20020542.pdfDATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAMBINAME .1 .11SINISS
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY ITTLEPHI?NE�t
Z;
PERMIT EXPIRES
2"�SEE PERMIT 'WQ7-u'jLj 2�
JOB zeoq_ NUMBER SUITE/AP`r#
ADDRESS 2-1411113- '14-1,1z
4e
Pt AT NAMEISUBDIVISION No. I LOT NO, LID NO.
LID FEE $
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP aw
K1.
EXISTING — PROPOSED_
a—., a.
REQUIRED DEDICATION— Pr 13
NAME
METER SIZE
I LINE SIZE
1 11 . 01 11-URIS
PRV "EII1101
J YES 13 N
ADDRESS
REMARKS
I I � 5'_ + 4,
OWNEFUCONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTRO
__L/DRAINAGE
CITY ZIP JTEU�PHO'
- J
NAME
ENGINEERING
ADDRESS
'S
REVIEWE DATE
1510 2-
FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE
C C, Ily ZIP TELEPHONE
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION
VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADS# JHSFEC_TQN_
R E oi� , I So 0
POSTED
z
E3 Y 1
PROPERTY EL NO.
SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT
COMPLETE El A PROPOSED A�F
0
/ED
:7T I ;��V
EXP NZA, I " /A
,
0 NEW [2�-ITEESIDENTIAL )C�LIU..:'.) I MEC-
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS 11) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT)
9
fjj-<DDITION r o COMPLIANCE OR
COMMERCIAL
ALLOWED AROPOSED FROM SISIE AFAR, FRONT LIBSIDE 11.
1�3
65
0
CHANGE OF USE
PAKING
M
C:
0 REMODEL 0 APARTMENT 0 SIGN
RIE70 PROVIDED I LOT AREA DATE
m a
0
FENCE
G]M
I
80
0 REPAIR CY.. o
REMARKS
C
_X_")
o
E:] DEMOLISH 0 TANK OTHER
IE7 MOW U?,4r6iW-Ajr_ Amn 1"c_
3: M
mz
o GARAGE R
C [3 REIAINING WALL RENEWAL
ARPORT OCKERY
0" 61L Ell DF—:: I<- PE, 10 F
(TYPE OF USE,
?DRNACTTVITv) EXPLAIN:
77,42
CHECKED BY jT1P1_n7U1TI N 0 UPANT
fSINEES
NU DER MUSS OF
OF WELLING r
I M STORIES U ITS
GRO P
JAR
SPECIAL IN TOR EA occu
REQUI LOADPANT
0 IT
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
YES
REMARKS
ITT M
P FLOGRESS INSPECTIONS PER USC 1081FINAL INSPECTION REOD
0 T)
0
�ba)
OC mca
W"11Z TAI-IA :90 1, 4
_M��L
AM L
C Go
M
[2rrk-- QF;V- -5'CUTT:
0
Z r-
letr_- I LK L. er'-_ fC'jEi2QI
VALUATION $ 911
M
JAf4425D cbe- n-_-m1-AjAA6a I,//
Description FEE Description FEE
>
AQ-
an Check
z
-4
kilding
T
PLAN CHECK Ch- DATE
Plumbing
z
�JVISTED
9
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE IN RKNOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORKTO
Mechanical
0
m
1= BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
2 DOMAIN ICURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS MARQUEES. STC.) WILL REQUIRE
3
Grading Recording Fee
sEPANxrEPERMiSSION.
Engr. Review City Surcharge
PE MrfAPPUCAYION; INDAYS
PERMIT LIMIT. I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN ISO DAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR A40RE INFORMATION
Engrinspection State Surcharge
'APPLICANT. ON SENA F OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
Traffic Mitigation Plan Chk Deposit
IN INTEREST, AGREE TO INDEMNIFY DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
FOR
Fire Review Receipt
AM CLAIMS DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
9 FROM THE ISSUAKIC OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
—
Fire Inspection Total Amount Due -"�e I
2 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY$ ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.-
Landscapeinsp. Receipt #
I HERE 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
APPLICATION APPROVAL
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC.
P—hurfil Ylgnedby ft
CALL
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STAT OFWASHINGTON RELATINGTO
WORKMEN'S C9YEENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
..KTh1,.pP1I.rdIrI.
d119 Off, let., hiathae Deelly: ald Fees are Id.and
FOR INSPECTION 'ecol�ptisacknmtadg,dlnspacepmid.pd.a
NY), E SIGNED
(1425) OFqPIALS SI�NATU�� DATE
lot/
- LN' a '
771 0220 RELEASED BY
ATTENTION
EXT 1333
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
771-0221
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI-
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109
ORIGINAL . FILE Y'
FAX PINK - OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR
10101
ZONE 12-
THORSEN
APPROVED BY ENGINEERING
SETBACKS.
FRON
7 05 LAKE BALLINGER WAY
2
SIDE lot
EDMONDS, WA 98026-8546
REAR
OTHER-
58'
8'-3 W-9.
2'-10 1/2t-
14_`�
4L
2A
oll
(o
9'-011 i
I -
1-4
E
T_
DRIVEWAY
(EXIST.)-
(EXIST.)
3w
(EXIST.)
M.
—DECK
(NEW)
ca
>
E
z
0
CONSTRUCT101
I
GARAGE
(EXIST.)
0VERHj
M
TYP.
A.
0
rri
E
DECK
/-FEN
(EXI
T.
I
tT
.. ...... .....
...
58*—
37�-4 1/21
GuTTERsiDowNspoUTS OWNER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE
SITE PLAN��
'70 CONNECT TO EXIST. SYST. FOREROSION
CONTROLAND DAMAGE
APPROVED 8YIPLANNING
JUN 2 5 2003
I /Zo
it 1 1-011
CITY COPY
PERMIT COUNTEW"
ZONE 12-
APPROVED BY ENGINEERING SETRACI<S:
THORSEN
7205 LAKE BALLINGER WAY SIDE lot
EDMONDS, WA 98026-8546
Date, REAR
OTHER
�t-�2'-10 1/2"
Hfm
8'-3"
Q -0
2 4
@01
(EXIST.) --
DRIVEWAY v
(EXIST.)
DECK
Do (NEW)
>
CON RUCTIO
G G�
ARAGEI OVE M
(E I
(EXI ST. @ 18 -.j
F-
FEN DECK
/-(EXI
ST
RH
D K
ECi
>
LT)
b
J :� .. ....
01-011
31
1 58' k�7*-4 1/2"
GUTTERS/DOWNSPOUTS OWNER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE
SITE PLAN(�� "p-1, =c
TO CONNECT TO EXIST. SYST. FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DAMAGE
lAjA,,1 'I 9i 2000?
off 10 V D�V? ZLI IN 11 q
.2-02 08-27A P. 02
117 Surnmit Ave, E SO 1 Structural Note
Seattle, WA S1 Foundation Pla
206.325,0646
SIA Level I Framin-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION S2 Level 2 Floor F
LAKE a/r,LLINGER LAND CO SUBDIV. 1 BLK. 008 S3 Level 2 Roof Fr
D-00-LO 1 3 TGW PTN VAC RD IN FRONT OF & S4 Structural D6ta;
ADJ. TO SO LOT LESS S 16 FT S 16FT OF SD VAC RD
CONV TO ST OF WA BY DEED. S5 Structural Detai
S6 Structural Detai
APN
S7 Structural Detai
00488800800300 :0j
S8 Structural Detai 0
10
-G'---�3F3*,'-`---- ig1_911 0 M,
C:
m C)
"Fi
Do,—O" m Mr
C: 2
'E
RESIDENC >
E:
(EXIST.)--
0 _n
"n
X1
IF m M
Sim V. 06)
co 1�& L)�A ki 0
> 0 Fn
it 0)
-7 cal
M 0
z
—21 -11
GARAGE X
(EXIST.) z
0
< 17
AY
y
XI
V
7'
6'�
L)
L)
L 'A
_ 7 14"
4,4
0
f
0)
_T_
5 4-FENCE
m ..I I I
(EXI!;T.)
Lm NGE-rz. WAY
RECEIVED 4 -- — - — - _6 -0
F
JUL 16 2002 9
PERMIT COUNTER 7'- 1
SITE PLAN" CITY Copy
April 4, 2002
Ms. Chanda Earhart
Develop ment Services Department
City of Edmonds
It
Edmonds, WA 98020
N:
3
BE: Thorsen ResidenQe. 205 Lake Ballinger Way
M 0
Dear Ms Earhart;
2
I am the Architect for this project and this lefter is written
M
rn.�
ON
in support of a request for a "Conditional Waiver"to the City's
> Z
concerns due to the project's location at Lake Ballinger. Let me
briefly explain the extent of this remodel/addition and the rationale
03
for the desiqn.
The project consists of two parts: first — the repair of
seismic and settlement damage to the existing house and second
M M
the addition of a new top floor over a portion of the existing
0
0 M
structure. The addition extends 5' over the existing house, towards
C M
C rh
the Lake. This was done in order to put the structu ral support for this
buildin?. This new structural support
M 0
new load outside of the existing
4 — the
be for the seismic/wind oading of the addition
must adequate
existing walls and foundations are not substantial enough to take
these new loads.
I'm including a side view of the project, which illustrates
Z
the minimal overhang of the new work as well as the fact that the
existing deck is already closer to the Lake than our- proposed
Z
9
addition. This minimal overhang allows for a prope r foundation for
trame without jeopardizing the
0
M
the new columns and moment
bearing conditions under the existing foundations.
I hope this is an understandable explanation of the
project and that you can understand the minimal but necessary
extension toward the Lake. I don't believe that this represents any
risk to the Lake or its associated wetlands.
Sincerely,
Mark Millett, Architect 2'302
0
LJ
M,
00
m
-101
oc:
AT
-0 -q
03
mm
w8xl 0
0
c
M 0
rQ c- V-1
V
Mom
CA
m
4, 'TS
8x8 T.S.
COLUMN
NEW
f MC-
-------------
------------- —
Gerry Thorson
c/o Millett Associates
117 Summit Avenue East 14
Seattle, Washington 98112
MAY 0 9 2002
Z'
Attention: Mark Millett
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance
Proposed House Addition
q
7205 Southwest 244th Street
Edmonds, Washington
a m
c):
M
0
Dear Mr. Millett:
-10
0
m
On June 13, 2000, the undersigned senior geotechnical engineer visited the site of your proposed
m
house addition on Southwest 244th Street in Edmonds. The purpose of this visit was to observe
C
>
the existing site conditions, and to develop opinions regarding foundation support for a second-
-4
story addition onto the eastern half of the existing house. The recommendations and conclusions
presented in this report are professional opinions based on the visual observations made during our
0
site visit and on previous experience with other projects in the vicinity. Shallow manual explorations
were excavated adjacent to the existing foundation, but no deep subsurface explorations were
M M,
conducted for our work.
0
In R
We understand that you propose to add a second -story addition to the eastern half of the existing
C:
structure. No plans were available at the time of our visit. But, through discussion with the project
M 0
architect and the structural engineer, we understand that the new structure loads will be carried
down through new structural elements and that one of the structural issues is shear wall upgrades.
SITE CONDITIONS
Z!
P
SURFACE CONDITIONS
The subject property is located on the southern shore of Lake Ballinger and is directly north of
Southwest 224th Avenue. The site is currently developed with a residence that features a
m
singlestory over a basement that daylights to the north. No indications of major settlement were
observed in most of the residence, but two major cracks in the foundation were observed in the
northwestern corner of the house. One crack was on the northern wall and the other was on the
western wall, on the northern side of the fireplace. A downset in the foundation was obvious at this
location.
The southern portion of the site is generally on grade with the adjacent street, but a 10-foot grade
transition occurs at the location of the house. A 4- to 5-foot-tall block wall is located approximately
15 to 20 feet north of the residence, creating a relatively flat yard adjacent to the house, From the
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
'Gerry Thorson c/o Millatt Associates JN A2092
December 19, 2000 Page 2
wall, the lot continues to descend gently towards the lake in a large yard area. We understand that
seasonal flooding of this flat yard area is typical.
ANTICIPATED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Our understanding of the subsurface conditions at the site is based on the observations made
during our site visit and the geologic map of the vicinity. Prior to our site visit, two shallow
excavations were made adjacent to the northern edge of the foundation. A hand auger was used
to further advance the excavations. The excavation near the northwestern corner of the house
showed the foundation to be approximately 4 feet below the existing ground surface. Beneath the
footing, we encountered loose, silty sand and peat to at least 2.5 feet below the foundation.
Relatively difficult excavation was encountered at that depth, but the gravel in the soil could have
overstated the density. The eastern excavation revealed that the existing foundation extends to
approximately 4 to 5 feet below the existing grade. Extension of the exploration indicated loose to
medium -dense, wet sand to at least 3 feet beneath the elevation of the existing foundation. Based
on the topography on the site, we suspect that these sands are fill soils overlying the peat and
topsoils. The Geologic Map of the vicinity (Mackey Smith, 1975) indicates that the site is underlain
by Vashon Till (Qvt). The Vashon Till formation is a compact matrix of slit, sand, and gravel that
was compressed by the glacial advance.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
Based on the observations made during our site visit, it appears that the northern end of the
existing foundation is underlain by 6 variable depth of loose, native and fill soils. The only major
settlement observed during our visit or reported by the homeowner is in the northwestern corner of
the house. We anticipate that some settlement of the northern end of the house has occurred, but
that the foundation has had enuugh strength to settle without significant cracking. This hypothesis
could be confirmed with a level survey conducted inside the house. The weight of an additional
floor placed on the eastern half of the existing foundation would, in our opinion, result in
unacceptably large additional settlement as the loads are transferred to the underlying loose soils
and they consolidate. Based on the topography of the lot, we would anticipate that the settlement
would be the largest on the northern edge of the addition area where the loose soils are the
deepest. Differential settlement between the eastern addition area and the western existing
foundation would also be expected due to the variable loading.
Due to the aforementioned potential for settlement of the foundation, we do not recommend placing
additional loads on the existing foundations. We further recommend that all new foundation loads
from the addition be supported by new foundations that bear on the dense glacial till soils that are
purported to lie beneath the site. The till soils were not encountered in our explorations, which
extended up to 8 feet beneath the existing ground surface. Due to the depth of potential
excavation and the limited access on the backside of the house for excavation equipment, we have
discussed with the owner and the design team the use of driven pipe piles to support the new
structural loads or underpin the.existing foundations. We have also discussed utilizing passive soil
pressure and driven or torque ground anchors to supply lateral restraint to the shear foundations.
The settlement and foundation breakage in the northwestern corner of the house could also be
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Geny Thorson clo Millett Associates JN A2092
December 19, 2000 Page 3
repaired by underpinning the existing foundation with pipe piles. If underpinning is attempted in this
area, we recommend that the fireplace be underpinned as well, due to its proximity to the settled
area and its substantial weight.
A representative of Geotech Consultants, Inc. should observe the pipe pile and lateral anchor
Installation during construction to verify that suitable soil or rock is exposed. King County may
require that we review the final plans prior to construction.
PIPE PILES
Z
0
.4
A 2-inch-diameter pipe pile driven with an 80- to 90-pound jackhammer to a final penetration rate of
M
I inch or less for one minute of continuous driving may be assigned an allowable compressive load
of 2 tons per pile. Piles can be used to support the new foundation loads or to underpin the
65
existing foundation. Pile caps similar to conventional footings may be used to transmit loads to the
D m
piles. Welded or snug friction couplers should be Used to connect subsequent pipe.sections on
C:
M V
piles that need to be extended in length.
0 0
Due to their small diameter, the lateral capacity of vertical pipe piles is negligible. To provide lateral
m
mz�
support for the proposed construction, we recommend driving battered piles in the same direction
10-1
C: —
Z
as the slope of the ground. The lateral capacity of a battered pile is equal to the lateral component
of the allowable compressive load. The allowable vertical capacity of battered piles does not need
to be reduced if they are battered steeper than 1:5 (Horizontal:Vertical). Additional lateral capacity
could be derived from passive earth pressures on the grade beams. If structural fill is placed
10
against the outside of the grade beams, the allowable design passive earth pressure from the fill
can be assumed to be equal to that pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid with a density of 225
M m
a
pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
0 r-
0
M 0
CHANCE ANCHORS OR DRIVEN SOIL ANCHORS
Z
Chance anchors consist of single or multiple helixes that are rotated into the ground on the end of
round or square metal shafts. These anchors can be used to support both compression and
tension loads, but their lateral capacity is negligible due to the relatively small diameter of the metal
shafts. The design capacity of single helix anchors is the allowable soil bearing capacity on the
helix area. Multiple -helix anchors are typically assumed to have a design capacity equal to the sum
Z
of the allowable bearing capacity on each helix, if they are separated more than three helix
diameters. Buckling of the shaft may limit the design load, and we recommend that the shaft be
—
0
analyzed for buckling assuming no lateral soil support, as the installation of the anchor will disturb
m
the soil in the vicinity of the shaft.
The minimum recommended diameter of a single helix anchor is 8 inches. The ultimate capacity of
the anchor in tension or compression can be estimated roughly by multiplying the installation torque
by 10. We recommend that the helix be installed at least 4 feet into competent, native soil. The
anchors should be installed by a specialty contractor familiar with the design and installation of
chance systems. The contractor can assist with refining the anchor design and details and
estimating capacities for different soil and anchor conditions. At least one anchor should be load
tested to at least 200 percent of the design load to verify the allowable capacity.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Gerty Thorson c/b Millett Associates JN A2092
December 19, 2000 Page 4
Driven or Manta Ray anchors include a toggle plate that is attached to an all -thread bar. The
anchor head is driven with a jackhammer through the use of a driving bar. Once proper depth and
driving resistance are achieved, the anchor is pulled to activate the toggle mechanism and wedge
k�
the anchor into the parent soil. As with the chance anchors, the Manta Ray anchors should be
installed by a specialty contractor familiar with the design and installation of chance systems. The
contractor can assist with refining the anchor design and details and estimating capacities for
different soil and anchor conditions. At least one anchor should be load tested to at least 200
percent of the design load to verify the allowable capacity.
Z
EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES
SO,
0,
rg
No excavations other than for the relatively shallow grade beams are anticipated. Excavation
slopes should never destabilize existing upslope structures or exceed the limits specified in local,
"n
state, and national government safety regulations. Based upon Washington Administrative Code
0
(WAC) 296, Part N, the soil type at the subject site would be classified as Type C. Therefore,
m
c:
slopes cannot be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical).
m
0
0
0 C:
All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Water should not
M M
be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes
m
should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the
10
c: —
stability of the surficial layer of soil.
LIMITATIONS
0
The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site
MM
0 vi,
conditions as they existed at the time of our site visit. If the subsurface conditions encountered
0 r
0
during construction are significantly different from those anticipated, we should be advised at once
a
K C0
so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary.
Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites. Such unexpected
Cn�
conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed
;U.
project.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Gerry Thorson, Millett Associates, and their
Z
representatives, for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and
65
conclusions are based on the site materials observed and on previous experience with sites that
Z
have similar observed conditions. The conclusions and recommendations are professional
-04
opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the limited scope of our
m
services. No warranty is expressed or implied.
Thorson Millett Associates
JN A2092
.'Gerry c/o
December 19, 2000
Page 5
We trust that this report meets your immediate needs for the proposed development. Please
contact us if we can be of further service.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
51 ON S 7,
WAS&
Ae, 36094 9
James H. Strange, Jr., P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
James R. Finley, P.E.
Principal
JHS/JRF: alt
06/11/2002 13:28 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 01
13256 Noftifto 201h Stmi, Suim
OEOTECU BellvmWowngwil 980
CONSULTANTS, INC. (425)747-56)8 PAX(425)747-85
June 11, 2002
JN A2092
Gerry and Meg Thorson
7205 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Subject: Review of Plans
Proposed House Addition
7205 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, Washin n
00
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Thorsen:
We have completed a general review of the geotechfiical aspects of the plans for the addition to the
eAsting house at 7205 Lake Ballinger Way in Edmonds, During the review process, we made
recommendations to the structural engineer regarding changes to the plans. Those changes were
incorporated into the final set of plans that we reviewed.
The plans we reviewed included Sheets Al through At 1. Millett Associates prepared these planst
which are dated April 15, 2002. We also reviewed Sheets S1 through S8. Lance Harlocker
Associates prepared the structural sheets, which are also dated April 15, 2002. Ale completed a
geotechnical study of this site on December 19, 2000, and supplied additional pipe pile information
in a memorandum dated January 22, 2002.
We understand that the new footings on north side of the residence will be supported by new,
3-inch-diameter pin piles, and that all of the additional loads from remodeled structure will beat on
pipe piles or on the southern basement retaining well footing. Our engineers will need to field -verify
the bearing conditions beneath this southern basement footing. If the bearing conditions are not
adequate, these additional loads Will also need to be supported by new pipe piles.
In our judgement, considering the above comments, the plans conform to the recommendations in
our geotechnical engineering report, We request that we be kept informed of the progress of
construction so, we are able to make the necessary observations, as required by the City of
Edmonds, in a timely manner.
N S
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTERCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
e011110 Z_
James H. Strange, Jr., P,E.
Project Manager
cc: Millett Associates —attention: Maw illett JHS: jhs
Via facsimile: (206) 328-3610
CITY copy
Z
0
0
X
0 m
M
0
0
in
0 -n
m M
C3 Vi
0
0 Fn
C cl)
M 0
;U
z
z
m
J an 23 02 11:06a GEOTECH CONSULTRNTS INC (425)747-8561 P-I
G-N-.1 13256 NE 20r' Street, Suite 16
Vi"TJUd'CH Bellevue, WA 98005
CONSULTANTS9 INC. (425) 747-5618 FAX 747-8561
n" V E. YD
in M.. e no, , OR
TOC Marc Mileft JH1 AM2 0 9 2002
ConVoW. MilettAssociales Am;: Jarnes H. Strarae. Jr., P.E. rjF', "(F M�-NT CTR,
z
FAX. Dow: January22.2002
Phano (206) 32&0646 Vag,= I d2
RE &Mpswasrdwy GootedwSed Conddavikm
Thamen Reakhmm - 7M LMw Dallingerr VhW
M
M
Rdmandih WasNnob-
m
0
0 0
Dear M. Uffeff:
C
-4 M
m
m
We understand that driven steel pipe piles are prc, aosed to support the additional structural loads at
the subject site, and that the load capacity for 341 ich diameter pipe piles is desired, Below are the
loading criteria for 3- and 44nch pipe piles:
Three. or 44inch-diameter pipe piles driven with -. 650- or 800-pound jackhammer to the following
foal penetration rates may be assigned the follow �ig compressive capacities.
m M
0
0 Fn
12§L.�q� 77.7M7177= Stons
1 4 inches 1 20 seclinch 1 15 sWinch I 10tons
C 6)
M C/3
0
Note., The refusal cMena indicated above are not appropriate for pipe pdes installed with a hammer
M -
haOmounted to Me installation machine ir a vibratory hammer "e. IF these in staffation
techniques ate selected, numerous load le. � is to 200 percent of the design capacity would be
necessary to substantiate the affowable pfi,) load. The number of load tests wouV need to
z
be determined at the time of installation, 1: ul 20 percent of the production piles is a typical
quantity.
V)
z
Pile caps and grade beams should be used to tra ismit loads to the piles. Isolated pile caps should
include a minimum of two piles to reduce the pote vital for eccentric loads being applied to the paes.
0
m
Subsequent sections of pipe can be connected with slip or threaded couplers, or they can be
wattled together. If slip couplers are used, they �Jriould fit snugly Into the pipe sections. This may
require that shims be used or that beads of weldinj flux be applied to the outside of the coupler.
As with Me 2 inch diameter piles. the lateral capa( ity of vertical pipe piles is relatively small. Lateral
loads due to wind or seismic forces may be re -,isled by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. Criteria for lateral loading are included in the our
original report, dated December 19,2000.
'T
Jan 23 02 11:06a GEOTECH CONSULTRMTS INC
(4251747-8561 P.2
Aswdales
JN A2092
'5
Jamay22,2DO2
Page 2
We trust this memo fulfills your needs at this time. Please call with any questions or ff we can be of
further service.
Sincerely,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS INC.
0,
N Ns
s
mi
WAS
am
'Ri
6094,
a
M a
-40,
0
61/24/0Z.
� C,
M,
M Z'
Zo
1EXPIRES 01-31=1Y
JD
a
James H. Strange, Jr., P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
oo: Lance Herlocker
2161 Orchard Lane
mm,
M,
Camano Island, WA 98292
JH&.jhs
C (4i
z
L
Z�
eft$2
It
tviton=nal
Geote hnical
Construction
RECEIVED
consulting Engineering Testing
FEB 19
REPORT OF INSPECTION ACTIVITIES RVILMUG
CLIENT: Jerry Thormort PROJECT: 7205 Lakc Ballinger Wo�
z
7205 Lake Ballinger Way Edmonds. WA 98026
0,
Edmonds, WA 98026
.4
PERMITNO.: 2002-0542
R
M;
DATE: Jamn ry 10, 2003 JOBNO.: 712-20209-2
INSPECTOR: C. I-lenke REPORTNO.: FR31325
REMARKS:
'I required
A representative ofPSI was on site for visual and ultrasonic inspections , s
a M,
by the project plans and specifications..
C
M
�k
He performed ultrasonic testing on 16 UP welds off the support franic (refer to
0
0
report UT 1/10/03).
0 C:,
He performed visual inspections on the above welds.
M
M
The work referenced above is in compliance with the approved project d0CUII1eptS
and applicable governing codes to the best ofthe inspector's knowledge.
21,
>
He verified the welder's certs. with Northwest Steel erectors.
WORK CONFORMS TO APPROVED PLANS:
0
-n
Respectfully submitted,
pam,
PRO ESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES. INC.
0
0 Fa;
Charles R. Mlodzik
Manager, Seattle Construction Services
CHAIn
Z:,
Z;
Vffd
cc: City ofEdIllonds
ASPORNI MAY NOT BE REPRoDUase, EXCEPT INA LL, NTHOUT—TTEN FERMISSION By PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES I , I matioJ7, n) Bilild Oil
Professional Service Industries. Inc. 3257 l6tWAvsW..WEst -Seattle, A 98119 - Phone 2061282-0666 -Fax 2061282-G710
E.hvironmental
Imb 2-- G 't"Itnical
MAMA
Construction
Consulting - Engineering * TW'F8RT OF ULTRASONIC INSPECTION
CLIENT: Jerry Thorton
PROJECT:
7205 Lake Ballinger Way
7205 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, WA
Edmonds, WA 98026
PERMIT NO,:
DATE: January 10, 2003
JOB NO.:
712-20209-2
INSPECTOR: C Take
REPORT NO.:
UT31325
Test Method Standard: AWS D 1. 1 -00 NDE-UT-2
I Material Alloy: C/S
Ol Joint:
LcOcticance litamitwil AWSDI,1-00 Table 6,2
1 Material Thickness: Vatious
Weld Process:
n IIW DSC
braho � ruld "
I Reference Drawing/Der�als 1�f rt F r e I
fidar sidejIsfarside, -,to
diniodbw 'mort
,
T&Bf
Fabrication ID/Grid/Weld
ID
U
A
Data DE
—fled
inAWS
DLI
DiS
onfirwity
InIOM
ion
IR
.50
4 ta
r
A
E
"S
E
81
Support Frime
6
N E:
J=
-L
E_
__C
E:
oo
E: r_
c
C
1:
E_
E
C
c
C
Technician: C. Henke
ASNT 11
Level: -fr—msducer
Ultrasonic Test (UT) Equip -ant
Make: Quimium Serial No. 2111001
Size 5/8 x 5/8 Serial No. 4417
Frequency: 2.25 MHz Couplant: Ultragel
ASTM Test Method: LJ A5�7 C] A435 U A538
REMARKS:
Respectfully submitted,
*RFE1,,,AL �SERVIDUSTRIES, INC.
0 S'O
m R"'cris
NT Level It
cc: NIA
ass.—E—N, 1. 1—n—c RVoRTE."..Tse REPRODUCED. E—ITIN —L. —TWRIIEN PERMISSION By ly1�1&I 017
t1yool"V1011
�rofessioral Service Industries, Inc. 3257 1611, Avenue West -Seattle, VVA 98119 - Phone 206,'282-0666 -Fax 206/282-0710
0:
r
t o M
1,
C
M
40
0'
0 C
-4 C'
X M
M
10
E: R4
03
i
"n
I� !�
M M
0
0
6 Fn,
C Q)�
M O�
7�
ja
Z:
M
Environmental
Geotechnicai
Con,truction
Consulting Engineering Testing
REPORT OF INSPECTION ACTIVITIES
5
CLIENT: Jerry Thormon PROJECT: 7205 Lake Ballinger Way
7205 Lake Ballinger Way Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
PERMIT NO.: 2002-0542
DATE: October 15, 2002 JOB NO.: 712-20209-1
0�'
INSPECTOR: R, Ferguson REPORT NO.: FR26188
REMARKS:
As requested, A representative of PSI was on site for resteel inspections ofthe grade
beam and pilasters forthe new addition to the existing home. The resteel conforms to tile
Z
ta
drawings.
Vi
approved
I'D
WORK CONFORNIS TO APPROVED PLANS: MYES NO
C
M 0
E7
Respectfully submitted,
X In:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
M
r Z
71.Zt".m--P
, E
Project Engineer
-n
X,
RF/tIn
mm�
0 In!:
V.
M &
z
z
'0
M
RECEIVED
NOV 2 6 2002
PERMIT COUNTER
cc: City or Edmonds
76 Bid1d N
RCP..TE — N T 8C REPRODUCED. EXCEPT IN MITTEN PERMISSION BYPR.'esse— SERVICE INDUSTRIES. INC,
Professional Service industries, Inc. 3257 16th Avenue West Seattle, WA 98119 Phone 206/282-0666 Fax 206/282-0710
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMOTO, PERMTr COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
_ENGINEE G DIVISION DATE.
PL DIVISIONDATE
PROJECT��YS z) n
SITEADDRFSS---:�aol�;
'�00a -42,ADB#
PERMIT # 1 --05 ----------PATE INSPECTED -7 1(2
.DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INS TED �F-7(VWJ
A field inspection was conducted to determine final compliance with approved plans. Huai approval
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
pERFQRMANCE BONDS and the granting of:
-�ZOGRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
ci Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
1
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
u Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inspector
I
2.
3.
RE-INSpEcTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date_ Sign_
ocaprvl.doc.l:tentp:bldg:fonnsIO/OI
z
0 3:
C= M
M a
-10
00
C
3: M
M z
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
M Cn
M 0
Z r- I
.AT
;U
-i
X
>
z
-4
co
z
0
q
0
M
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR
DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS ....................
FOUNDATION:
Footing ......................
Wall ...............
Pier/Porch .................
z
Retaining Wall
Stab Insulation ..........
PLUMBING:
Underground .............
0 rn
Rough
C
M 0
-in ...........
0
0
Commercial Final
HEATING:
M
M z
to —I
Gas Test .............
C
Gas Piping ..............
C.9
Equipment
On
—4
Commercial Final
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
NAILING ........................
Vi\S
-v 13
0 M
% FRAMING .................
M 0
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING
z
74
INSULATION ...................
;0 -
Floor Insulation
z
Wall Insulation
Coiling Insulation
_3_0
fvN
7.
z
SHEETROCK NAILING
0
SPECIAL INSPECTION
ITI
MISCELLANEOUS