20051115.pdf11�
P
CITY OF EDMONDS N
N
j 0
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JO
TION
AC
A
OWNER NAME�NAME OF BUSINESS
PL
PL
W
z
3..
MAILING ADDRESS
- V
. Ir ry? PL
)
0
Q-AN %--
CITY ZIR
TELEPHONE E)
RI
At E
u
uj
I=
u
ADDRESS R
2 J*�PIU 0
-IA _V�
2j
ZIP ICLEPHONE
nA E
CBL#,
r-M
E
0
V
u
AD ESS
'RD
J�l ZI aie&v
F
Fz-
0 u
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
ammiz, V "
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE B
,�A�
:�± Ill
j
<
C
PROPERTY TAUCCOU�PMCEL NO.
W
_j
IDENTIAL PLUMBING if MECH
04
ADDITION COMMERCIAL 11 COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE
OF USE
MIXED USE
REMODEL MULTIFAMILY 1:1 SIGN
REPAIR CYDS Ei FENCE
( FT.) I
El DEMOLISH 1:1 TANK OTHER
r7qAARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER
FIRE
6d-eARPORT ROCKERY ALARM
(TYPE OF USE BUSINESS OR ACT VITY) EX IN.
w
NUMBER
NUMBER OF
( C'
a
OF
DWELLING
0
STORIES
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
I jy
x.0
HOT OURCE
e�7 Lq SLOPE%
VESTED DATE
%
'PLAN HECKNO:
6L
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
l-
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC
5 DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES. ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
I=
_j
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5)
IL 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, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS
U)
W IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
_1
2 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
0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.,
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
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LAkOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
WORKME��JOMPEN SrIOWN SU RANCE
��W 18:27.
SIG R6V
DATE IGNED
ERMIT
UMBER
B
DRESS
AT 7?M DIVIS19N NO.
I 17177W
NO
1:111.142
IBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
:ISTING PROPOSED 7
:QUiRED DEDICATION
FT
AETER SIZE
LINE SIZE
NO 01 IIXTURES
I I I
j
I J L:, (I..:- ri " C. 1�q W w
A'
m.. rA V.; a W"A
PARKING
REO PROVIDED
..;q I IV, 11
SPECIAL I
REQUIREi
q;1 011116%ly Igo -
Description
Plan Check
ri-71111.9.9. . �ml
Engr. inspection
Fire Review
Fire Inspection
Landscapeinsp.
Recording Fee
receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
FOR INSPECTION
FV11S . 1111TIL DATEj
(425)
U* I I/
771 0220 - 4R -
Ai'TEVION EXT. 1333
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CEIRTI- ORIGINAL - FILE YEI I nW - INSPI'CT04
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC1091 IBC110 / IRC110. PINK -OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR -1j
10104 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
z
9
0
m
-1 -n
F0 -I
3:
OM
C
mo
0
-10
0 C
3: M
M Z
C z
Cn
0 -n
n
--I
m M
0
0
0 M
C CD
M 0
Z r-
.Aw
X
--I
3:
>
z
0
0
m
AVERAGE GRAPE
FO INSPEMON', -04-096)
R (ORIGINAL GRADE SEE SURVEY F
392.75'
TH,
5. 392.75'
415.05'
G[3-5 PE
P. 417.6P)
/4= 404.55'
'5'
MAY HEIGHT: 429.5
'Im
ACTUAL HEIGHT: 426,63'
'597
-MOUT
Ll FOOTING:, .00'
15T FLOOK: 400.50'
0,
ND FLOOK: 410-56
-01 p. alomn im, IMPERVIOUS
Uj
13UILDING (+ EAVE!5): 2,,316.92 50 FT
PKIVEWAY': 574.9160. FT.
.19PILIZEWAY 5LOPE
A PATIO: 291.1750. FT. z
3:: TOTAL:3,90-00 50- FT
0
�m OT COVERAGE:
>. cc 35Q. FT./b.22,3,00!30. FT. 25% 0
f GLE TIGHTLINE m
�IAI LQLaLQ_rL
[3-0-F t--,597 12" N-5
.50'j
5- cc PTA: 270-3,360-0106-500
LOT 2 OF P-04-090)
LLJ
�:
76" LICTON INC.
N Uj MICHEL CON5TK C
Fpi 1). 44 10Q 10 9204 234TH PL OW M
A 11 0 0
jj a: 5 0
I Uj EDMONDO, WA. gb02.r
LLJ C
T)
i64um: OLYMPIC VIEW WATER 015TKICT (M.L.L.W.) M
PPOP05EP RESIPENCE KT OF 5ANITAKY 5EWEP, M Z
5ENCH, MAKK: INVE 10-1
MANHOLE NO. 1-44. ELEV = 350.00 C —
0. > z
0 U-4 KIM = 391.24�
5A515 OF 13EAKING: A5ECTION 5LI[3I)IVI5ION 5Y
0. F.
6,,.,AC?5OCIATE5 co
0
NOTED -n
-ERIN
11E - I
0 im i 4,1 ENGIN G
UJ
& SEW mm
400
LU - - NSPECTION& RE_Q'D
0
0
m
4oa 04 L �25,7 7-1 - o 0
EXT. 1320 - Date
fn-.t ............... ;;,. ............... ........
Cn
Zone
410 4-5 T�) Corner M C)
Z
412: Setbacks B21w�red Actual
3LKAFAC)ES T0-
jiXpOSED Front
27DAYS m
P.C. 00\/r�RED-MITHIN Sides 15' >
Z.
Rear
70'
Other
"2lmZ7w* W
N 55
Height. 7: r z
0
0
m
.-EAND AID ADDRESSSIGN HE
234TH STREET S.,W,"':.
APPROVE.'.;
ITY CO V
_DT A XT XT
C"Ni9r
R _IN"�
IC2. 7,
2 . 7
41
-.6 L . . . . . . . . . . .
ER -
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
C FIVED
August 11, 2004
Ewa coufffER CITY COPY
City of Edmonds
z
c/o Michel Construction Inc.
.0
1h St. SW
7907 212 #102
3
Edmonds, WA 98026
M
Subject: Geotechnicall Evaluation Foundation Recommendations
OM
Pro osed'9 Lot Single Family Residence Development
C
M 0
01
1h
92 nfAve. W and 234 1 ST. SW. Edmonds, Washington
0
C
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
M
M Z
nd h St. SW,
Michel Construction property at the northwest comer of 92. Ave. W and 234i.
C
z
Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to owner concerns regarding
>
geotechnical conditions, as well as City of Edmonds requirements.
REFERENCES:
0 -n
M M.
0 Vicinity Map and topographic survey by LSA
0.
0
0 Grading plans by Donna Breske, P.E.
0 r"
C: cl)
Site photographs
C CD
MO
BACKGROUND:
Z r—
X
nd 1h
The overall property at the northwest corner of 92. Ave. W 234 St. SW is
nd
rectangular in shape (approximately 253 feet along 92 Ave W, and 334 feet along
z
1h St. SW).
.234 See site survey map.
CD
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 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.
SOILS FOUNDATIONS SITEDEVELOPIVENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE - DESIGAI&PERMIr:- LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 2
Evidence of historic fill and.associated debris is obvious adjacent 2 34h St. SW
see photograp hs.
it is understood that Michel Construction proposes to develop the property for a
-d -sac road
total of 9 individual lots with 9 single family residences. A new entrance cul e
z
will also be required. See site plan and grading plan. It is understood that.the existing
residence witl be removed.
M
EVALUATION:
=i 9
0)
In order to augment site geotechnical information, a series of 6 soil test pits were
G 'M
C
Rio .
dug on June 7, 2004. See test pit location log.
0
th
2 Test Pits (TIR-11, TP-21 were dug on the slope adjacent 234 St. SW. Both test
C
9
XM
M z
pits revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely:
0" to 9, Organics, roots, forest duff.
8" to approx. 75 FILL: historic fill material consisting of
Cn
0 -n
sandy loam, occasional gravel, debris,
and gravels. This engineer observes
that this fill material was most lik Ix/
. el.,
M M
065
placed in conjunction with road grading
0-
r
�h St. SW.
activities for 234
0 M
0 , I
7.6'to 10' (bottom of pits) Very dense native sands.
Cn
M 0
Z
No Water was encountered in Test Pits No. I or No. 2. Test pit walls remained
vertical (with some sloughing, of the upper fill materials) and stable.
Z.
Test Pits Number 3 through 6:
Test pits number 3,4,5,6 were in the central portion of the property where no fill
z
placement had occurred.
It is distinctly possible that the central portion of. the site had been partially
0
M
excavated or "scraped down a few feet".
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 RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this engineer's investigation. as well as experience in the.
Z
0
area with similar projects, the Michel. Construction site at the NW corner of 92 nd Ave. W
.-4
34. SW is geotechnically approved for the proposed new 9 lot de elopment and
2 �h St. v
M
associated access road,.subject to the following:
:n
Geotechnical compliance with grading plan by D. Breske, P.E. The grading plan
CD
a M
indicates removal of the historic fill material adjacent 230 St. SW and slope
M
stabilization with rockeries.
0
-40
0
The grading plan also indicates fill material properly placed in the low
C
-4 M
central portion of the., property with compliance to structural fill placement
M
M Z
regulations.
C Z
0 The individual new residences may be founded on standard reinforced
continuous and spread footings with allowable bearing pressure 2,000 p.,s.f.
On
-n
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.cf. is recommended for any retaining, wall.
M M
age zone is in pe ed and verified by this engineer.
design provided draincA s ct
Cn
0
0 r
M
For retaining Wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
C CO
9 Cn
p.c.f.
M 0
Z
Geotechnical, inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete
X
placement.
The proposed structures can be supported on conventional continuous and
Z
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
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
0
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
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 bean*ng 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,
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
m
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical,. embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations
am
C
must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the
a
m 0
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
0
C
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
Parameter Design Value
M Z
Coefficient.of Friction 0.55
Cn
Passive Earth Pressure 350 P.c.f.
o -n
Where:
m m
00-
(1.) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
0 M
C CO
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed. using the equivalent fluid density.
ic CA
M 0
Z r
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 b u d for design of the
e se
foundation's. resistance to lateral loading.
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
z
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
z
0
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 to resist lateral
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height,
which restrain level backfill:
City of Edmonds
cto Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004.
Page 5
Parameter Desiqn 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
Where:
(1) P, c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
Ca
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using.equivale int flu id
densities.
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
O-n
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the
n
walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding.
M M
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
0 Vi
0 r
0 M
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the
C (n
(n
walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above
Q 0
lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need
Z
to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the
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
X
designed for the additional latera I pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement
Cn
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
z
0
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 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 foundation 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 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 compactioin'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
-fi er has reviewed the
material in order to restore the pre illed condition. This. engine
O.M
C
grading plan by D. Breske, P.E., dated August 11, 2004 and concurs with the proposed
rn 0
0
grading activities, suboect onsite inspections by this engineer.
0
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
M
M Z
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four
height
10 H
Y
(4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1
CO
(Horizontal: Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
0 _n
s ecific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be
P
modified forsite conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no
rn M
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2HAV. It is important to note that
0-
r
sands do cave suddenly,. and without warning. The contractors should be made aware
0 M
C cf)
of this potential hazard.
CD
rn 6
Water should not be allowed. to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
Z
0 seeded with an
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes sh'uld be
appropriate species of vegeta tion to reduce erosion and improve stability of the.,surficial
>
layer of soil.
Z
3:
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
CD
Z
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
M
rock wrapped in non -woven geot extile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar
material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as
the bottom of the.f6oting 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
cto 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.
Z
The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
the site and away from the.tops of slopes. Water should not beallowed to stand in any
0
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
Cn
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from. the building,
0
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
M
CO
0
00
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURALFILL:
-4 C
Z
This, project (9 single family residences and new access road) will require
10-1
significant grading activities. See'grading plan dated August 11., 2004 by D.Breske,
CZ
>
'P.E.
Cn
All fill material shall comply with the recommendations of the this report and
0 -n
onsite inspections by this engineer.
M M.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under*the building, behind permanent
0 Cn
0
0 M
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas, where the underlying soils needs to,
C CD
C Cf)
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions. during and after excavation
mo�
Z
prior to placement of any structural fill.
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
Z
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
Cn
process.,
Z
0
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction.
equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the
lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents
recommended relative compaction for.structural fill:
City of Edmonds
clo 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
0
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor).
0 M
C
Use of On -Site Soils
0
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
z
and the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally sandy and
>
r
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
X
M
pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than
the optimum moisture content.
0
0 M
C,g)
CA
Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a
M 0
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,
X
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
inspection.
z
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
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 enRineer. It is assumed that this outfall pipe releases drainage from the
catch basins in 234t St. SK
The sub -grade sandy soils will allow for onsite infiltration if desired by project
developer.
City of Edmonds
c1o, Michel Const. Inc..
August 11, 2004
Page 9
Compliance with City of Edmonds drainage controls are geotechnically
acc ptable.
e
CONCRETE:
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.)
Z.
shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per.cubic yard of concrete mix.
.0
0
M
ROCKERIES:
This project requires extensive grading activities, both cutting and filling. See
OM
grading plan.
C
Ma
In order to provide erosional stabilization, rockeries are required along 234t h St.
0
0
Oc
w ditionally, interior rockeries are
SW and " rapping around" the west property line. Ad
X rn
MZ
proposed for individual lot. grading purposes.
C Z,
Geotechnical inspections of the project rockeries are required.
Inspections shall verify the following:
0 Dense dub -grade soils
ITIM
o Base rock embedment
Rock linkage and size
0 -
r
OM
Rock facebatter
C CO
Drainage zone
MO
Zr
INSPECTIONS:
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
Z
aspects are inspected. by this engineer during construction:
0)
Soil cuts
Z
0
Fill removal and grading activities
Foundation sub -grade verification
M
Retaining wall, or rockery placement
Fill placement
Subsurface drainage installation
Final erosion control and grading
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 10
SUMMARY:
d
d 234" St.
The proposed 9 lot development at the NW cornerof 92n Ave.. W an
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 I FUTURE RESIDENCES:
0
M
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
0 C:
As discussed in this report, dense native sub rade soils capable of providing
-9 M
M
excellent bearing capacity for foundations are present on the site. M Z
10-1
Z
Overall property development will include significant grading activities (as -4
discussed herein). 2;
After overall property development, individual houses may be.constructed after
review and al2proval by this engineer.
M M
No significant foundation problems were anticipated for the future residences 0
0
M
C co
providing overall property grading activities are inspected.. U).
Q 0
Z
CLOSURE:
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
3:
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 between CD
z
explored locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be 0
different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe
the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations., M
If there are any. questions, do not hesitate to call.
of WA
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
51
Geotechnical Civil Engineer
DMB:jpb V)04-
TAM
MAL
EXPIRES 12a Y;
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-6220 FAX (425) 771-0221
Website. wwwci.edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning Building Engineering.
C.
October 25, 2006
Z
0
Dwight McGrew
0
Michel Construction
7907 212"' St SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
0
C rn
1h 1h
RE: Permit Number 2005-10.51 (9202 234 PL SW) and 2005-1115 (9204 234 PLSW)
M (3
0
Request to Exceed Driveway Slope of 14.0/6
0
0 C
Dear Dwight:
IM
M Z
This letter is in response to your written request dated September 25, 2006, which we received
> Z
October 2, 2006, to exceed the maximum allowed driveway slope of 14%. After review of the
engineering requirements for the plat, the approved plat civil drawings and the approved single
family site plan, all the documents indicate the driveway slopes, to be less than, 14%. My
0
questions to you are; why weren't the approved plans followed and why couldn,'t the driveway
rn
slopes be constructed under 14%? Also, why wasn't this request submitted prior to the placement
M
of the house footing instead of waiting until the houses were constructed and driveways poured?
0,0)
0
0 rn
C co
With that said, and based Lyle Chrisman's site visit, the determination has been. made that the
C co
driveways, as they existj do not presenta traffic, pedestrian, bicycle or safety hazard nor is the
M 0
Z -
r
public health, safety and general welfare adversely aff6cted as required under ECDC 18.80.060.
X
Because the driveways are constructed, are less than 20%, and do not create a safety hazard to the
public, your request f6r the subject driveway waivers is hereb approved up to 18%.
y
>
In the future, verification of driveway slopes must be accomplished prior pouring the building
Ca
footings and substantiated by the engineering inspector.
Sincer
.0
M
�PE.
44vrli'd K. Gebert.
vid K. Geberi, P.E.
City Engineer
a1c
c: Street file
Plan Check File #2006-0543
S:\rNGR\PRIVAI'E DEVELOMEN'I'PROJE-CTS\DETERMINATIONS\Driveway Waivers\9202-9204 234th pl -michel memo.doc
Incorporated August 11, 1890
U"� A.UUJ OJU00
Height Calculation Work�heet
13 -P
Date
Permit Number,;? I k 1'5
Address pi's LO
Inspector 'Y�
zi
d
Average Grade 4C4.
O'�
Max Height (25'+Ave.)
7M
am
Actual Height (A+B+C)
ma
0
-10
0 C'
M
m Z�
.10
C2
>
r -4
Ca.
0 -n
M m�
0 r
Om'
C (j).
=(C
CO)
m
eo
zo
>:
z
6
U
z
0
M
71
Elevation of transit above Datum (B)
at
D -um Elevation (A)
Utcmp/bul Iding/fonns/height woi -Wiect
Sep 29 06 11:02a D. Bruce, P.E. P.1
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. 15P -r
Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
rb (f 17. Y
EFO TE C, IV.
ujaze cT 67 c7v
-T
o o t-r. ACV
1P P a k3 E
t TU
.0
%J (7,0 0
LOT
(710057 (5,
C M
0 3 Aiz
M 0.
0
(q,
0 0
C
Lo_X
M Z
'T*
Z
nt kE
t reF en Tffe 14 INS FC_"CW. (!rr t
0 n
m
is Apt ta\m-h
L !�. -r ft LE:
0 sajl� 41- , I I
WAS.
m m
of
FILL
0.
0
0 M,
C
C()
C ch
MO
Zr-
a a L) P-P --T t-Y
MtC kk kFL fAS rexPi; 7ES 12123/
Z.
a tj M 0 (17'
M403 YAW 5k 'P o -rs
I-ML , 1 .1. 1 (. LAW 0
z
0
TE itlk PJJ e%JT 5,c
0
m
L_07�s
KA03 Ajo 7-w 0 U t-t
RE-! <iEv kJ E 6, L= -rA V,6 Fj
6vhb-�L 0
A 10 r * Lek),e -rckAA =_Z04f #3 e-""Pt"
ts .9 TAb LF Bt3T P
S - FOUNDATIONS SITEDEVELOPMENT * INJAWTION - DRAINAGE - -DESIGN&. PERMIT -LEGAL
P.C. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155. (206) 546 -9217 FAX (206) 546-8442
FINAL PROJ ECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO:. PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROW FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
I.r SIGN
P -ASr
E NG INEERfNG D IVISION DATE
z
VI'UASI: SIGN
0
PLANNING. DIVISION DATE
0
M
PIXASH . SIGN
=n
PROJECT
OM
C
M
SITE ADDRESS
0
PERM ADB# DATEINSPECTED 6 �e
IT
0 C:
M Z
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED
C 2
A field inspection I was conducted to determine compliance with -approved plans. Final approval
6i
denotes that there are no objections from. the above signed Department to the release of
0 -n
-n
PERFORMANC E BONDS and the granting of
x
M M
0
OM
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Cco.
MO
z r
3:
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
z
R Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
3:
cn
z
0
M.
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES-:
0 Copy- of CORRECTION. NOTICE given to owner/con tractor by inpector
.2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Signature
1:tenip:b.1dg:forms:ocaprv1 3/2904
too)
RECORD -OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR
DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
Footing .......................
Wall..........................
Pier/Porch .................
Retaining Wall ..........
Z.
Slab Insulation ..........
0
M
L UMBING:
Underground .............
Rough -in ...................
M
Commercial Final ......
M
-40
0
HEATING:
C
M
ITI Z
Gas Test ..............
jo
Gas Piping .................
r
Equipment .................
Cf)
Commercial Final .......
0 -n
-n
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
(I
71
M M
NAILING ............ ! .............
L
Or -
FRAMING ........................
0 M.
C
Cn
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING....
Q 0
Z r-
INSULATION .....................
--I
Floor Insulation ........
Wall Insulation ...........
>
Z.
Ceiling Insulation .......
SHEETROCK NAILING
z
SPECIAL INSPECTION ...
0.
M
vk_
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
8 4.,
OCCUPANCY ..................
2005
1000
IS10,00