20050751.pdf - LEGACYDATE RECEIVED
14
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
QSR NAMEINAME OF BtSINESN,,,
MAILING ADDRESS
po
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
am 9"602�0 r47G (A-C) LQ 0 L:574-
NAME
RAI,o\� M U t,4
ADDRESS
.Zip TE
CITY :LEPHONE
9(6 Utj -1 j&
�WE�t\m__c A -1 4-�,011
NAME
A b
CT ZIP TqLEPHONE
Lr) C� LPLW
to Ill q I I L-</
VTATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION i�ATE . T CHECKED BY
4 C, CP C-� H Ock D 1�-Z. Ok 6 61WI-
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO
NEW
RESIDENTIAL
PLUMBING if MECH
ADDITION
COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
OF USE
MIXED USE
CHANGE
R EMODEL
MULTIFAMILY
SIGN
ir-I
REPAIR
Pd
G DIFIG CYDS
11I F
FENCE x FT.)
It
E]
DEMOLISH
1:1
TAN71
El
OTHER
goGARAGE
RETAINING WALL
FIRE SPRINKLER
Zi
GARV"RT
ROCKERY
FIREALARM
0
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS ORACT-IVITY) EXPLAIN:
PERMIT
NUMBER
JOB
ADDRESS
PLAT NAMEISUBDIVISION
PERMIT EXPIRES
7!5
114�� SU
I LOT NO, LID �O
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER CFFICIAL STREET MAP
TESCP Approved
RW Permit Required
Street Use Permit Requiied
EXISTING PROPOSED
Inspection Required
Sidewalk Required
REQUIRED DEDICATION FT
Underground
Wilinq required
METER SIZE
140, OF FIXTURES
PRV REQUIRED
/I
YESM NOM
/Ur,
REMARKS
OWNEIR/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE am 1j
- -ft - - . � � . #4,d9'_N - In ;r� - - - (TI-r. - - - . -1 .-. 41
NEERING REVIEWED BY DATE
r to /�
ij=a 16 z /0
REVIEWED BY DATE
VARIANCE OR CU
SHORELINE ORADB#
I INSPECTION
SEPA
WREQ 0
13NOI
COMPLETED
I EXEMPT
X
i
CA# 10 i2 — L4 :?S
ZONE
—YES
S16N AREA
HEIGHT
WAIVERO
ALLOWED PROPOS
2_E'
I
ALLOWED PROPOSED
STUDY
obr I ,�_
i
aLk :I
LOT COVE 'RAGE
REQUIRED SET13ACKS (FT.)
PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
ALLOWED PROPOSED
FRONT
las,
SIDE REAR
FRONT LIRSIDE REAR
0
t��
1
to, as
1,6r— z
2
—2
PARKING
LOTAREA
PLANNING REVIEWED BY D TE
REO'D
Q
PROVIDED
1 .2 _-
I I V—+ I
REMARKS
2:
U
TYPE OF CONSTRUCT
U31
0
NUMBER
OF
STORIES Z,
NUMBER OF
DWELLING
UNITS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
REQUIREDgYES
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
REMARKS/
GEOTE
BY:
R
U��//fs 7
STRUCTbUR
BY: �
SI
VALUATION
oe� 11
141q. 0 1
f
Description
Plan Check
Building Permit
_MnWili./67 NO
e!YOLIS
HEAT SOURCE
LOTSLOPE%
A
VESTED DATE
PLAN CHECK NO:,,,,—
Plumbing
Mechanical
2-
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
BE DONE . ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC
DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
Grading
Engr. Review
2
Ix
W
uj
_1
2
x
0
_j
0
xi
PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5)
PERMIT LIMIT. SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6)
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
Engr. inspection
*APPLICANT. ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS
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 MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.'
Fire Review
Fire Inspection
Landscapelnsp.
Recording Fee
-
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
OCCUPANT
GROUP P.0
CONSUL
L
OCCUPANT
LOAD
FEE
Description
State Surcharge
City Surcharge
Base Fee
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 118:27.
DATE SIGNED
1 4
J�2�. 4;z,
2 .2 0 1
(4:25)
771-0220
z
�c)771/
FEE
..010— —
PlanChk.Deposit /�KeT�
Receipt #
Total Amt. Due
J601
1 Receipt # 1�1,1
APPLICATION APPR
This app;ication is not a permit until signed by the
Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
gFl A SIGNATUR DATE
B "Y A DATE
ATTENTION EXL IJJJ
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI-
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 / IBC110 / IRC110.
10/04 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
RIGNAL -FILE YELLOW -
PINK - OWNER GOLD - P
I/
z
0
M
-i -n
C/) —1
X
M
C
M
0
—10
0 C
-4 C
X M
ITI Z
K) —11
C
0)
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C 0)
C 1:11)
M 0
Z
X
z
C0
z
0
IT!
LLJ
z
w U)
LLJ
F2
C=3 a: 0 limmor
C3 :3 LU < m _11-3 -#X - ; ILI
C.) 0-0
I r
W LLJ CID WW olooloo
< I-- m a I I
LLJ 1U7
L=
LL
0 C13 00
fu 0
LLI
_Lr) C=) 3 r a
z EL
0 CO) 14* . .. ........
sz!
>
Z7 \X
MA
CD
ui
C\j)
�pl Iqeu.
cm
NlL lit
C4 1:4 dP
10
bill
PA
,it 0!
IRZ
xy
_�N
10
Age ... I , - t., _7 g I
W.m
too
P�;'%� OU
t6
0
lob
cn
uj
en
cm YN4.42,
LLJ "oo..
lks C)
UJ
IV
UJ CI.
CN
uj
co
011oD
Jt 0 Jr)
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M. S. C. E., M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
RESuI3
AUG 0 2 2005
July 23, 2005 BUILD
Y1 No D ENT
C17 F E10% OR INMD S
Z
0�
M
City of Edmonds
c/o Pacific Emerald Homes, Inc.
Sigve Helleren'
P.O. Box 822
M
M
Edmonds, WA 98020
01
0
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation — Foundation Recommendations
C
M
Proposed New Residence
M Z
1551 loth Pl. N, Edmonds, Washington
.2
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
loth pl.
Pacific Emerald Homes property at 1551 N, Edmonds, Washington. This
0 -n
_n
evaluation was required due to own er contractor concerns, as well as City Edmonds
requirements.
M M
AEFERENCES:
0
0 M..
C V)
C 0)
M 01
Property Survey and Topographic Map by LSA dated November 29, 2004
Z
Proposed new residence Site Plan (attached)
Site photographs
Z
BACKGROUND:
The overall property is irregular in shape as shown on the attached Site Plan.
Z
t ve
The property previously contained a single-family residence hat is understood to ha
.0
burned down. Currently (July 2005), the site contains the remnants of the brick patio
M
zone adjacent the northerly pond area (see, Site Plan and photographs).
The overall site is essentially flat in the building portion (central and southern
segments). The northern segment of the property contains a pond as indicated on the
Topographic Map. This pond represents a wider basin within the Fruitdale Creek flow.
Visual- evaluation of the property revealed no evidence of any geotechnical
distress: no slides, no soil tension cracks, or any evidence of erosional degradation.
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - S/rEDEVELORMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE DESIGN& PERMIT LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmondg
c/o Pacific Emerald Homes, Inc..
July 23, 2005
Page 2
This engineer understands that the new proposed residence will be constructed
south of the pond area and setback the appropriate wetland pond buffer distance (see
LSA Plans).
EVALUATION:
z
In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, 2 soil test pits
M
were dug under this engineer's observation on July 20, 2005. Both test pits revealed
similar sub -grade conditions, namely:
M,
C
0" to 6" Roots, organics and organic silt
M 0
6" to 7' (bottom of pits) Dense sands with occasional gravels
01
No water was encountered in either of the 2 test pits. Both test pit walls
C
M
M z
remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
JO
CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
the area, the property at 1551 1& Pl. N, Edmonds, Washington is -geotechnicall
M M
approved for the proposed new residence, subject to the following:
0-
0 M
Setbacks: The. new residence shall comply with City of Edmonds setback
C ca
K Co.
distances with regard to the adjacentr Fruitdale Creek and pond area.
M
z 0:
Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
pressure: 2,000 p.s.f.
z
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
4
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
CO
z
For retaining wail design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
p.c.f.
M
Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior t 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)
City of Edmonds
c/o Pacific Emerald Homes, Inc.
July 23, 2005
Page 3
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
z
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
M
example, an over -excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot wide
footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.
Cl)
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed
rn
C
M
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of two thousand (2,000) pounds per square foot
0
-i i -
(p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when
0 0
C
considering short7term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is
M Fri
anticipated that total post-cohstruction settlement of footings founded on competent,
rn z
A in thickness) will be about one-half
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) fee
C
>
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
NOTE: The bearing capacity of 3,000 p.s.f. applies to over -excavated and
n
-n
backfill conditions. Footings placed on native soils may be designed for 2,000 p.s.f.
M M
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
Cft
.0
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
0 M
C (D
t undati6ns
vertical, embedded. portions of the founda ions. For the latter condition, the fo
pmo
must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the
Z
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
X
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
Parameter Design Value
>
z
Coefficient of, Friction 0.55
co
z
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
0
M
Where:
(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.
City of Edmonds'
c/o Pacific Emerald Homes, Inc.
July 23, 2005
Page 4
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
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 usi barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
ng a vapor
01
slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes..
M
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
CO -4
X
M
C
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
M a
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
0
0
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height,
C
-4
which restrain level backfill:
M
M z
Parameter Desi-qn Value
Active Earth Pressure* .35 p.c.f.
0 -n
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
M M
Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f.
Where:
OM
C CO
CO)
M 0
Z
(1) O.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computedusing equivalent fluid
M
densities.
For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall
z
M.
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
Cn
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
z
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
M.
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 ressures should be added to the above
P
lateral pressures. Also, if.sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need
tobe given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfi 11 in order to provide the
appropriate design earth pressures.
City of Edmonds'
c/o Pacific Emerald Homes, Inc.
July 23, 2005
Page 5
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 fromthe equipment. Placement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
equipment.
Z
Retaining Wall Backfill
0
M
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
Cn.
0
no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than
C M
M
four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should
0
80
be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if
__4 C:
K ..,
the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and
a: M
MZ
Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these
C Z
>
backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not
E:
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.
M M
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
0 M
C:
At the time of this investigation and report (July 2005), no soil cuts a re
M 0,
Z
anticipated deeper than 4 feet below grade. As such, no temporary shoring is required.
M
If, however, actual soil exceed 4 feet in depth, this engineer should review actual plans
X
and make recommendations for temporary shoring (most likely Ecology -Blocks), if
>
Z
required.
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
CO
Z
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of
10
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
0.
M
height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1: 1
(Hodzontal:Vertical) from the top of the slop e 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 2H: IV. It is important to note that
�ands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware
of this potential hazard.
City of Edmonds'
c/o Pacific Emerald Homes, Inc.
July 23, 2005
Page 7
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compacti on
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 Mini 'Mum Relative
Z�
_f
Compaction
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways, 95%
co
Behind retaining walls 90%
Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of
0:
Sub -grade, 90% below that level
M z
JO
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
C
> Z
the compacted dry density to the maximum. dry density, as determined in
r
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1 557-78 (Modified Proctor).
0 -n
Use of On -Site Soils
M M
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on -site
soils are very wet, site ration costs may be higher because of delays due to rains
prepa
0 M
C ca
and the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally sandy and
cn;
M 0:
thus are not highly moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult'when die
z
moisture content of these soils greatly exceeds the. o ptimum moisture content.
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
>
Upumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater ffrdn
z
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 bemeasured from that portion of the soil
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material rnay be acceptable if the upper
organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
City of Edmonds
c/o Pacific Emerald Homes,. Inc.
July 23, 2005
Page 8
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
1 01h
No drainage problems were evident with the overall property at 1,551 Pl. N.
The sandy sub -grade soils allow for infiltration of any storm water runoff.
Additionally, the adjacent Fruitdale.Creek and pond area provide an excellent out
Z
0
fall for drainage controls.
Compliance with City of Edmonds drainage stipulations is recommended.
CONCRETE:
W
3:
a M
C
Ils, slabs, an retaining walls, etc.)
All foundation concrete (footings, stem wa y
MC
0
-40
0
shall have a minim.um cement co ntent of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix.
C
!�--1 C
MZ
SLOPES — SETBACKS — BUFFERS:
.0
C
Z'
>
As previously stated, it is understood that the new residence will comply with the
ack. re r the adjacent creek and pond areas.
City of Edmonds setb quirements fo
OM1
-n
INSPECTIONS:
M M
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
0)
0
0 M!
-q co
aspects are inspected by this engineer durin nstruction:
C CD
CO:
M 0,
Z
0 Soil cuts
* Foundation sub -grade verification
9 Temporary shoring if excavation exceeds 4 feet in depth as required
>
* Any retaining wall, or rockery placement
z
Any fill placement
Subsurface drainage installation
z
Temporary an d final erosion control measures
0
M
SUMMARY:
Th 1 Oth Pl. N, Edmonds, Washington is
e proposed new residence at 1551
geotechnically viable when co nstructed in accordance with the recommendations
herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and requirements, and key
geotechnical inspections during construction.
CLOSURE:
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.,
aim
r P
r- x
... ................
H, �
Q
................
§ S 1 1 1
J......
Is,
Iv
jo
7W
.. ....... N
ov %
4 IM
Ju
it
Ne
vt term
I p
te Art
It
e
;J.4 'i .064 e
1-1A -,u Oft
.4.0`
ut MOI L.t, tt . . .
4A .1
It
- I I ::t o*, 1� t
1p to
Tf. 20 :2 4
to
I If t I
071; 3:
tmItIt
.. 1% . A* ?�� z
A7
I
It
- -eq -
Am- mt,t ,14
M -go cj
W22 Owl
FEMME
ail
1,f 1.
Kt J. .. It,
k
.1 �Ix I'l
tt.-A t ,
Iqltf� 0411;t, i
If It, -
pe.. cn
lau
,,ma
d
0 M
c CD
co
Im"t'
Jp
It 11
ID
U. 4) 07.20,2005.
cn
V 11;47 0 9�4.
4 Itt J'k r
0
Wit
44
6
I 10�
too
V-A It
It III I
P4 k
4L
�P;e�ep 1�11 It
SO.
OIL I it,
TwIt. 0
fk.
It . '-L te
It
tt.,
Of
It
I
b ftt It
4; It
Att� m-..
A6
I
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
November 29, 2005
RECEV�
DEC 0
Z
0
City.of Edmonds
d
Development Services Department ENT S
DEVELOPNE.
0
M
121 5th Ave. N
Edmonds, WA 98020
_n
Subject: Field Reports - Geotechnical Inspections
Cl)
M
C
*dence�
#66140- i:',Edmonds, Washington
M 0
80
C
City of Edmonds Plan Check No. 04 -604
M
M Z'
1c)
This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical inspection s
Z
F -4
1 oth
for the Pacific Emerald Homes (Sigve Helleren) new residence at 1551 P1. N,
X
Edmonds, Washington. These inspections were required by City of Edmonds as *a
0
conditib nof permit.
M'
M
REFERENCES:
0
OM
C CD
City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
Q
Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E. dated Ju ly 23, 2005
Z 0
* Special Geotechnical Inspection Authorization by City of Edmonds
* Photographs
INSPECTIONS:
Z
This engineer performs ogi!y on -site geotechnical inspections during periods of
CD
Z
active ex cavation, foundation preparation, rockery installation, subsurface drainage, etc.
0
activities. At a minimum, 1 inspection visit is performed per week.
0
M
City of Edmonds Inspec ion Items:
Soil Cuts: Excavation for the new residence began during the last week of
September 2005. Ex cavation encountered the dense native sands as
anticipated by the Geotechnical Report. This engineer verified all excavation
cuts were stable.
SOILS FOUNDA RONS - SITE DE VEL OPMEN T - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERM17' - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
Re: Pacific Emerald Homes
November 29, 2005
Page 2
Foundation S6b-Grade: This engineer verified the dense native sands easily
providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. "OK' to proceed with foundation
formwork, reinforcing steel and concrete in accordance with City of Edmonds
approved Plans.
NOTE: Contractor successfully installed concrete footings and stem walls
z
during October 2005.
IT!
Temporary Shorinn Not required. Excavation did not exceed 4 feet. All
excavation remained stable.
Cl) --I
X
a m
Retaining Wall Rockery: Not yet.
m
01
Placement of Fill Material: No imported fill materials required due to the
A
m z
presence of very clean native sands on -site. The native material provided
excellent sub -grade bearing capacity for all foundation activities.
>
ca
Subsurface Draingge: This engineer inspected and'verified the proper
0 -n
placement of foundation drains in accordance with City of Edmonds approved
Plans. NOTE: Due to the extensive presence of relatively dean sands
ITIM
throughout the property, the footing drain function is not geotechnically
required. Nevertheless, all footing drains were properly installed and are
0
approved.
C co
Erosion Control: Contractor properly established a rocked construction
MO
Z
entrance and set up an effective siltation fencing barrie r around the perimeter
of the site (see photographs)
z
NOTE: Contractor has maintained clean working conditions with no adverse.
impacts to the adjacent stream corridor.
All temporary erosion control measures are apDroved through this date
z
(November 29, 2005).
m
SUMMARY:
e Ongoing geotechnical inspection aspects have verified proper compliance with
City of Edmonds approved Plans and the recommendation s of the Geotechnical
Report through this date (November 29, 2005).
rr'E Kuk— VIIN klluiA I I Vill
Project Name: 140 A zxc4
Address: 4- UL;:- A/
07 —2 7
Contact: Er Phone:
0
C)
Building Permit #: M
Side Sewer Permit #:
Cn
ROW Permit #: 0 M
C
M
0
0
Other: 0 C::
M
M Z
y Cl)
0
0 M
C ci)
Cn
Total Inspections Performed M
#.of Inspections: x $50.0.0 $
z
Inspection Fees TO BE PAID
P�
.0
Contact notified of fees due: E] by phone El correction notice given, I --I
M
Date Paid: Receipt Collected By:
Engineering Notified of Payment Received
REFUND Due:
Date
Reconciled By:
Original to: afe-rmit File Copy to: A�Q&eering Admin (refunds only)
Revised 3/2/06
Height Calculation Worksheet
Date
Permit Number Q ()()S - 0-7s
Address AJ
inspect r M-S
.0—
Z.
b c�
Average Grade 4 0
0:
M,
-7
Max Height (25'+Ave.)_S7��
DO
Actual Height (A+B+C) 3. <�3
0,
0�
4
C,
M Z:
10
o -n
0
0 m
=(C
ca:
M 0:
.;z
too
z
-D
z
0
0.
r1j,
Elevation of transit above Datum (B)3 I C.,
DatumS 5 M R Elevation (A)
1/temp/buildii.ig/foniis/liciglit wot -kshect
1 4,
m
F0 I
-1 -IJECI'APPROVIA1.
FINA P111%Qq id
L d
7:�- 7
�k .
1 11 6 7 L
DATE
I p
I
I p I . I
k I
'DIVISON
PE
.0 RM1611 GOORDINATOW BUIEF)ING
'L .1 k
-'PA
RINI
F.1 R I IN
I , . , . . , : �
I I .
I I
z
0
0
m
I I
(n W�l
0 M
c
m 0
0
0
0 C
�i K
X M
M Z
0 �i
c
M
Cl)
0 m
n
m M
0
0
0 M.
(f)
C/)
M 0
Z r�
m
X
z
-4
M
cn
z
0
1
0
m
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
PLEASE SIGN
ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE
PLEASE SIGN
10 PLANNING DIVISION DATE r
PLEASRSIGN
PROJECT 16�51
SITE ADDRESS
PERMIT ADB# DATE INSPECTED
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED 67
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/contractor by inspector
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION OUTSTANDING ISSUES
0 Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inpector
9
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Signature
1:,teihp:b1dg-.fomis:ocaprv1 3/25/04
z
0
A
0
M
CO
rT1
C
M
0
0
0 C:
3: M
M z
C -Z
Cn
0-n.
n
MM
0 (n
0 r-
0 M
C Cn
9 Cn
M 0
Z
z
X
z
0
M