20060216.pdfDATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
ADDITION
REMODEL
E] REPAIR
DEMOLISH
GARAGE
zw�
OF
STORIES
_w
_w
WPLUMSINGIMECH
COMMERCIAL]
OM
COMPLIANCE OR
EP3RESIDENTIAL
OMIXED USE
CHANGE OF USE
MULTIFAMILY
SIGN
PENCE
WM eyes
X FT)
TANK
OTHER
RETAININGWALL
IT OCKERY
I
'IR SPRINKLER
REALARM
0 ELLING
UNITS
IPERMIT
k,
EXPIRES,4'Y)
PERMIT
NUMBER
joB S TE �T
ADDRESS
PLAT NAMESUNMVISION NO
LOT NO
11 IQ
LID EE S
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
I,-- . .....
EXISTING __ PROPOSED
�111 U1.
... 11 R4=
REQUIRED DEDICATION __ FT
VETER SIZE
LINE SIZE
NO 01 FIXTURES
PRV REQUIRED
I
I
YES 13 NO 13
R MARKS
OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE 'P"I
0 E
FIRE REVIEWED BY
IAII
VARIANCE OR CU
SHORELINE OR ADII
INSPECTION
REQ�4
I
J—PIETS"PA
So ExZ
0 YES
I
C0
ZONE SIGN AREA HEIGHT
WAIVER
A El
11110111
S S TUDY
LOT COVERAGE
REQUIRED
SETBACKS (FT)
PROPO
plopo
ED SETBACKS IFT.)
IR, ED
POS
FRON SIDE REAR
t?l
7,6
)TIRFA I PLANNING REVIEWED
By 5ATE
REQUIRED n YES
�EMARKS
101% IZI
STIR Cofff
K 0,p
vc!t7 Giv — 11,24-1 NX,
VALUATION
$ �Z: 6
'4'
AIWX -No
Description
FEE
Description
FEE
Plan Check
State Surcharge
4,
VESTEDDATE
Building Permit
�J��o
City Surcharge
J��
PLAN CHECK NO:
0
V1
Plumbing
7 4-, C)
Base Fee
Mechanical
loo
39
THI PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVE FSWQFRT.
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC
Grading
2,30
DONMAIN (CURES, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00AOSA15)
Engr, Inspection
PERMIT LIMIT. SEE See C 1100005")(6)
SEE 13ACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
P tCANT� ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE. HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS
A P L
Fire R.View
Plan Chk. Deposil
IN INTEREST. AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS T E CITY OF
E EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES. AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES Of WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR IND RECTLY
Fire Inspection
Receipt #
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT $HALL NOT BE
Land—pemsp.
Total Amt. Due
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CR`Y'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.
—
Recording Fee
_REB.ii#
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
APPLICATI
N'!PP ROVAL
GIVEN Is CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
TN� P. 111 �Vd by th,
.PPI_'_ . �.�
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC�
CALL
B.,Id,rq Offi-I .1 rI.- Dg�ry �.,t X _" P'.d,nd
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
CODE OF TAT -1 SHINGTON RELATING TO
FOR INSPECTION
.Mo,. �P PI-dVV
IN VIOL HE LABOR
AT 0
S SURAN
WORKMEN ATM IN
I AL SIGNA E
(425)
e� 0- "
771-0220�
a
E EEL &I
___MNED
A'IT N ION
EXT. 1333
ViFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
IT'S UV
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI-
ORIGI At -FILE Y
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 I ISC110 I IRC110-
PINK . OWNER GOLD ASSESSOR
1w" PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
z
0
4
0
F1
=i 9n
C: rn
M
00
C
M
M, �
z
3:
fie
0 n
M ITT
0
0
0 M
C rn
Kill)
IT 0
Z r-
z
--I
3:
1:1) 1
z
9
0
ITI
;0ONTn62�1Mp1c,v1
WATER/
2
MAFE
h
--2,YA&LA�OCr—
JH 4
u
12
110 H'A
�NCO
0
i� Q LLJ I YP-4
W C
ER
0 KIM= 59
= -
.9
INSIF IONS REaD
1326
09
CALL 4-2 .7 220 EXT.
)p ED RE61
ro�
N 1i`1pp19,i:-D
'15 00�
ROOF PFAIN C �,NN CTI
NECTI N
�,,,S KFIED
b-6, TYPE 1 BY ENGINEERING
CLE N
J--L
0
S T
aEWE
BE
ROCKERV-,
C
\1 RED WITHIN 21D 8
, /
TG BE TIED
01 Z
AVERAGE GRAVE
00
w 2,
(ORIGINAL GRADE SEE SURVEY P-04-096)
A 401.00'
a
Lu
...........
'
3
C. 357.75'
- - - - - -
D, 392.00,
DATUM: OLYMPIC VIEW WATER P15TRII T(M.L.L.W.)
MARK: INVERT OF 5ANITARY 5EWEK
MAX HEIGHT, 416.76
ACTUAL HEIGHT., 416.56'
FOOTING: 390.00'
iz
QENCH
24 HR. NOTICE REQ.
INSPECTION
I MANHOLE NO. 1-44, ELEV = 380-00
13AOEMENT: 393.501
15T FLOOR: 402.50'
FOR _j
RIM = 591.24'
IMPERVIOUS
5A515 OF 15EAKING: A 5ECTION 5U[3[)IVi5lON 15Y
F15HEK & A55OCIATE5
15UILPING (+ EAVE5):2,664.75 CO. FT.
RU5KIN
CITY COPY
DRIVEWAY: 1,1065.26 50. FT,
TMiE AND XID ADDRESS S;GN REQURED
PATIO: 230.77 CO. FT.
TOTAL: 4,250.75 5Q. FT,
Zone Comer Flag
LOT COVERAGE;
2,420.29 50. FT/5,017.66 5Q. FT, 30%
LOT ELOPE:
Setbacks ReqWred Actual
ko
10% E-W
PTA: 270-53roO-010&-500
2,
9.19.05
Front f�� -
Sides '715- 7.,S
(LOT 5 OF P-04-096)
MICHEL CON6TKUCTON INC.
REVISIONS:
Rear t 5'
9209 234TH PL OW
EOMOND5, WA. 95026
Other
Height
CITY COPY
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C,E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
August 11, 2004 SEP 2 1 2o05
PERMIT CouNTEF?
City of Edmonds
clo Michel Construction Inc.
z
7907 212�h St. SW #102
0
Edmonds, WA 98026
0
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation I Foundation Recommendations
q:9
Vi --i
Pr osed 9 Lot Single Family Residence Development
ff Edmonds, Washington
0 X
C M
0
92n Ave. W and 234th ST. SW
M
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechn ical evaluation of the
0
0 C
-49
Michel Construction property at the northwest comer of 92 nd Ave. W and 234h St. SW,
X M
M z
Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to owne r concerns regarding
C z
geotechnical conditions, as well as City of Edmonds requirements.
>
REFERENCES:
0
* Vicinity Map and topographic survey by LSA
MM
* Grading plans by Donna Breske, P.E.
0
0 Site photographs
OM
C CO
BACKGROUND:
9 cn
MO
4th St. SW is
The overall property at the northwest corner of 92nd Ave. W 23
;U
rectangular in shape (approximately 253 feet along 92"d Ave W, and 334 feet along
23e St. SW), See site survey map.
z
The majority of the overall property has not been developed and contains mature
trees, dense shrubberies, and areas of grasses. An existing house occupies the
z
0
northern central portion of the property as indicated on the survey plan.
4
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.
8011S - FOUNDATIONS - SIAEDEVELOPME10' - INSPECAION I DRAINAGE - DESIGN&PERmIr - ISGAI
P.0, Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
clo Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 2
Evidence of historic fill and associated debris is obvious adjacent 23 h St. SW
4i
See photographs.
It is understood that Michel Construction proposes to develop the property for a d
total of 9 individual lots with 9 single family residences. A new entrance cul-de-sac roa
will also be required. See site plan and grading plan. it is understood that the existing
residence will be removed,
EVALUATION:
In order to augment site geotechnical information, a series of 6 soil test pits were
dug on June 7, 2004. See test pit location log.
2 Test Pits (TP-1, TP-2) were dug on the slope adjacent 23e St. SW. Both test
pits revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely:
0" to 9, Organics, roots, forest duff.
FILL: historic fill material consisting of
8" to approx. 7.5'
sandy loam, occasional gravel, debris,
and gravels. This engineer observes
that this fill material was most likely
placed in conjunction with road grading
activities for 23,P St. SW.
7.5' to 10' (bottom of pits) Very dense native sands.
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.
Test Pits Number 3 through..6-
Test pits number 3,4,5,6 were in the central portion of the property where no fill
placement had occurred.
It is distinctly possible that the central portion of the site had been partially
excavated or "scraped down a few feef',
Test pit 3.4.5,
G" 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
clo 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,
CONCLU!SIONS I RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this engineer's investigation as well as experience in the
Construction site at the NW corner of 92nd Ave. W I
area with similar projects, the Michel
234h St. SW is geotechn Ily approve forth e proposed new 9 lot development and
Z
2
associated access road, subject to the following:
?i
M
Geotechnical compliance with grading plan by D. Breske, P.E. The grading plan
of the historic fill material adjacent 234th St. SW and slope
Y,
indicates removal
stabilization with rockeries.
The grading p Ian also indicates fill material properly placed in the low
C M
M 0
0
o
central portion of the property with compliance to structural fill placement
0
regulations.
2: M
M
The individual new residences may be founded on standar d reinforced
bearing pressure 2,000 P�sf.
0
c:
>
co ntinuous and spread footings with allowable
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
is inspected and verified by this engineer.
On
design provided drainage zone
M
For retaining wall design, use friction fa ctor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
0 U5
0
p c.f.
0
C:
Geotechnical inspections by this engin eer prior to any foundation concrete
in
Z
placement.
M
The proposed structures can be suppo rted on conventional continuous and
soils or on structural fill placed above
-4
X
>
Z
ings; bearing on undisturbed native
spread foot rk and Structural Fill for
native soils. See the later sub -section entitled -General Earthwo
Continuous and individual
structural fill placement and compaction recommendation&
footings should have widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24)
Z
2
spread _minimum
inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (1 8) inches below the
0
m
lower adjacent finish ground surface�
Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below
competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over
footings to expose
excavated hole, the width of the over -excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide
over -excavation and the footing widtK For
as the sum of two times the depth of the
an over -excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot wide
example,
footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation,
1 0
City of Edmonds
clo 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
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
z
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
must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
C M
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
M 0
0
Parameter Design Value
80
C
--i M
X M
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
M z
C
z
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Where:
0
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
M rn
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
OW I
0 I
01
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
C 0!
9 09
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
M
Z
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
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 these soils
can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We
z
0
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
:j
0
1 ', --rut, s of 12 inches for sealing purposes
M
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
c/o Michel Const. Inc..
August 11, 2004
Page 5
Paramete 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.
Where:
z
(1) p. c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.0 02 times the wall
C M
M a
0
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
C
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
X M
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation a nd
M z
C
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.
CO
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
O'n
n
-4
X
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the
M M
walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above
lateral Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need
a Y)
0 r-
0 M
pressures.
to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the
a CD
9 (n
appropriate design earth pressures.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
Q 0
Z
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
from the Placement
X
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting equipment.
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
z
equipment.
;j
Retaining Wall Backfill
z
9
Backfill within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
0
M
placed
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 compaction of structural fill behind retaining
and foundation walls.
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
Z
0
th St. SW.
As stated, historic fill material had been placed adjacent 234
0
r9
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
grading plan by D. Breske, P.E., dated August 11, 2004 and concurs with the proposed
C; M
C
grading activities, subiect to onsite inspections by this engineer.
0
M 0
-40
0 C
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
� K
M
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four
rn
(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
-4
(Horizontal: Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
U)
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excav ation cuts may be
o -n
-n
modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1V. It is important to note that
m M
sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware
0
of this potential hazard,
0 M
C Cn
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
C (n
M 0
Z
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial
layer of soil.
>
Z
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
Z
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed
0
rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar
M
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.
Mom
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 sumps interconnected by shallow
connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any
Z
0
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
i
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
T5
M
adjacent
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
=I
Vi
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTU L FILL:
M
This project (9 single family residences and new access road) will require
0
0
C
significant grading activities See grading plan dated August 11, 2004 by D. Breske,
X M
M Z
P.E.
0-1
C
Z4
All fill material shall comply with the recommendations of the this report and
onsite inspections by this engineer.
"n
structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permane nt
"n
4
:r
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
M M
a
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation
0
0 m
prior to placement of any structural fill.
c: a)
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
M 0
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.
-4
X
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction
Z
equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the
0
-4
lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents
0
M
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 i riches of
z
Sub -grade, 90% below that level
0
i
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
0
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Fn
Use of On -Site Soils
M
C
M 0
-4
0 0
C
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on -site
_j 9
M
soils are very wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains
m
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
moisture content of these soils greatly exceeds the optimum moisture content.
co
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
0 -n
-n �q
"pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than
M M
the optimum moisture content.
0
Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a
0 m
20
granular soil having no more then five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage
M 0
Z
of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
;a
The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper
z
organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
z
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
0
0
M
No drainage problems were evident to this engineer during June, July, or August
or 2004. A buried drainage oulfall pipe was called out on the project survey and
observed by this engineer. It is assumed that this ouffall pipe releases drainage from the
catch basins in 23e 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 geot . echnically
acceptable.
CONCRETE
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.)
cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix.
Z
shall have a minimu
ROCKERI
r
This project requires extensive gra ding activities, both cutting and filling. See
grading plan.
OM
In order to provide erosional stabilization' rockeries are re quired along 23,e St.
line. Additionally, interior rockeries are
C
MO
SW and "wrapping around the west property
0 C:
proposed for individual lot grading purposes.
3: M
M Z
Geotechnical inspections of the project rockeries are required
Inspections shall verify the following:
Dense dub -grade soils
Base rock embedment
Rock linkage and size
Rock face batter
Drainage zone
INSPECTIO
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
construction:
aspects are inspected by this engineer clurin
0 Soil cuts
. Fill removal and grading activities
* Foundation sub -grade verification
* Retainiing wall, or rockery placement
Fill placement
Subsurface drainage installation
Final erosion control and grading
C_ I
> Z
-4
0 -n
n
M M
a
0
M
0
M 0
Z r-
M
Z
Z
0
M
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 10
SUMMARY -
The proposed 9 lot development at the NW comer of 92 Id Ave. W and 23e 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 �!� construction.
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW I FUTURE RESIDENCES:
z
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
:;
Vj
to individual house construction.
0 M
C a
As discussed in this report, dense native sub -grade soils capable of providing
M 0
80
excellent bearing capacity for foundations are present on the site.
M
Overall property development will include significant grading activities (as
M z
C —Z
discussed herein).
After overall property development, individual houses may be constructed after
0 -n
review and approval by this enginee .
No significant foundation problems were anticipated for the future residences
M M
0
providing overall property grading activities are inspected.
0
C
CLOSURE:
903
To
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
>
warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the
between
z
results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions
explored locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be
z
different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe
the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
0
M
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
0 WAS
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
X 4- Geotechnical Civil Engineer
DMB:jpb
V 'Z-oe
Uennis M. uYuce, F.h. na-r t
M.&C,S- M2.A. Geotechniical/ Civil Engineer
446 l4i b
qq
M \C WE HIAJ os'-033
Z
0
C) 4=5
STATIEM914T OF MR41MAL RISK:
The plans and specifications for the
oc-r til. , W.C.have been reviewed by this engineer and conform to the
recommendations of the analysis and report and, provided that those conditions and
recommendations are satisfied during the construction and use, and inspected and
verified by this engineer, the area disturbed by construction will be stabilized and remain
stable and will not increase the potential for soil movement, and the risk of damage to
the proposed development and from the development to adjacent properties from soil
inst�ibility will be minimal.
(PEFC
-rtowq
ta C- le P—
soil.$ _ FouNGArIoNs - sire DEvsLopmEivr - INSP9CTION - DFWNAGE , DEsIGN & PERA41r - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546.!3217 - FAX 546-8442
RECEA JED
1i
NOV -
BUILDING DEPT.
C m
MID
0
80
C
m
m Z
0
n id
m M
0 vi
0
0
a co
C (n
M 0
M
--I
Z
Z
9
0
m
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geolechnical /Civil Engineer
R rE" C 1-'; 1 V I- L)
May 18, 2006 MAY 215
DEVELOP
�404T SERVICES GTR
Ci f OF ED'�Ol
City of Edmonds
Community Services Division
121 5�' Ave. N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Field Report - Geotechnical Inspections
Michel Construction, Inc. — New 9 Single -Family Residences Project
2341h St. SW and 92 nd Ave. W, Edmonds, Washington
9201, 9202, 9203, 9204, 9206, 9206, 9207, 9208, 9209 - 230 Pl. W
This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical inspections
for the Michel Construction development at the above referenced addresses. These
inspections were required as a condition of permit by the City of Edmonds Building
Department.
REFERENCES:
* Approved Project Plans
* Geotechnical and Inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E.
o Site photographs
INSPECTIONS:
This engineer continues to perform on -site geotechnical inspections for the
overall 9 house development including: site excavation, perimeter rockery construction,
perimeter drainage improvements and overall site preparation.
The majority of the house sites have had all foundation work completed and are
in the framing and interior work phase (see photographs).
Recently (May 18, 2006), geotechnical inspections have verified the soil cut
stability for the last residence (9209 234th Pl. SW), Lot No. 5. As with the other 8
residences, the soil cuts for Lot No. 5 encountered extremely dense native sub -grade
soils easily providing a minimum of 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. All excavation cuts
were stable for Lot No. 5.
SOILS FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
Re: Michel Construction, Inc.
May 18, 2006
Page 2
"OK" to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel and concrete
placement in accordance with City of Edmonds approved Plans and inspections.
City of Edmonds Inspection Items:
Soil Cuts: As stated, excavation work for Lot No. 5 completes all excavation for
9 house foundations. All excavation for all lots encountered dense native
sub -grade soil. This engineer provided regular and frequent inspections to Y21mt
stability of all excavation cuts.
Fill Removal and Grading Activities: Previously, this engineer inspected and
verified the removal of historic fill placement prior to development. All excavation
and grading activities have been completed as of this date (pending final
individual landscaping for each lot).
Foundation Sub -Grade Verification: This engineer has inspected each of the 9
use foundation excavations and verified extremely dense native sub -grade
soils easily providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity.
Lot No. 5 had been recently excavated and completes all 9 foundation sites.
-tiered
Retaining Wall / Rockeries: Previously, the perimeter rockeries (two
rockeries in some locations) had been inspected and verified. NOTE: The
perimeter rockeries have performed very well during the extremely rainy January
2006 period.
Each residence foundation functions as a stem wall and retaining wall against the
stable earth cut. All rockery and retaining wall work is neotechnically approved
through this date (May 18, 2006).
Fill Placement: No significant quantities of fill material were required for
geotechnical purposes. During the rainy periods, foundation contractor chose to
place crushed rock as an improved working surface for better foundation results.
This engineer worked closely with foundation contractor and veirified proper
placement of all rock sub -grade material.
Subsurface Drainage: All subsurface drainage has been properly completed for 7
;f the 9 house.
Lot No. 6 is currently having the subsurface drainage installed. Geotechnical
inspections are ongoing.
0
C M
MID
0
80
C
M
M z
jo-4
C _Z
E:-j
4 9.;
0-n
mm
005
0
, r-
C
M 0
Z
z
City of Edmonds
Re: Michel Construction, Inc.
May 18, 2006
Page 3
Lot No. 5 has recently been excavated and subsurface drainage work is weeks
away.
All of the 7 house that have completed subsurface drainage work are approve
with regard to subsurface drainage.
z
Erosion Control: Contractor continues to maintain a "clean site" with a paved
les as required, siltation fencing within each lot and the 0
entrance with straw ba
fact that the entire site is downhill from surrounding roads and properties. All
approved through this date (May 18,
temporary erosion control measures are 74 -ii
2006). Vi --j
X
0 m
c:
SUMMA M0
-40
0 C:
Ongoing geotechnical inspections have verified the proper completion of X M
geotechnical aspects to date (May 18, 2006). 171 z
C
Geotechnical inspections continue.
Cn
0
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. "n
M. M M
a U5
$01 W&S 0 r-
0 M
C
7406 ;0
Al, z
len M Bruce,P.E.
Geotechnical Civil Engineer
I EXPIRES 2aY 65
z
DMB:abj 04
cc: Michel Construction, Inc. 0
Fri
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotech�!-cW/UMIEnglneer
January 2, 2007
City of Edmonds D.S.D. JAN08
c/o Michel Construction, Inc. SuliNvo �907
7907 212" St. SW, # 102 Ory OR osp4m"
Edmonds, WA 98026 &04Q*1Vr
Subject: - FINAL Report - Geotechnical Inspecflons - Lot Nos. 4, 5 and 6
92087 92-69-,-9207 234h Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington -
Michel Construction, Inc. Project
City of Edmonds Permit Nos. 2006 - 0019, 0216, and 0008
This engineering report presents the final results of geotechnical inspections for
Lot Nos. 4, 5, and 6 at the Michel Construction, Inc. development at 92d Ave. W and
23,0h PI. W, Edmonds, Washington. These 3 lots represent the last inspections for the
overall development of 9 lots total. Previous geotechniGal reports have addressed
inspection issues at the other 6 lots.
REFERENCES:
9 City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
* GeotechniGal and inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E.
a Photographs
INSPECTIONS:
As previously stated, this engineer has provided ongoing geotechnical
inspections, as required by City of Edmonds permit conditions for the overall 9 lot
development. This report concludes inspections for Lot Nos, 4, 5, and 6.
Soil Cuts: All excavation and soil cuts remained stable throughout the project.
No geotechnical adverse conditions were observed.
Fill Removal: A small amount of fill (up to 18 inches thick) was removed during
initial excavation and site clearing. Approved.
Foundation Sub-GL@4w. Previously verified and approved. All foundation footings
were properly placed in accordance with City of Edmonds approved plans.
SOILS - FOUNDA77ONS - SffE DEVELOPMENT` - INSPECT70N - DRWNAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (20% 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
z
M
C M
M a
0
80
C:
3: m
C z
>
0 -n
.n
nim
0
00)
r-
0
C M
CD
C Cn
M 0
3:
z
0
4
0
M
"I
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Construction, Inc.
January 2, 2007
Page 2
R ckeries: As previously reported, the perimeter rockeries for the overall
lopment were completed at the beginning of the project (see previous
reports). All rockeries have performed properly (good performance through the
record November 2006 rains). All rockeries are approved as placed.
Fill Placement: None required for geotechnical foundation support purposes,
Localized gravel was utilized to improve working surface conditions. All fill
material and placement is approved.
Z
Subsurface Drainage: All subsurface drainage for the new houses on lots 4, 5
0
R1
and 6 were inspected, verified, and approved as placed.
'fi r
NOTE: The rear (westerly side) of Lot No. 5 contains a significant drainage
:q �
0
"junction" (see photographs). This engineer understands that project drainage
M
C a : ,
M
engineer (Donna Breske, P.E.) has subm ifted plans for City of Edmonds review
0
80
and approval regarding the "bypass" of the upper City of Edmonds street
C:
drainage to the "low spof'of the rear of Lot 5. Significant volumes of storm water
3: M
M
continue to flow at this point.
0
Erosion Contro: Michel Construction properly maintained all erosion control
3:
measures throughout the project.
0
n
Permanent erosion control measures have been installed as of the last
geotechnical inspection (January 2, 2007). Lawn, shrubbery and beauty bark
M rn
0
have been properly placed (see photographs). There are no exposed earth
0
0
surfaces.
C
9 co
During construction, temporary Eco-Blocks were placed at the rear of Lot No. 5
rn
for slope stabilization purposes. This engineer recommended that these
temporary Eco-Blocks be removed and slopes "back -graded" to avoid any
potential surcharge on the temporary Eco-Blocks. The rear of Lot No. 5 has
>
Z
been satisfactorily back -grades with beauty bark placed as an erosion control
stabilizer.
Additional erosion control rockenes and one -block high Eco-Block walls have
Z
9
been properly placed to improve erosion control measures.
3
M
All permanent erosion control measures are approved.
'City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Construction, Inc.
January 2, 2007
Page 3
SUMMARY:
All special geotechnical inspection items have been properly completed and are
verified as of January 2, 2007, including permanent erosion control measures.
It is understood that the 'storm water junction zone" at the rear of Lot No. 5
complies with City of Edmonds approved drainage designs.
z
This report completes geotechnical inspection duties by D. Bruce, P.E.
M
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
0
-40
C
Z
IT405
MAL
)L
5;
-n
0 'n
M M
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
OF)
0 r-
:11
Geotechnical Civil Engineer
0 M
C
DMB:abj
0
cc: Michel Construction, Inc.
z
z
0
M
I
m
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
Height Calculation Worksheet
Date C
-mit Number
Address 9a,3-7 D34-'�,PISL-J
hispectur-y'4%
AveragcGradc -3chk,-75
Max Height (25'+Avc.) 4 11.p -7S
M
Actual Height (A+B+C)
OX
M
0
0
1M n
C
>
o"n
M M
=(C
0
0
CO
M
z
5.6 z
;U
Coll
z
0
M
Elevation of transit above Datum (B)
Datum Elevation (A)
Jj
I/temp/building/fomis/licight worksheet
04
F BUILDING
DE�,ARTMIkNTO S
PER INTERNAT169AL RESIDENTIAL �ODE SECTION R110
AT:— 9209 — 234u'.P1 SW Building Permit M 2006-0216
occupancy established by this certificate: R3 Dwelling Units:
VB
No. Stories: 1 Basemer�i: I Type of Construction:_
Owner of building: 61 Wistructidn.'A
The Single Family-Resid t 209 — 234 Pl%W.""' dappr ved complying with the requirements of the
I 205T a rqup , anddivision IF occupancy and the use for which
200 ditionoftheinterna onal esidential Code asbd1bpte&by
the proposed occupancy is classified. I li 1, =
Issued this 4th day of January, 2007
Chief Building Official
By:_
Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a now Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official,
Permit Inspection Details
Permit: BLD20060216
1077 - E46ginearing Final
Complete?
Y,
01102/ 1 2007 Sibrel 30 OK to Final.
Y
Total Time:
30
1106 - B-Setbacks
Complete?
05122/2006 MS 20 1 SETBACKS APPROVED PER STRUNG PROPERTY LINES
Total Time:
20
1108-BwFootlngs
Co plete?�'
In
r
05/221200 6 MS 20 FOOTINGS APPROVED
y
Total Time:
20
z
1110 - B-Foundation W all
Com ete?,
X
06 1 1 02120 06 MS 20 FOUNDATION APPROVED
Y
0
c
Total Time:
20
Corn
V-
7118/2006 MS 20 SLAB INSULATION APPROVED
Y
20
67)
Total Time:
0 IT
C
1126 - liaOlunr%6 Ground Work.,
Comple lie
�:'r�, xl�
mo
0
--10
07/1812006 MS 20 UNDERGROUND PLUMBING APPROVED
Y
0 C
08M/2006 MS 29 UNDERGROUND PLUMBING IN G ARAGE APPROVED
Y
:0
Total Time:
49
ITI IT
z
1122 -,B wFjn%t Floor Framing
'Orh
C plate?
to
0812612006 MSnook 0 APPROVED
Y
>
r- -4
Total Time:
0
1126'. -Plumb,f�ougti in
"y'
0 -n
06jlli�006 MS 20 APPROVED
Total Time:
20
?
Complete ,:
Im m
1128 Gas Test/Pipe
09/12/2006 MS 20 APPROVED
Y
20
0
0
Total Time:
1132 -:121-Eiterlor Shdathmi
M 0
6911wooli Ms 25 APP'RO'VED
Y
Z r-
09MV2006 MS 25 APPROVED
Y
T
;13
Total Time:
Complete.?,
so
113i!iTB-sffearNa1II-ng,;,
0911212066 MS 20 APPROVED
Y
z
Total Time:
20
-4
1140 -'B-Height.yerificintlori
om
09/1212006 MS 25 APPROVED
z
Total Time:
25
Complete?-,
0
m
1142. B-Framing I
N
OW12/2006 MS 30 C ORkECTION NOTICE WRITTEN
09/26/2006 Snook 20 APPROVED
y
Total Time:
so
1144. B-Wall lnsulatlonfCaulk
complete?
�y
09126/2006 Snook 20 APIPROVED!
Y
Total Time:
20
1146.- B-Floor Insulation/Caulk
Cornplete?�
O9/25i2OO6 Snook 20 APPROVED
Y
Page 1 of 2
71912009 9:15:13 AM
Total Time: 20
"61/0312007 Snook
25 APPROVED
Total Time: 25
"etroc a
0, 6W
1010312006 Snook
20 APPROVED
y
Total Time: 20
.1.168 "13.4 dini 0! 1
Tl�a
C ia li, Y
01/03/2007 Snook
26 APPROVED
y
Total Time: 25
Total Inspections: 21
Total Time: 454
z
11
IT1
C
ITI
O"n
-n
M ITI
0
M 0
ITI
719/2009 g:i5:i3 AM
Page 2 of 2
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED
SETBACK$ .................
V\q S
FOUNDATION:
vyl%s
Footing ......................
MIS
Wall ..........................
Pier/Porch
z
Retaining Wall ...........
0
q
Slab Insulation
0
171
�Jk
PLUMBING:
Underground
Ak yz Rough -in ...................
x
0 IT!
C
M
Commercial Final
-40
0
0 C
HEATING:
0,
M
IT!
ID
Gas Test ...............
z
—4
'Gas Piping ...........
Equipment .................
0 -n
Commercial Final
"n
—4
x
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
ITIM
055
NAILING ..........................
0
0 In
C
FRAMING ........................
co
U)
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING
0
INSULATION .............
Floor Insulation
Wall Insulation ...........
z
__4
Calling Insulation
SHESTROCK NAILING
z
SPECIAL INSPECTION
0
IT
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY ..................