ „ _ n 1 if , ..- . _. r .. I t
A ■ VALUATION
(� 1f' b7 Description FEE EDescriptilon FEE
Plan Check argeHEAT SOyy,RCE GLAZING % . LOT LOPE %(�1jW1V2�Cc� Building Permit rge
PLAN CHEC K V ;� ^�_ Plumbing Base Fee1572
r
Mechanical r
7z
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO •
It= BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
7 DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Grading
tooSEPARATE PERMISSION.
Engr. Review
F4 PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS
CL PERMIT LIMIT. 1 YEAS - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr. Inspection _.
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
r" •APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit % "�
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF ,, _
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # �(
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
9 DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscape InSp, Total Amt. Due
= NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.*
Recording Fee Receipt N7
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL
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• CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/horpeputy: and Fees aro paid, and
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
WORKMEN'S COMP NSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
0 FICI SIGNATU DATE
F
ATU NER R AGENT) OATS IGN D y (42 5) l" J /
f U C J / 71 =022OL
REL D B DAT`
ATTENTION EXT 1333
ITIS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL % �]
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL ORA CERTIFICATE OF OCCU- o GINAL -FILE YELLOW • I PELT R
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 / IBC110/ IRC110. PINK -OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR
0903 PRESS HARD =YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
I
Dennis .M. Bruce,. P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B:A. Geotgchnical/Civil Engineer
< 1 .,
January 21, 2005
Gilbert ConstructionITY. C®TI� +'
23415 Timber Lane 0
Woodway, WA 98020
M
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation - Foundation Recommendations
Proposed New Fine Residence CO rn ,
836 Fir St., Edmonds, Washington M o
o0
This. engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
property.at 836 Fir. St., Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to MM
contractor concerns, as. well as City of Edmonds requirements. 10
! �Z
REFERENCES:.
CO
j p�
• Project Plans and Site Map (furnished by contractor) -
Photographs dated January 20, 2005 by D. Bruce, P'.E. m
i BACKGROUND:. OM
�CA
It is understood that the overall property at 836 Fir St. is rectangular in shape. ► z
An existing residence (wood -frame construction) occupies the upper (easterly) ;a,
ortion of the overall prope see Site Plan andphotographs I
+ p p p Y( )
It is understood that Gilbert Construction Company, on behalf of property owner ,
(Dan Fine) proposes to demolish the existing residence and construct a new house in a ca
.similar footprint location. o
City of Edmonds has required a geotechnical investigation due to the -presence of M
steep slopes".
Visual evaluation of the overall property revealed no evidence of any
geotechnical distress, no slides, no settlements, no soil tension cracks, or any evidence
of erosional degradation.
Existing residence does not reveal any evidence of any geotechnical adverse c
conditions.
SOILS FOUNDA BONS S/TE DEVELOPMENT INSPECT/ON DRAINAGE DESIGN & PERM r LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX 0(206) 546-8442
I
Gilbert Construction
January 21, 2005
Page 2
EVALUATION:
,
In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, 2 soil test pits
were dug under this engineer's observation on January 20, 2005 using a rubber -tired
backhoe (see photographs). Test Pit No. 1 -was dug in the southwest portion of the
future house foundation location. Test Pit No. 2 was dug in the northeast zone of the
future foundation. Both Test Pit No. 1 and No. 2 revealed similar sub=grade conditions, o i.
namely: -+
SEES
m
0" to 6" Lawn, organics, roots, and organic silt
MW
6" to 18" Brown reddish -brown sandy loam, grading to MEMO
_+
cemented gravelly sands v rn j
18" to 6' (bottom.of pit) Very dense cemented sands with gravels m v
No water was encountered in either of the two test pits. Both test pit walls C
4 ANSI
remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred, = m
m
A
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS: v Z
�_S
X
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
10
the area, the property at 836 Fir St., Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically
approved for the proposed new'Fine .residence, subject to the following: rn m
•
m
Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing 0
pressure: 3,000 p.s.f. co
r rn n
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. ;U' a
• For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 Z
p.c:f. _
ca
• Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concret0
e Z
placement.
m
if
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. +'
i
Gilbert Construction
January.21, 2005
Page 3
Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below
IF footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over
IF
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-foot wide Z
footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.IF 0
o {
IF
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may designed rn
,
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per square foot
(p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design .bearing pressure may be used when -moi
considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is OM P:
anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent, m o
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half p c
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-quarter inch. = rn
rn
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between c Z
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the a z
r
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 o
i outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following awl
I design. values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: m M
Parameter Design Value c r
oo
Coefficient of Friction 0.55 z
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
X
- - Where:
;
i z
(1) p.c.ff is pounds per cubic foot, i
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. CO,
o.
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the 0
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.IF
rn
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
IF Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent. native soils or IF I
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.
j _
Gilbert Construction
January. 21, 2005
Page 4
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: . , . zit'
Parameter Design Value m
Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f. 4 `
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction 0.55 o m
co
Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.ff o
p c c
Where:
= M = ;:
M z
Q�1
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot C z
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities. Ch
0 am,
c.
* 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 m
added. to the active equivalent fluid pressure). oIt
0mCa P
F
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
01
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the r z
: 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 i z
M1 tj
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 z
to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the o
appropriate design earth pressures. 0:
m:
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.
Gilbert Construction
January,21, 2005
Page 5
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 0(5) percent silt or clay paFticles and have no particles greater than
four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should z
be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if o
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 m
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 o m
subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations M U.
regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation -�
walls.
mZ
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES p
CDZ
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, s
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of wn
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a T
height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 m m
(Horizontal: Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under o
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be 0 M
modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined. no CO)
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H:CD
1 V. It is important to: note that r Z
sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware
of this potential hazard. M
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary Z . I`
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. o
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: rn
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footingsand 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
waterdrains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.
f
"
Gilbert Construction
January.21, 2005
Page 6
No groundwater was observed in either of the test pits during the fieldwork.
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. o
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 m
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, N
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved, o m
C
My
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL: oil
oc
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all m Z
surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or10 mini
removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill.
Structural fill is rdefined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent 0 Mon
own
0 v'
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 m m
prior to placement of any structural fill. o
n. m
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or CM
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture IMO
content which results in the greatest. compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill -Zi'�
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 z
or r
recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
or I m
Location of Fill Placement Minimum Relative
Compaction
Beneath footings; slabs or walkways 95%
Behind retaining. walls 90%
orI
a
Gilbert Construction
January, 21, 2005
Page 7
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). . , o
m
Use of On -Site Soils
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on-site
soils are very wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains d m
and the potential need to import granular'fill. The on-site soils are generally sandy and m o
thus are not highly moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the D n
moisture content of these soils greatly exceeds the optimum moisture content. z'rn
mz
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and .,
" 'onequipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than > z
pumping from constructsg
the optimum moisture content.
OM
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 M
.of particles passing the.No. 200.sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil o CO)
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. c N
The use of "some" on-site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper r Z 0
organic materials are segregated,and moisture contents are monitored by engineering -�
t inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
z.
No drainage problems were evident with the residence or property at 836 Fir St. v,.
It is understood .that the future residence will control storm runoff via tight line into the o
existing City of Edmonds storm water system in Fir St. �
0
M.
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.
"STEEP SLOPE" DESIGNATION:
It is understood that the City of Edmonds has designated the property at 836 Fir f
St. as "Steep Slope
Gilbert Construction
January 21, 2005
Page 8
This engineer understands that no slopes exceed 40 percent on the property. As
stated, there is no evidence of any geotechnical distress or soil movement.
Additionally, the soil test pits verified very dense native soils easily providing
foundation support for the new residence.
This property and the proposed new residence do not require an unusual or
p p Y p p q Y o
special.geotechnical criteria.
Normal standard construction methods are valid for this site. m
-� 9
Standard geotechnical inspections by this engineer recommended to verify
contractor compliance with normal good practices. ai
MO
INSPECTIONS: p c
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical m z
:aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction: .
�z
• Soil cuts
Foundation sub -grade verification o Mn
Any retaining wall, or rockery placement
Any fill placement
Subsurface drainage installation 10 in
i
Temporary and final erosion control c CAt.
0
SUMMARY
M..
The proposed new residence. at 836 Fir St., Edmonds, Washington is
geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the, recommendations
herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and requirements, and key r
geotechnical inspections during construction. CO
z<
CLOSURE:
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
m
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:
I IMP,
Ill i14 il-
too
wo
is M'• f
A.w , {ynit
. r.�ri o. wJipfa i;1, rci s•� ' 7r ;t
J .. �7Y M'•
•... • .y y]^88
'. .! i t �;r y • „r•�.I •11•4« la,1
t I„, N ✓ r . / . , , J,�' C y1 e'nnl• iiJ, !? w7rr..s '1 `A'»' ?
/ ,•] n S'' Wt§ i Ser y "W.•.. 1 . .ti•
Wst 1,•..,T/i��+ff4r:. rJ•i n'+7 • -j� �'L+. ,?•271t� J !s:
IAr� ,•Y.'.w+t w4?. ,.• .:A >r L' t•yr • f� •'•a,�+ L.rti•4'.,t `j i•
. I'li �yry.�'nN r.{•/,.r/�y, Aw"I
17-Trt i { .t�•YrU ��.y. •�
♦ ,+ 'iAt••'ri•r V_r(�'Y���Y •• .Y (�. L ({Y.: (r r l•l �y y�'.1•
, ,I\' • iw/(' �. ll Y] r CIY'`V.�Yi 3.1 t v(
4 '!, ..d; III •�. ,. v ,. , �,n�r t .', PAW -1 : j+. uYl
w •';,�';f'b.l. a �,.. �rL b 14 a•t�L� �'.. :. js iy ,r / Z \' k:./
c..'' :.7 r . i! I s I
G1. 1 ] tlis :M �7 v 1�•I•. *t i
MI Al
�•— fit . �'i I�+•
i
O.V*
ass, a
%Issiso IIF
lost 6
ed p
tl
106
55
•r m
r r='rc m 0
as Rs
toll 0
WnwAla t I= Coal
mz
IGA10
. t�..1`, . _ 1 D Z
nom.. j' -i
r
Cl)
san
I an
Cl)
.
m
m
f' Jt• �,'ti F m V�\I
Issas
Wf ' r rt�}w}�$•' � 117777
WaN is.
91
"a N,, )ism >
"..` . t r �l it _ * "mail
•^ r ,.4 • l� i lit•/ •3 1 r.
III
cn
1r•-.�•.+i• �F :.•rte r..1`w •'••irr. .� L. .�
4.4 'i
r_
./ 44 f•19• , 1
Is N
IT IT
' . , r fr
r '
yI .. rr y jJ
1 4 a �. lr �r
3 �o
SY.
Zone Cornet Flag
Sct----backs Re aired Act 1
Front 2� -�
Sides !U p
- _ - --
_..__ b
: Other o
-- - ---_- _t - __ _ _ _-------- ------ - = -
N oWoa.00' E' q
K
`� X
imoodmoom- _ .
od
�• /
0 O� r
_. N 00'00' OO' E 119.99'
doodoodoodo-doodoo 14
to
do
is
_ �I
d. 6 ro f do
114 Q -- — �� --.— - R
1. oddood dd. dodo
/dood"dod" dl,
d000do N
h cP I m • ac.
oddoodood
I �=doll
xs o.. ' old I
..� o---6iF@T•'1ET- - .P -- -
Gdodo J-��. --- -- --Pd
li WN
dodom
-- - t _
=I ! ,
i dodddo�o� m m
]]t m j
,� /V
do
rr Z Q j
i. }_.r,
f l
L
to
I -
1 - -- _ oZ
rl
dodo
i mal m t .r
o do
----- ( - ! - - - - tz "
- a ��`{ - m
a ti ma
! o w ff
i I o P6 Jndo b o
_
n2o _doodd _
�... —• N 0000' 00". E . 119.99'oJ a v •--1 -- - — _ i. - >. .
T $� ;
�j (p
' 'Q;' 52.'t9' - 62'Ctufi _ _ •s"'� 25E0° LA
Z
1...-_ .....
I+
02
m
P P P
L•
�y J
opdoodd
bbb
1 � i
£2 N iIR k P m 08 " ��n
�i �' y
L.
a ii}t
o �n
z �� I
i In
TP
Cotr
ou AFi QVU COY PL.APJ� "Nr. !
!nm �41
'L� i
O o LO _
Z�dki
Nztoon
s
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A.! .
August 8, 2005 Geotechnical/Civil Engineer
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department R E C E E D
121 5"' Ave, N
NOV 2 22005
Edmonds, WA 98020
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. Z, E`
Subject: Geotechnical Inspections Fine Residence Q1n of EDMONDs
o
.836 Fir St., Edmonds, Washington
- 0
,
M
City of Edmonds Permit No. 2005 - 0443 '
CO)This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical inspections
�M
for the new Fine residence at 838 fir St., Edmonds, Washington. These inspections rn o
1 were required by City of Edmonds permit stipulations.
o�
REFERENCES: = rn
m�
A
• Geotechnical Report by D, Bruce, P.E. dated January 21, 2005 Z
City of Edmonds approved Project Plans by Mc'Nurien Architects
City of Edmonds testing agreement for geotechnical aspects 0M
INSPECTIONS:
rnrn
This engineer. provides on-site geotechnical inspections for the items required by o F
City of Edmonds testing agreement. This engineer provides daily inspections during K ca 44i
periods of active excavation, foundation preparation, subsurface drainage and any o
rockery / grading activities.. At a minimum, 1 inspection visit per week is provided.
City of Edmonds Inspection Items: .
I Z !.
• Soil Cuts: This engineer verified contractor excavated and encountered the
extremely dense native su"rade soils as anticipated by the geotechnical report.
0
All excavations are stable through this date (August 8, 2005). =�
n
rn
• Foundation Sub -Grade: This engineer verified dense, native sub -grade soils
easily providing 3,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity.
"OK" to proceed with foundation formwork reinforcing steel and concrete
placement in accordance with City of Edmonds approved Plans.
i
Id
SOILS •. FOUNDAUONS S/TEDEVELOPMENT *.INSPECTION DRAINAGE DES/GN& PERM/T LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
Re: Dan Fine
August 8, 2005
Page 2
NOTE: Contractor subsequently placed foundation concrete and stem walls
during July 2005. All foundation elements are geotechnically approved through
this date (August 8, 2005)4
• Rockery Placement: Not yet. o
• Placement of Structural Fill: No significant quantities of structural fill were m
required for geotechnical foundation purposes. A small amount (less than 15
cubic yards) of crushed gravel was utilized for the rocked construction entrance
rn
and slab sub -base purposes. All placement of fill material is aeotechnicallY v m 4
approved through this date (August 8, 2005), m o
-� 0
• Subsurface Drainage: This engineer inspected and verified proper installation of
0
sub -surface drains in accordance with City of Edmonds approved Plans and m
normal good practices. All subsurface drainage work is geotechnically
approved.
aZ
N
i• Temporary Erosion Control: Contractor properly established a rocked . o m t.',
I construction entrance and siltation fencing. No adverse erosion control problems
have been experienced through this date (August 8, 2005): m
o
11 p Geotechnical inspections.are continuing as required in accordance with City.of n Fn
Edmonds. permit stipulations, i vi
neel;
Z r -
i SUMMARY: W
X
Ongoing geotechnical inspections have verified proper completion ofZ.
!
19B
geotechnical aspects to date. Two
�►��, ; _
• `� pi WA9/ry�C� ^ Cl)
Geotechnical inspections are ongoing.
0
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. O
M
17405 �w
{{�� �SSIONA4
EXPIRES 17.12.31
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer f
f.
(;
DMB:abj
cc: Dan Fine