Loading...
20051051.pdfI DATE RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS MAIL ES 21 V\� CITY ZIP TELEPHONE ZIP ITELEPHONE 1PERMIT EXPIRES PERMIT 1700(5- NUMBER 10/51 JOB ADDRESS SUITEIAPT# PLAT AME/SUBr VISION (10. LOT 140. LID NGVikl�b I A'E L D S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP EXISTING PROPOSED TESCPApproved RW Permit Rw tied lu Street Use Parmil Requited inspection RUquiled E3 13 H E3 Sidewalk Requited E3 C3 REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Undurground Willed reautred L3 METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES1 PRV REQUIRED YES[3 NOE3 0 z REMARKS OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE W W 30 ,6gon tg� (0 ru .4 V U:K_AN,�L :1 1.) kJ \Y NGINEERINGREVIEWED DATE Is FIRE REVIEWED BY 64TE AP�q LTELEPHqNE zll;-7-( VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION REO'D 113 YES P6 SEPA COMPLETED FXEh T I _ICENSE NUMBER 6"Q0 WD5 EXPIRATION DATE A , 1 BY CAt1n4— 3�1_ WAIVER13 STUDY;W&M ZONE f SIGN AREA ALLOW,,ED PROPOSED +.� HEIGHT ALLOWED , PROPOSED I 716� RTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. . I . L C) - 0 ADDITION REMODEL REPAIR DEMOLISH GARAGE cfmSIDENTIAL 1!(PLUMBING I MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRO T L/R SIDE REAR ff COMMERCIAL 1 1:1 COMPLIANCE OR 29,45- 1 TA- Z.:L -7 X, 1 9= MIXED USE CHANGE OF USE .., PARKING LOTAREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE MULTIFAMILY SIGN REO'D PROVIDED - - Izi W2 N�w CYDS j FENCE X. FT.) REMARKS TANK OTHER WALL ROCKERY FIRE SPRINKLER FIRE ALARM EiRETAINING (TYPE OF U , B S NESS OR ACTIVIT N , U� r 3� — TYPE OF CO jSCTION \7 COIDEe-�, U in OCCUPANT GROUP I NUMBER OF STORIES . NUMBER OF DWELLING UNI I I A. SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIRE :S CONSULTANT OCCUPANT LOAD — DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE K,�w ,,U REMARKS <,q L\yl _F_7� GEO BY: ram T AVII B �_�L 4D I STRATUR L DESIR YVDPO A. ?,r,; VALUATION $ Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check /I I/ irl- State Surcharge E % VESTED DATE I Building Permit City Surcharge PLAN CHECK NO: r, Plumbing Base Fee Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES 01,11 'PIERMIT COVERS WORK TO Gradin g BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE _j SEPARATE PERMISSION. 1 ui -.r_�kvriler PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5) PERMIT LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6) Engr. Inspection SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION U) 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS U) Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit I Lu IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF -7223 R OM A N Y A N D EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection F Receipt # No I R E CT L Y ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY R HA NOT BE L L FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE 0 'NANCE 'Y RD DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due VISION , 0 0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.0 E PRO x - Recording Fee Receipt # INFOR MATION I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL NT EDAG 0 GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF This application is not a permit until signed by the JEF G CONSTRUC THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- JE EMPLOYED TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED CALL Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and _ L I OF THE LAB THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO IN VIOLA 4E A ING To FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided ,>" WOR�KWYCOMPENS��ND RCW 18:27. SIGNAT*E DATE Sit U 1r(O W rG NT)' DATE SIGNED (425) M��4 a 6/1 771-0220 R LLKSED BY bATE1 ION EXT. 1333 IT IS U WFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- ORIGINAL - FILE - YELLOW - INSPECTOR FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 / IBC110 / IRC110. PINK -OWNER - GOLD - ASSESSOR 110104 . PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES z 0 1 0 M -1 -n z 2 6­4 0 z M C a M 0 ­10 0 C: -4 C X M M z 10-1 C W o -n T1 z MM 0 C—/) 0 0 IT! C cl) 9 cl) M 0 Z z 0) z 0 --I M A rAr-, -YFE 1 (ORIGINAL GRADE SEE SURVEY F-04-096) 1 1 k kg� (s) ffli.ee,fu (n A. 392.55' w PNTRANIM REOURED 13. 390.&5' Lu TRACT OLYI IE C. 406,10' TE CT STRI El i. 23ATH P W. . [). 41ro.02' �LAC S RISEWER STRICT /4-- 401.38' MAX HEIGHT: 426.36, rMH 44 Ca t3-2, TYFE 1 MH#1-44 ACTUAL HEIGHT: 423.33 u 0 at 0: 3�: TOF 391.24 FOOTING: 390-00' INV 15T FLOOK:,397.50' A,\ 2ND FLOOK: 4.07.55' L IMPERVIOUS 4 .00 9Q. FT. 13UIL %JW 77" DING (+ EAVE5):2,709 04 PKIVEWAY: 7e,9.4-4 5Q. FT. ui w PATIO: 175.51 5Q. FT. 2 TOTAL: 3,673.95 50. FT. Z OT COVEIZAOE: RIVEW WfKOFE 1 .5% 3 0 a, a 265.50 5Q. FT./9,912.00 50. FT. 24% L LOT 5LOPE: r 16% N-5 U C-4 a ff3—,0F, 94.E50') I FFTA- 270-3300-0105-500 0 C-4 Z (LOT I OF P-04-0900 > cq MICHEL CON5TKUCTON INC. 25.00' 10.00 9202 234TH PL 5W Lu 0 9— ')5, WA FRopo ED,".RE-5-1 �E TRAF C EDMONL .9&02ro E .5EW� IEW WATER P15TKICT (M.L.L.W.) R 35 PATUM: OLYMPICY 15ENCH MARK: INVEKT OF 5ANITAKY 5EWEK H 40 MANHOLE NO. 1-44, ELEV = WO-00 z iy; 2 411 KIM = 391.24� o Ct H A N G',Q 8 15A515 OF DEAKING: A 5ECTION 5U5[)IV15ION DY u -�Soo RL15KIN.F115HEK & A59OCIATE5 42.06 [03-O.F. 594.QU� ZJ, - - — — — — — — — — - COPY CITY --- ----- ---- ------ D: ------ ------ - - - - - - ALL -EXPOSE'D -GLIFACES-TO ............. F-WiTHIN 2 DAYS 0 C) EfC 'Zon, Com r PCFlag_ RESUB 9.12.05 - - - - - - - - b k Ni4red. ActU REVISIONS: OCT 20111 -PARTMENT 6UILDING DC FM' orry oF EDMONDS -n R r H6ight pLoT p A XT 234TH Sl WE F" I s SCAM I" - 20' Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, Inc PO BOX 523 Olalla WA 98359 C:206 356-7790 P:253 8574151 TO: City of Edmonds CRO. RL Re: 05-424 / SFR 9202 234"' P! SW -4 Edmonds WA Client Number No: 05 *424 Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers No: ED05-53 ca ffi C This project is approved for "Structural only" Permit only. The Architectural, and M.0 0 Structural drawin g review has been completed and accepted by Eagle Eye Consulting C Engineers. M MzI Your plans are being'reviewed concurrently with the Building De artment, Planning p C Z Department, and Public Works Engineering. Changes, clarifications or additional C corrections may. be required subsequent -to the Building Department review, when 0 -n comments are received from the other concerned departments. n M M 05. Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please call Hoyt Jeter at (253).957 0 M 4151 between 8,:00 am and 5:00 pm. C 0) K 0) M z 01 By: I I Hoyt Jeter, PE Z President z d. 0 Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers PO BOX 523 Olalla WA 98359 CLIENT: Project Name: 9202 234th PI SW Edmonds Building Department 121 5th Avenue N E E C E Proiect # ED 05-53 Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Jeannine Graf, C.B.0 Client Reference Number: 05-424 For valuation calculation purposes the following classifications for construction type. and building use were utilized Z 0 1711 Number of stories 2 CM I CM Occupancy (Use) Constr. Type $ Per Square Foot Gross Area Building Valuation Upper floor Floor $92.40 X 1714.00 $158,373.60 M C M —10 Main Floor $92.40 X� 1423.00 $131,485.20 .00 C Garage $24.30 x 723.00 $17,568.90 M, 171 Z 10-11 Deck $10.00 x 80.00 $800.00 C Z Porch' $10.00 x 219.00 $2,190.00 Covered Patio x $0.00 0 -n Total: $310,417.7 0 M ITI 0) STATED CALCULATED DISCREPANCY 0 0 M IF MORE THAN 10% C cl) VALUATION: $310.417.70 C 0) Q 0 Z r Total Project Valuation $0.00 $3110,417.70 -100.00% W DFI: $ 23.50 $ 2,172.09 BUILDING PERMIT FEE: .$23.50 $ 2,172.09 �Z PLANCHECK FEE: $15.28 $ 1,411.86 Z Eagle Eye Consulting Engineering Fees: Box Checked are Fees Used for This Project) S only Notes Eagle Eye consulting Engineers ITI Fee (single famlly):F17 $10.58 $977.44 Single famliy 45% Eagle Eye Consulting Engineersm FEE (A and S ):Li Eagle Eye Consulting brigineerT-1 FEE (A or S): Eagle Eye Consulting Engineersm Hourly Fee at $85/hour:L_JHou rsi %vn -n3 EO 0' Dennis M. Bruce, RE. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer August 11, 2004 City of Edmonds z c/o, Michel Construction Inc. 7907 21 2th. St . SW #102 Edmonds, WA 98026 - 0 Subject: Geotechnicall Evaluation /Foundation Recommendations all sed 9 Lot S n le Family Residence Development M ro M 0 g th n ?Ave. W and 0 92 234 ST. SW Edmonds, Washington .0 This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the M M Z nd Michel Construction property at the northwest comer of 92 Ave. W and 234�h St. SW, JO C Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to owner concerns regarding > geotechnical conditions, as well as City of Edmonds requirements. 3: 0 -n REFERENCES: -n M M * Vicinity Map and topographic survey by LSA 01 * Grading plans by.Donna Breske, P.E. r 0 M Site photographs C cl) C CO) M 0 z BACKGROUND: The overall property at the northwest corner of 92nd Ave. W 234 1h St. SW is nd rectangular in shape (approximately 253 feet along 92 Ave W, and 334 feet along Z* 230 St. SW). See site survey map. The majority of the overall property has not been developed and contains mature Z- 0 trees, dense shrubberies, and areas of grasses. An existing house occupies the 0 northern central portion of the property as indicated on the survey plan. M The overall site contains portions of slopes greater than 15% (less than 50%). Some of the slopes are natural in origin, and some are obviously the result of historic earthwork and associated road grading fi,ll activities. Visual evaluation of the property reveals no evidence of geotechnical distress: no sides no soil tension cracks, nor any evidence of erosional degradation. R E C', F� I V IF- D SEP 12 2005 PERMIT COUNTER SOILS FOUNDA rIONS S/rEDEVELORMENT - INSPECrION - DRAlIvAGE - DESIGNS pERA417- LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 9815.5 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442 City of Edmonds c/o Michel Const. In C. August 11, 2004 Page 2 th St. SW. Evidence of historic fill and associated debris is obvious "adjacent 234 See photographs. It is understood that Michel Construction proposes to develop the property for a total of 9 individual lots with 9 -single family residences. A new entrance cul-de-sac road will also be required. See site plan and grading plan. It is understood that the existing z residence will be removed. 0 M EVALUATION: In order to augmentsite geotechnical information, a series of 6 soil test pits were CD X C dug on June 7, 2004. See test pit location log. M 0 0 0 0 2 Test Pits (TIR-11, TP-211 were. dug on the slope adjacent 234" St. SW. Both test C pits revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely: M M z 0" to 8" Organics, roots, forest duff. 8 FILL: historic fill material consisting of to approx. 7.5' sandy loam, occasional ravel, debris I 9 , 0 . and gravels. This engineer observes that this fill material was most likely M M placed in conjunction with road grading 0 �h St. SW. activities for 234 0 0 Fn 75to 10' (bottom of pits) Very dense native sands. C Cn: C co M 0 Z r No water was encountered in Test Pits No. 1 or No. 2. Test pit walls remained vertical (with some sloughing of the upper fill materials).and stable. Z Test Pits Number 3 throuah 6: Test pits number 3,4,5,6 were in the central portion of the property where no fill placement had occurred. z 0 It, is distinctly possible that the central portion of the site had been artially p excavated or "scraped down a few feet". 0 M Test pit 3.4,5.6: 0" to 6" Organics roots, forest duff. 6" to 8' (bottom of pits) Dense to very dense sands with occasional gravels, No water was encountered in Test Pits No. 3 through 6. Test pit walls remain vertical and stable., No sloughing or caving occurred. 'City of Edmonds c/o Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 3 Note: A geotechnical. re -inspection on August 10, 2004, verified the dense stable nature, of the underlying native soils. See photographs. CONCLUSIONS R ECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this engineer's investigation as well as experience in the Z nd area with similar projects, the Michel Construction site at the NW comer of 92 Ave. W 0 234 �h St. SW is geotechnically approved for the proposed new 9 lot development. and associated access road, subject to the following: Geotechnical compliance with grading plan by D. Breske, P.E. The grading plan indicates remov al of the historic fill material adjacent. 234 �h St. SW and slope C M M stabilization with rockenes. 0 0 o The grading plan also indicates fill material properly placed in the low C central portion of the property with compliance to structural fill placement X M regulations. M Z The individual new residences may be founded on standard reinforced continuous and spread footings with allowable bearing pressure 2,000 p.s.f. ca O-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. MM For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 0 -or M C CD p.c.f. ic CO M 0 Z Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete X placement. X Z The proposed structures can be supported on conventional. continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above CO native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for Z structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual 0 spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) 01 M 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-excava.tion 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-foot wide -footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 4 Footings constructed according to.the above recommendations may be designed 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 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 z inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch. 0. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between 0 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 M C outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following M 0 0. design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral 1 oading 0 0 Parameter Design Value :XM M z Coefficient.of Friction 0.55 Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. 0 -n Where: M M (1) p.c.f. is, pounds per cubic foot. 0 (2) Passive. earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid.density. 0 M CO We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for designof the 0 Z r foundation's resistance to lateral loading. SLABS -ON -GRADE: X Z Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or X on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils Cn can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel u nderneath z 0 the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We 0 p -mil. plastic membrane beneath the also recommend using a va or barrier such as 6 slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS: Retaining walls b.ackfilled on one side only should be designed to re sist 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: City of Edmonds c/o Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 5 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 Where: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. 3: M For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times. the wall 0 0 0 height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred, (100 p.s.f. should be C added to the active equivalent -fluid pressure). 3: M M z The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and > Z 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. CD _n 0 The above design values do not include the, effects of any hydrostatic pressures M behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will. be placed above the M walls.. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above 0 0 M lateral pressures. Also, if slopingbackfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need C CA to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the CD M 0 appropriate design earth pressures. Z 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 Z' 0 Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls. should be frde-draining st This backfill should contain ructural fill containing no organics. no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greaterthan four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundafion drain system. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 6 The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wail 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. EXCAVATION AND SLOPES: Z As stated, historic fill material had been placed adjacent 234 �h St. SW. M This engineer recommends removal, of approximately 6 to 8 feet of historic fill material in order to restore the pre -filled condition. This engineer has reviewed the 0 M C grading plan by D. Breske, P. E., dated August 11, 2004 and concurs with the proposed rn grading activities, subeect to onsite inspections by this engineer. 0 0 In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, C X rn M Z state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four C 2, (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 X (Horizontal: Vertical) from the top of the slope.to the bottom of the excavation. Under 0 -n specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer,' excavation cuts may be -n modified for site -conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no rn rn 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 0* 0 M of this�potential hazard. C CO 0) Q 0 Z r 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 ;0 appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. > Z DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: CD Z O� 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 0 M rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac4.NP, 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. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 7 No groundwater.was observed in any of the 6 soil test pits. 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 su mps 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 Z;' the site and away from the tops. of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any 0 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,. except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.. 3: M C GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL: M 0 0 0 This project (9 single family residences and new access.road) will require M MZ significant grading activities. See grading plan dated August 11, 2004 by D. Breske, C Z P. E. CO All fill material shall comply with the recommendations of the this report and onsite inspections by -this engineer. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent M M 0 V; retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to 0 0 M support I oads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation C ca C CD prior to placement of any structural fill. MO Z All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture co ntent at or X near the optimum mo . isture conte is that moisture nt. The optimum moisture content content which results in the.greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill Z 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 Z 0 equipment,* and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the 0 M lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill: City of Edmonds c/o Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 8 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 z Sub -grade, 90% below, that level Ri Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of Fn the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). 0 M C M. 0 0 Use of On -Site Soils 0 C: If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on -site M Mz soils are very 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 generally sandy and thus are not particularly moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the Cn moisture content of these soils greatly exceeds the optimum moisture content.. 0 -n Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and. MM pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. 0 M C C/) C co)� Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a M 0. granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material rnay be acceptable if the upper organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering Cn inspection. 0 DRAINAGE.CONTROLS: 0 M No drainage, problems were evident to this engineer, during June, July, or August or 2004. A buried drainage outfall pipe was called out on the project survey and. observed by this elneer. It is assumed that this outfall pipe releases drainage from the catch basins in 234 St. SW. The sub -grade sandy soils will allow for onsite infiltration if desired by project developer. ..City of Edmonds c/o Michel Const. Inc. August 11- 2004. Page 9 Compliance with City of Edmonds drainage controls are geotechnically acceptable. 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. Z, 0 ROCKERIES: This project requires extensive grading activities, both cutting and filling. See grading plan. 0 M C th St. In order to provide erosional stabilization, rockeries are.re quired along 234 M a 0. _40 SW and "wrapping around" the west property.line. Additionallyi i nterior rockeries are 0 C proposed for individual lot grading purposes. rn M Z: 10-4 Geotechnical inspections of the project rockeries are r equired. C,Z, Inspections shall verify the following: Dense dub -grade soils 0 Base rock embedment M Rock linkage and size M 0 CD Rock face batter .0- r 0 M Drainage zone C CO) U) M. Z 0 INSPECTIONS: The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical aspects are inspected bv this eng ineer during construction: > Z Soil cuts Fill removal and grading activities Z 0'. Foundation sub -grade verification Retaining wall, or rockery placement .0, M Fill placement Subsurface drainage installation Final erosion control and grading City of Edmonds c/o Michel Const. Inc. August 1.1, 2004 Page 10 SUMMARY: The proposed 9 lot development at the NW corner of 92nd Ave. W and 234 1h 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 geotechnical inspection during construction. z GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW FUTURE RESIDENCES: At the time of. this report, specific house plans were not available for review. This geotechnical report refers to overall property. grading and development prior 0 M C to individual house construction. M 0 0 As discussed in this report, dense native sub -grade soils capable of providing 0 C excellent bearing capacity for foundations are present on the,site. X M M Z, 10-1 Overall property development will include significant grading activities.(as Z discussed herein). 2; Cn O.M After overall property developm ent, individual houses may be constructed after review and approval by this engineer. M M No significant foundation problems were anticipated for the future residences 0 0 M providing overall property grading activities are inspected. co Cn Q 0 Z CLOSURE: ;U Thefindings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other z warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions b etween Cn explored locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be z 0. different than those described in this report, this en ineer shouldbe notified to- observe 9 0 the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. M If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. 01 W-As Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. 04, Geotechnical Civil Engineer DMB:jpb AL EXPtRE -e� Dennis M. Bruce, RE. M.S.C.E." M.B.A. R GeftkO -.�pqineer DEC PL APWvjjV 'December 10, 2005 D, P-l" z 0 City of Edmonds Department of Development and Planning M E�h 121 Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 -n Co -J Subject: Field Reports - GeotechnicAl Inspections M M Michel Construction - N 9'Sin le -Family Residence Project ew 9 0 230 St SW and 92"d Ave. W,, Edmonds, Washington 80 C M 9201, 9202, 9203, 9206 230 PI. W M Z This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical inspections C z for the Michel Construction development at the above addresses. These inspections. Cn were. required as a condition of permit by the City of Edmonds building department. 0 n. . n� M REFERENCES. M 0 V5 * Approved Project Plans 0 0M C CA 0 Geotechn ical and Inspection Reports by D. Bruce, P.E. C.Co MO Site photographs z X, INSPECTIONS: This engineer has performed on -site geotechnical inspections for the ov erall Z development, including: site excavation, perimeter rockery construction; perimeter drainage improvements and overall site preparation (see previous Geotechnical z Inspection Reports). 0 City of Edmonds required geotechnical inspections for the individual homes. 0 rn Construction began in late September 2005. As of the date of this report (December 10, 2005), four house foundations have been constructed (an additional five houses are understood to be forthco ming). Cily of Edmonds Inspection Items: e Soil Cuts: All soil cuts for houses at 9201, 92021 9203 and 9206 encountered dense native sub -grade soils as anticipated by the Geotechnical Report. All SOILS Nr FOUNDATIONS - SIrEDEVELORME INSPECTION DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERUIr - LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217' FAX (206) 546-8442 City of Edmonds Department of Development Services Re: Michel Construction December 10, 2005 Page 2 so excavation cuts for these four house foundations werestable. No adver geotechnical impacts were observed. z Grading _Acfivifies- This engineer verified all grading activities for the above 0 ce with the approved Plar, —4 referenced four houses were performed in accordan 3 geotechnical practices. No adverse impacts occl M and complied with good Foundation Sub -Grade: This engineer verified the presence of dense na Cn grade soils easily providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. 0 M C M 0 el and concrete in "OK" to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing ste 0 ith City of Edmonds approved Plans* and inspections 0 C= accordance w M M Z Subsequently, concrete foundations. were properly placed for the four houses C Z listed above. Cn Retaining Wall Rockery Placement: As previously discussed, a significant 0 .-n ockery'. _n perimeter rockery was constructed for the overall development. This r. Plans and good pract eptechnicall complied with approved ices and is q M M appLoved. 0 0 M uire significant retaining C cn The individual four houses (addresses above) do not req K CD foundation stem walls act as a retaining M 0 selves. The Walls or rockeries for them approved Z wall (see photographs). Thus, all retaining walls and roc . keries are through this date (December 10, 2005). tities of imported fill were required for > Fill Placement: No significant quan z r import small foundation purposes. This engineer recommended that contracto ubic yards) of rock for improved working surface CD quantities (less than 20 c t inspections verified the proper placement of sub -base z purposes. 5ubsequen 0 ed formwork and concrete placement.. All fill placement is -4 rock to allow for improv approved through this date (December 10, 2005). M Drainage: This engineer verified the proper placement of subsurface Subsurface Draina-g— complied with drains for the above listed four houses. All drainage work e approved Plans and good practic. s. Inspections are ongoing. Erosion Control: The overall project is accessed via the interior paved road and cul-de-sac. Natural slopes inhibit any storm water runoff from leaving the site. siltation fencing, rocked entrances for' Additionally, contractor has properly placed individual houses, zatch basin inlet socks and diligent cleanup.