The URL can be used to link to this page

20051052.pdfI IATE RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWqER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS MkOtfa-1- elc) K ClIQ MAILINGADDRESS NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS LICENSE NUMBER Lu�" :RTYTAkACCOUNT ADDITION REMODEL El REPAIR 13 DEMOLISH r--t GARAGE NUMBER OF OZ- STORIES DESCRIBE WORK TO BE ZIP TELEPHONE *-V-21rd IONE I CBL# ZIP TELEPHONE 2160 1 '�7w_o PERMIT EXPIRES PERMIT �7 NUMBER JOB SUITE/t ADDRESS 14 1 �. -1 1 M_j PLAT NAMPSUBDIVIS19N NO. LOT NO, LID NO � - flil 1�) I LID FEE $ PALIC R'IGHT OF Wd P`ER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP A4,provea RW Permit Required Street use Permit Requima EXISTING PROPOSED Inspection Required Sidewalk Required REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Undingtound Wiring required METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO, OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED I I I YESO NOE3 REMARKS to, OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAG r dr,% k4o,",f -r- Hill REVIEWED BY DA-M I W LL EXPIRATION DATE VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINEORAD89 INSPECTION I SEPA &� a YREQ'D COMPLETED I EK iq If I ES X�O CA# 111/1 ZONE SIGN AREA HEIGHT PARCEL NOF WAI�ERM 7 ALLOWED PROPOSED 66LOWED I PROPOSED ILI�n STUDY [3 V Z_7 1 7,5 Vf—MSIDENTIAL LUMBING / MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PR OSED FROW SIDE REAR FRONT UR SIDE REAR COMMERCIAL 5 COMPLIANCE OR CHANGE OF USE .50A�-- I Tf -1(�ry 76' IA2� L 7.5 z L T 0' U E M M P 13 L IN IA G N 0 C I M E HANGE F U E 0 C S ?i H R MIXED USE E I I :M z 1:1 PARKING LOT AREA I PLANNING REVIEWED BY DAT MULTIFAMILY SIGN RQ'D PROVIDED C GRAP1111Q_ CyDS FENCE X 7.7 -1-5 f �N 1:1 x FT.) REMARKS - OTHER TANK 0 RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER ROCKERY 11 FIRE ALARM OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN - NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS I &_t� It I/ - f- j / - I f_1 SLOPE% I VESTED DATE TYPE OF Of SPECIAL IN REQUIR REMARKS im:141 OCCUPANT GRO OCCUPANT LOAD G 1-11,11 P11155 STRUCTft DWIG BY: VALUATION zaa Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check State Surcharge Building Permit City Surcharge to z PLAN CHECK NO: LIP Plumbing Base Fee Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC Grading DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. 1,91 4Wr4fevritw PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5) Engr. Inspection PERMIT LIMIT* SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6) SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION U 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, A SORS ) SSIGNS AND SUCCES Fire Review Plan Chk- Deposit IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY. DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF S EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND ix Fire Inspection Receipt # �z 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 LandscapeInsp. Total Amt. Due 0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY's ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.- 21 MENNEEMONERE� Recording Feb Receipt # 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 'to This application is not a permit until Signed by line THE OWNER. I AGREE COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRLIC- TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED CALL Building Official or hisihor Deputy: and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLAYqN OF THE I OD THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided T N INS NC WORK)WN'y COMPEN56MEND RCW 18:27. 1 S SIGNATUR DATE S ATU (0 A EN DATE SIGNED 1 (425 771-02'20 RE' SEOM'��-' A T ION EXT. 1333 IDITE 1 1 IT 17NLAWFFCUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL "a . I U A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- I ORIGINAL - FILE - YELLOW - INSPECTOR FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 if IBC110 / IRC110. PINK - OWNER - GOLD - ASSESSOR 10104 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES z 0 A 0 M -4 =n- M M C M 0 10 0 C —4 M 3: M M Z 1c) —1 C Cl) 0 -n Ti -4 .ME M M a �5 0 r-, 0 M cl) M 0 Z i X 3: > z --I M Cl) z 0 0 M I lz 24 Hk.- NOTICE E .1 .. CITY COPY FOR INSPECT RESUB L005 z s NOT� OCT 3) 1.,, -yfl �,,PPROV;.-11) P ; & I . p,-y F --IE--Rl\ G '110 �-!Gllt I.. I I BUILD114G DEPARWENT 14�rl : I �.-1 U CITY CF EDIMONDS -2 C LU EQUIR AVERAGE QvRAQE- "E EE 5URVEY P-04-096) (ORIGINAL GRAPE E 55' A. 404.r -a. F0 13. 401.75' OTIN 0 1'0::"B TIE01 NTO C. 415.05 Lij Z 1). 420.55' I'm cl an -'r /4-- 411.25' A IGHT: 43ro.25' ------ 5 MAX HE Z 9 "'000, I ACTUAL HEIGHT: 425.4-5' % URI C'l 14C FOOTING: 399-00' c.% 15T FLOOK: 402.50' c 'THI I 2NP FLOOK: 412-55' I (15.0.F. =.3,99. 0 PROF ED RENDENC U UILPING (+ EAVE5)- 2,709.00 50. FT 5L w KiVEWAY: 7&9.44 5Q. FT. &- 50' 6 lz 10: 175.5150. FT. z TAL: 3,675.95 5Q. FT .402 0 ERIAL OT COVERAGE* rI 3—.0, E. 4, 9 1 255.50 5Q. FTJ5.00750. FT. 29% .404 SCH 40 LOT .5LOPE* 16% N-5 -500 0 PTA.- 270-33roO-Olob L Or�'I.:�� - - - - - - - (LOT3 OF P 04-096) It 406, 16 ........................ ..... MICHEL CON5TKUCTON INC. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - "1 9&-410 920ro 234TH FL 5W KO�KVY FEPx r-04-0 EPMONP5, WA. 9502ro - - - - - - 0 412 --rum: oLymrlc VIEW WATER 015TRICT (M.L..L.W.) bA cQ DENCH MARK: INVEKT OF 5ANITAKY 5EWER 9.12.05 MANHOLE NO. 1-44, ELEV 350-00 REVISIONS &4 KIM = 591.24� IV151ON DY DA515 OF 13EAKING: A 5ECTION 5UL3P. KL15KIN F15HER & A5500��T,��j,' 234TH STREETT Kw. IOU ic-11 REE Dennis M. Bruce P.E. M. S. C. E., K B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer 3EP August 11, 2004 C City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction Inc. TY OPY z 0 7907 212th St. SW .#102 0 M Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation I Foundation Recommendations Cn C M Proposed 9 Lot Sh igle Family Residence Development M 0 -q 0 �h s, Washington 927" Ave. W and 234 ST..SW Edmond- 0 0C This engineering report.presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the M M Z Michel Construction property at the northwest comer of 92d Ave. W and 234th St. SW, J0 —Z Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to owner concerns regarding > geotechnical conditions, as well as City of Edmonds requirements. o -n -n REFERENCES: V icinity Map and topographic survey by LSA MM 0 r Grading plans by Donna Breske, P.E. 01M C= cr) Site photographs M CD :MO . I Z BACKGROUND: X nd W 234�h St. SW i The overall property at the northwest corner of 92 Ave. S. > lar in shape (approximately 253, feet along 92nd Ave W, and 334 feet alon rectangu 9 z 34 8W). See site survey map. 2 th St. 0) 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 earthw(irk and associated. road g rading fill activities. Visual evaluation of the property reveals no,evidence of geotechnical distress: no sides, no soil tension cracks, nor any evidence of erosional degradation. SOIL S. FOUNDA WNS - SITE DEVEL OPMENT INSFEC TION DRAINAGE DESIGN& PERMIT LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-92.17- FAX (206) 546-8442 City of Edmonds cto Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 2 Evidence of historic fill and associat ed debris is obvious adjacent 230 St. SW - See photographs. It is understood that Michel Construction proposes to develop the pro perty for a total of 9 individual lots with 9 single family residences. A new entrance cul-de-sac road Z required. See site plan and grading plan. It is understood that the existing will also be 9 residence will be removed. EVALUATION: In order to augment site Oeotech nica I information, a series of 6 soil test pits were C M dug,bn June 7, 2004. See test pit location log. M 10 0 TP-11, TP- n the slope adjacent 234�h St. SW. Both test 2 Test Pits Q.were dug o C XM*. pits reve Wed similar sub -grade conditions,. namely: M z 10 -4 0" to 8" Organics, roots, forest duff. C Z > 8" to approx. 7.5' FILL historic fill material consisting of X. ca sandy loam, occasional grav(31, debris, 0 -n and gravels. This engineer observes. that this,fill material was most likely MITI placed in conjunction with road grading 0 h St. SW. activities for 234� 0M cv) 75 to 10' (bottom of pits) Very dense native sands. 0) M 0 Z 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 Nu�iber 3 through 6: Test pits number 3,4,5,6 were in th e central portion of the property where no fill Cn z placement had occurred., .0. It is distinctly possible that the cen tral portion of the site had been partially excavated or "scra ped down a few feet". 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 wa s encountered in Test Pits No.- 3 through 6. Test pit walls remain vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occ urred. 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 RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this engineer's investigation as well as experience in the Z area with similar projects, the Michel Construction site at the NW corner of 92rd Ave. W 2341h St. SW is cleptechnically approved for the proposed new 9 lot, development and M associated access road, subject to'the following: Geotechnical compliance with grading plan by D. Breske, P.E. The grading plan Q �h St. indicates removal of the* historic fill material adjacent 234 SW and slope M C M stabilization with rockeries. 0 80 The grading plan also indicates fill material properly placed in the low C central portion of the property with compliance to structural fill placement M regulations. M Z 10 C 0 The individual new residences may be founded on standard reinforced continuous and spread footings with allowable bearing pressure 2,000 p.s.f. Cn 0 -n Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining w all ainage zone is inspected and ver fied by 'his engineer. design provided dinni ca M M 0 Vi For retaining wall design,.use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 01 r 0 M M (n p.c.f. Q 0, Z Geotechnical inspections by this engineer Prior to any foundation concrete placement. Z The proposed structures can be supported on conventional continuous and ct ced above spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on stru uraifillpla Cn native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for Z 0 structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) 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 -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 -excavati oting width. For as the sum of two times the depth of the over on and the fo 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 cto 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-thir * d 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, z 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. 0 -seismic forces may b friction between Lateral loads due to wind or e resisted by :q 5 i s the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pre sure acting on the X vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations M C must either be poured directly against. undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the M 0 0 outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following 0 0 C: design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: M z Parameter Design Value C 2 > Coefficient of Friction 0.55 Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. 0, _n M Where: M 0 'M (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot. 0 C (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. 0) We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the 0 Zr_ foundation's resistance to lateral loading. SLABS -ON -GRADE: z Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or z on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided there 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 M 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 toresist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following recommended design param eters are for walls. less than twelve 0 2) 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 z Soil Unit Weight 125 p. c.f. 0 M Where: P.C.f. is pounds per cubic foot a M (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equiva lent fluid. C a rn densities. 0 0 0 For restrained Walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall C M M z height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure). C_ > Z Ca The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and 0 -n retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the -n fety factor of at le' st 1.5 for overturning and sliding. walls. We recommend using a sa a MIT! The above design values do not include the, effects of any hydrostatic pressures 0 0 M behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or, loads will be placed above the C CD. CD walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above rn 0 Z 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 X appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and. z foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are M designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement CD and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated z equipment. .0 M Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than -four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of partic les 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 com posites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. City of Edmonds c10 Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 6. ill. requirements is to assure that the design criteri a for The purpose of these backfi 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 EXCAVATION AND SLOPES: r9 As stated, historic fill material had bee n placed adjacent 2 34th St. SW. --i This. engineer recommends removal of approximately 6. to 8 feet of historic fill CO 0 M C material in order to restore the pre illed condition. This engineer has reviewed the' A M 0 0. grading plan by D. Breske, P.E., dated August 11, 2004 and concurs with the proposed -4 0 0 C grading activities, sub"ect to onsite inspections by this engineer. X M In no case should excavation slopes be greate r than the limits specified in local, M Z 10.4. C Z state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a h eight of four > (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a height ;K greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1: 1 bottom the Under 0 t (Horizontal: Vertical) from the top of the slope to the of excavation. specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, ex cavation cuts may be rn M modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils. should beinclined no 0 V5 0 :steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1V. It is important to note that 0 M C CD. sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware 11 C ch of this potential hazard. Q 0 Z Water should not be, allowed to. flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary ;U 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 Z layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS. Z 0 d Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls. 0 M 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, S.upac 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. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Cbnst. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 7 rved in an of the 6 soil test pits. Seepage into the No groundwater was obse Y planned excavation is possible,: and likely if e xcavatio n occurs during winter m onths, be drained awa from the site by use of drainage ditches, and if encountered should y p rforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow e connecto m of the excav ation. r trenches at the botto Z 9 0 e water is directed off The excavation of the site should be raded s that surfac 0 M the site and away from the top s of slopes. Water should not be allowed to s tand in any area where foundations, slabs., or paveme nts are to be constructed.. Any exposed slopes to be covered With plast ic to minimize erosion. Final sitd grading in areas 'buildings be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building, U5 0 M� C adjacent to should except where the area adjacent to the, building is paved. M 0 0 0 C: GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL MZ This project (9 single family residences a nd new -access road) will require 107-1 CZ > n significant grading activities. See grading pla dat I ed August 11, 2004 by D. Breske, r Cn P.E. 0 -n All fill material shall comply with the recommendations of the this report and M onsite inspections- by this engineer. M Cn as any fill placed under the buildin behind permanent Structural fill is defined 9 0 r 0 M C Ca retaining or foundation walls or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to CA M 0 sup ort loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation P z r prior to placement of any struct ural fill. Ali structura I fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or, Z near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content which results in the' greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction. Z process, The allowable thickness of the fill -lift will depend on the'material type, compaction M equipment, and the number. of passes. ma de to compact the lift.. In no case should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table pres ents . recommended relative compaction for structural fill: I City of Edmonds cto 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 0 —1 S -grade, 90% below that level ub 0 R1 Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as. determined in co accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). M M Use of On -Site Soils 0 0 C M If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on -site M Z 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 moisturesensitive. 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 M M pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than 0 W 0 the optimum moisture content. 0 M C CD Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a co 'Q0 Z 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. > Z 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 Cn z inspection. 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 enpineer. It is assumed that this'outfall pipe releases drainage from the St. SW. catch basins in 234 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 geotechn.ically 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 ya rd of concrete mix. ROCKERIES: Z. This project requires extensive grad ing activities, both cutting and filling. See .0 M grading plan. h St. In order to pr ovide erosional stabilization, rockeries are required along 234 M C SW and "wrapping around" the west property line. Additionally, interior rockeries are M 0 proposed for individual lot grad ing purposes. 80 C M Geotechnic ired.. a'I inspections of the project rockeries are requ M Z �.10 -1 1. -.,. . Inspections shall verify the following: C - , k 1 Z -A Dense dub -grade soils V) Base rock embedment Rock linkage and size M Rock face batter M 0- CD Drainage zone 0 r M C 0) INSPECTIONS: MO Z The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction: Z Soil cuts _4 Fill removal and grading activities Foundation sub -grade verification Z Retaining wall, or rockery placement Fill placement 0 M Subsurface drainage installation Final erosion control and grading City of Edmonds c/o Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 10 SUMMARY: nd Ave W and 230 St. The proposed 9 lot development at the NW cornerof 92 Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and. z 0 requirements, and key geotechnical inspection'during construction. 0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW I FUTURE RESIDENCES: 5i e plans were not available for review. At the time of this report, specific hous ox M C M This geotechnical report refers to overall property grading and development prior -40 0 0. C on. to individual house constructi :E rn M Z -grade soils capable of providing 10 As discussed in this report, dense native sub C ent on the site. z excellent bearing capacity for foundations are pres > Overall property development will include significant grading activities (as ca 0 -n discussed herein). �Mm After overall property development,' individual houses may be constructed after. b Cn 0- review and approval by this enginee r 0 M C Cn M 0) No significant foundation problems were anticipated for the future residences M 0 Z providing overall property grading activities are inspected. CLOSURE: z d in accordance The findings and recommendations of this report were prepare -4, 3: with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other . . I . I ; Cn d on the �z warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. The conclusions are base 0 results of the field exploration- and interpolation of subsurface conditions between -11 uction that appear to be explored locations. If conditions are encountered during constr M 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. 0 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical Civil Engineer 0 DMB:jpb t� NA =PfRES '12fLV -Z-00 IL/ ull 4utij I.L 41 f :)V00 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.B.A. Geftk� ineer DEC 5 200.5 PL December 10, 2005 G -P U�. z City of Edmonds 0 0 Department of Development and PI ainning .121 !�h Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Field Reports - Geotechnical Inspections a M C M Michel Construction - New 9 Single -Family Residence Project 'Ave. O� 230 St and 92nd W, Edmonds, Washington Sw C XMI 9201, 9202, 9203, 9206 234h P1. W M z z r This engineering report.presents the results of ongoing geotechnical inspections for the Michel Construction development at the above addresses. These inspections Cn were required as a condition of permit by th e City of Edmonds building department. 1 0 n -n REFERENCES:.. M M 0 or M Approved Project Plans C Cn Geotechnica[and Inspection Reports by D. Bruce, P.E. Q 0'. Site photographs Z X. INSPECTIONS: z This engineer has performed on -site geotechnica I inspections for the overall de* velopment, including: site excavation, perimeter rockery con struction, perimeter X co drainage improvements and overall site preparation (see previous Ge6technical z Inspection Reports). 0:. M City of Edmonds required geotechnical inspections for the individual homes. Construction began in late September 2005. As of the date of this report (December 10, 2005), four house foun dations have been constructed (an additional five houses are understood to be forthcoming). Ci!Y 0 monds Inspection Items: S il Cuts* All soil cuts for houses at 9201, 9202, 9203 and 9206 encountered 0 dense native sub -grade soils as anticipated by the Geotechnical Report. All SOILS FOUNDATIONS - SITEDEVELOPMENT INSPEC7701V - DRAINAGE - DESIGN PERA417 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 excavation cuts for these four house foundations were stable. No adverse geotechnical impacts were observed. z Grading Activities: This engineer verified all g rad i ng, activities forthe above in accordance with the approved Plar- 0 M referenced four houses were performed and complied with good geotechnical practices. No adverse impacts occl' Foundation Sub -Grade: This engineer verified the presence of dense n& 0 M C grade soils easily provid ing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. M 0 OK" to proce ed with foundation formworki reinforcing steel and concrete in OC, accordance with City of Edmonds a pproved Plans and inspections. X M M Z c ly, co crete foundations were properly pla ed for the four houses Subsequent n C _Z > listed above. W Retaining Wall Rocke!y Placement: As prev iously discussed., a significant was constructed for the overall development. This rockery 0 n M M perimeter rockery complied with approved Plans and go od practices and is geotechnically 0,6 approved. 0 r 0 M. C C/J. The individual four ho ses above) do not req uire significant retaining uses (addres C Ch Q 0. Z walls or rockeries for themselves. The foundation stem walls act as a retaining w ails and rockeries are approved M wall (see photographs). Thus, all retaining through this date (December 10, 2005). > Fill Placement: No significant quantities -of imported fill were require d for that contractor import small z W foundation purposes. This.engineer recommended quantities (less than 2 0 cubic yards) of rock for improved working surface z 0 Subsequent inspections v rLifled the proper placementof sub -base purposes. __g_ _. for impro ved formw ork and concrete placement. All fill placement is I 5 M rock to allow . approved through this date (December 10, 2005). e placement of subsurface Subsurface Drainam, This engineer verified th proper drains for the above liste d four houses. All drainage work complied with. approved Plans and good practices., Inspect ions are ongoing. Erosion Control: The overall project is, acces sed via the interior paved road and cul-de-sac. Natural slopes inhibit any storm water runoff from leaving the site. entrances for 'Additionally, contractor has properly placed siltation fencing, rocked individual houses, cat ch �basin inlet socks and diligent cleanup. 206-546-8442 P.1 Nov 15 06 04e39p.. D. Bruce2 PsEe Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. ,Vou84 /3 ;�006 Geotechnical /Civil Engineer M,S.C,E,, M,B.%A, m 1c) Clog 6;1 z a &7j c U'5 err y IF* AtPA.-ouiFh TtAr&js let 0 m mp tuj cl) Sire m c Ok L m 0 0 �r VWAL mill 0 rt E7 \j to OX L Y 0 C M M Z 3j ami . I m,dw tA tA A it z rz P Fill =4 RE CEIVE.D 1 1!w#1T(wuES cn 0 mn NOV 2006 "n P Ei c or STABLU PERMIT COUNTER m m SOIL CUT-& all~ AL LO SLY Vc;&(Ftlahte 0 1 0 W IZ it f0s. 0 m c cn m cn Q1.0USLY. top eR04041rA MO to X Z rw mmi kou Ew 6MALL Fit LO PkOA-FkLy ;u > wAJA 'j z i5de 0 4S to N t j...trpoLt. 6 L J6 6(60 Win 0 &; fe.sir /UEr "roMPOR&O-Ir cn r� rZFECT a I �:-FFFC or z AA r4 capiTimur 0 per MAN fC iswt6s A 0 pEpM A.tJ E N r & I I 'r y S m Of 03 :0 '3 0 IAwm Lj Lail . Tkedur AAer Ajo A;7x .49 A4 leffOZ LOPSIr. 70 fti I AL '5rfle' /Ii, &MAIMIAI& � it'll ES 0 107 SOILS FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE DESIGN & PERMIT L GAL -9217 FAX (206) 546-8442 P.0,Box55502 Shoreline, WA.913155 (206) 546 Ono Height,'Calculation Worksheet, Date PermitNumber DCZS- IOSD� Address 9 P- 1.) -3 Pt L%j Inspector. V�M 0. 0 M Average Grade Zj 1( CO)" a X Max Height (25'+Ave.) 43 (o, M Height 4L-U, 0 C Actual (A+B+C) LO X M:, M Z 10-1 C2 > -n n 3: M M. 0� .0 M, C C/) MO =(C i4 Z q Z� 01 M Elevation.of transit above Datum (B) Datum Elevation (A) 1/tdmp/build�iiig/foniis/heiglit workshect Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. /3 �'006 M.S.C.,E., M.B.-A. Geo * technical /Civil Engineer tj bll Loos ko-5;L 7-0 L—o-Ts 3 M(CRE7 T-- 4 6vo-rc-c! VJ e1NPr1- REPOAT - I z 1fj6p15e--rf0m' 0 el-ry 0 S 0 m 6150-Fked AJ I C*e- mt Arhq& P"7 Oe 0 14 C Ita ovl5RAW A k=VEL0JAA4S7AJ-r SM.. m 0 0 a-ToTlAcL �(5)- r-0JAL:,e IAJ--� P-=-e -r(o Aj -r' US L 0 - 8C -4 C to Y m z T.1 t)' L E-7FS C > -riws SwAMAk( CO) Lo -S ($14 0-11 R e)-T45 T m M 0 -rs S-rARLF 7-4 p_ot364100T SOIL- ICU AL-t, V 0 r 0 M prie C' y AC rb "Ally /Z to rovs, C CD O� A -r(C) A- A STAMr Z tj loo u4LY CMPA ROce 4--IF-s — PP-0 (or- eR-40, - 6MALL StJ86AXNE M 0 FIL.L.. ?LAe6M6fj P k4o A FR-pl. A C > S IrA e V D z pf-OPE7Z /W& -rAt, I #J -rif (AJA 3: C0 z O's 1(5 N M607- Pf 0 �U-C T. C-r-FLec'T /V Er -"TkokA PO F-ArA 06k Z-0 0 -1 6-P SO p- F-4i. e 6 Pi T IN U r (Aj e-p4FAFc- r 0 M. fr PE-K�A A M E M r jm"sokE-5 Sm le WA y, 7),4 -e� ,.Of SjjjZ0j3_s J. SEAL' 1W '5x t-W 7W S (4. C0M7',1puF.S -ro R&77ZP404A 660 CC 17405 1k wi-riq A41eM,---1- tJ' wokK , -rA EXPIRES SOILS FOUNDATION9 SITEDEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE DESIGN&PERMIT LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-18442