The URL can be used to link to this page

20030642.pdf)P01107/T "t'VElaf I LIC V, 4 a 9 :DATE RECEIVED PERM�T EXPIRES CITY OF EDMONDS USE PERMIT ZONE I�NUMBER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB ADDRESS SUITE/APT# OWNER NAMEINAME OF BUSINES1 es sesf fg�f —1 _Z1 mompisa & PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO, LOT 1 NO,%0119 MAILING ADDRESS LID FEE S 114-1 NE� IA4--r'4 67-r- PM 15. .PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP 1. '.. , - bw�� EXISTING TIESCP Approved RW Permit Required Street Us, Per"Ift Rsq-d Inspection Required CITY :� - PHONS,A,V PROPIPSED REQUIRED QgPICA-66 FT sidewalk R* quired Underground Wiring required NAME --m—pr METER SIZE LINE SIfE NO. )F FIXTURES 0>/104oll 1 1 1? PRV REQUIRED A 13 r A. 1161,01, PL, 4-k YES NO 1 ADDRESS REMARKS OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR E IOSION CONTROUDRAINAGE (2T140 CITY ZIP jTfLEPHONE �aoc;Ll &a5-%Q(0-5jC)3P zeruwnw 54-snew, X15 W57_A_- Cz NAME CBL# SP;A& MIC,14r,b Got4Q:M qoj(ot.4 05;8 9 REVIEWED BY )bATE ADDRESS WINE�RINQ II o o FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE CITY ZIP TeLEPHONE STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKED BY VARIANCE 0 IWV'D"O' N BOND POSTED 0 46 co Q& i D5 _'j[3YES 0 - PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. 02' 00 - 512-7?z - OL70 ..y �? - 00 SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA COMPL TE I EXEMPT ALLOWED PF OPOSED ;PM___1 H EIGHT ALLOWED /I PROPOSED NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETEACKS (Fr.) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT- $10 EAR PROPOSED SETBACKS (ft.) FRONT URSIDE REAR COMPLIANCE OR ADDITION COMMERCIAL 0 CHANGE OF USE �5 /5 REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN PARKING LOT AREA I PLAN NG'NEVIEWED BY DATE REO'D PROVIDED. FENCE REPAIR K -CYDS 0 ( — X —FT) jg�� rae 14 2a 1,9 15 DEMOLISH TANK OTHER s.4bqc4r_ a?" 14cjr+ GARAGE RETAINING WALL F:RE SPRINKLER CARPORT ROCKERY F RE ALARM d A b�maf ?23 12 (TYPE OF USE, QUZINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: BY CHECKED TYP=VCTION C E OCCUPANW M* 77 GRO P U�77 NUMBER 3U NUMBER OF CRITICAL .13 OF DWELLING AREAS STORIES UNITS 1 SPECIAL INSP§CTION %W REQUIRED CCUPA LOAD YES DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE 6 REMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UB FINAL INSPECTION REO'D C2 N W -:V1 74 e2-rz) L-,( Lo o o b - F= e, w r, t> le w-L4 . r- _. � 1 . I AVr 6 614 r,— D 6 At IZIA 6 Eo j 34 -Z Descriptlon FEE DiAscriptlein rD FEE Plan Check State Surcharge HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % 0rSIOPF% NLT-- 15. V) Building Permit. City Surcharge PLAN CHEC NO: VES TED DATE _4_ Plumbing PA Mechanical -7dP &!55 THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THI PERMIT CdVERS WORK To BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Gradi DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS; MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION - . Engr. Review AOMMY PERMIT APPILICATION: 180DAYS �� PERMIT ILIMM I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTP-WITHIN 180 DI.WS Engr. Inspection SEE BACK OF PINV;Rn TR MORYWORMATION E`R;;OUSE,jrVEIRS SSIGNSAND C9 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HI/S OR` Ho' A WEE �EDMONDS. Ire Review,, Plan Chk. Deposit 74- IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AN—LD HAI CITY OF WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES4, %H&NOITIS—FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE&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 Landscape Insp. Total, Amt. Due 0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE C17YS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION." x Recording Fee Receipt # I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION: THAT THE INFORMATION AP LICATION APPROVAL 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- CALL This ap cation Is not a permit until signed by the ;CI TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building 0 al or his/her Deputy., and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION rac I Is acknowledged In space provided. Ip WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. OFF RE 1 DATE BIG E EQ* tjEff) DATE Sf3NED (425) 9 -2 1 771-0220 9 RE EDEY DATE ATTENTIONI 0 !USE eOR 40C§Y &L Off 1333 IT IS UNLAWFUL I 0 A I ILDINWOR STRZT& A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- RIGINAL - Fit E - YELLOW ."INSPECAR CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK -OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR 04/02 gmi=qq wainn vni i AR;: mAwlimr. z; r. nPjF=Q GREEN - ACCOUNTING ul 19 If At:." 11111C z 0 f: rn C: C ITIM 0 -n "n M M Fri C CO) M 0 CO) z 0 M RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED SETBACKS ..................... _MS FOUNDATION: Footing...................... Wall.......................... Pier/Porch ................. Retaining Wall ........... Slab insulation .......... PLUMBING: Underground ............. 4. Rough -in ................... Commercial Final ...... HEATING: GasTest .................... Gas Piping ................. Equipment ................. Commercial Final ....... EXTERIOR SHEATHING NAILING .......................... b_0 f� FRAMING ........................ FIRST FLOOR FRAMING ... MS INSULATION ................... Floor Insulation ......... Wall Insulation ........... Ceiling Insulation � ....... SHEETROCK NAILING ... SPECIAL INSPECTION ... MISCELLANEOUS .......... FINAL APPROVAL FOR OCCUPANCY .................. &!g -2?15- Recelpt# AmoutFW_ Daftlaued Af A WaftrMeterfte Amount �Wd. It ROW# Amount Paid $....Receipt Date SCIENCES INC. e Hydrogeology Geoenvironmental Services Inspection Testing tichnical Engineering November 4, 2004 HWA Project No. 2003-106-21 RECEIVED City of Edmonds NOV 0 8 2004 Development Services Department Building -Engineering -Planning PERMIT COUNTEn "d 121 5h Avenue North, 2 Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Ms. Jeanine L. G raf, Building Official Subject: ADDENDUM To GEOTECHNICAL MONITORING SUMMARY LETTER Hillman Residence — Permit No. 2003-0642 New Single Family Residence th 15915 — 74 Place West Edmonds, Washington Reference: Geotechnical Monitoring Summary Letter, by HWA GeoSciences Inc., dated October 18, 2004. Dear Ms. Graf - Further to our observations, conclusions, and recommendations included in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control section of the above -referenced letter, we are of the opinion that, from the geotechnical perspective, currently, exposed slopes on the project site can be permanently protected against erosion using beauty bark in lieu of sod placement* or hydroseeding. However, sufficient amounts of beauty bark should be used and care should be exercised during placement of the mat erial to ensure that no -significant spots of bare soil on the slopes are exposed. 0-0 i9730 '64.th'Aill"; November Lvvff HWAP 'ectNo.2003406�21 r0i I 1 4 r r 4 1 4 I Please do not hesitate to call us if you have any questions regarding this letter or our I, I I J. It I I I �A sery ices on this project. "Id I Sincerely, %,'0 t 0 'd I L L I I I I I HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I tc,. I t 1 4 I P 11 1 1 I k I I ' I L 14 Ce I r 1 0 1 k L �L I I I I, r I 'L I I I r I 1 4 1 1 t. I I I I I L I I I 0 + L I 1 14 1/0 Vex I I e I I L 4 1. r %I L I, I. r :0. '1- 1 1 TI I.,; Z' �II, L I t I I?%, I L I I I I I I I Vq � .4 'Y' t' -4 w A 1 L� �'I, I IV 'L I I 1 11 L . I r I I III I . I i It I I I I . I . . . It 1 4 It JEMPES 12LUC Kii tt I'v I Les C. Banas, P.E. .0of)'. 1 4took 4 1 1 1 1 Senior Geotechnical Engineer Ifk V 1'4- 'e4- i;:�' jy�wr I '4� . I v: Vi I 4v� +I It III� 4p��ILNI 1 -1 1 1 1"1. 1 11, k' L '1" 1 I I. I J, I - + I , I - " I L I It I 14 cce Mr. and Mm. Hillman I I k" It 0 . . . . I . ILL I L' tl. It . I I . . I. I I LA I L I It, I I ILI 1, 4 1 "L L ':.t k1; L U �041"B 1cb I L I 1 11 1 1 -d 1 10, 1 1 1 1 1 L I I I V It 1 9 -L L L L L L L L It I I I 5L I . " I I I I ' I - J I tL 1 11 I L k- I r 1 4 1 1 I L I'LL A SCIENCES INC. 'icW Engineering - Hydrogeology - Geoenvironinental Services - Inspection Testing RECEIVED OCT 2 o:, 2004 October 18 2004 ............. . . . . . . . . . . . HWA Project No. 2003-106-21 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTiL CITY OF EDMOAIDS City of Edmonds Development Services Department Building -Engineering -Planning 121 5h Avenue North, 2 d Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Ms. Jeanine L. Graf, Building Official Subject: GEOTECHNICAL MONITORING SummARY LETTER Hillman Residence — Permit No. 2003-0642 New Single Family Residence 15915-74 th Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Graf - In accordance with the requirements of the City of Edmonds Special Inspection and Testing Agreement, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) has provided periodical special inspection services on the referenced project since the commencement of construction activities in August 2003. Copies of our field reports have been mailed to your office along with weekly inspection reports. The purpose of this letter is to provide a statement that geotechnical aspects of the construction were performed in accordance with the project plans and specifications, and that the new development did not increase the potential for slope instability that existed prior to construction. Prior to construction, we reviewed the project plans and specification, including the geotechnical report that had been prepared by others, and design of a proposed Keystone wall. We also performed an additional subsurface exploration to aid in installation of foundation pin piles. During construction we provided monitoring and testing of the following: & Foundation pin pile installation; Foundation subgrade preparation; Gradation and Proctor testing of structural fill; October 18, 2004 HWA Project No. 2003-106-21 0 Structural fill placement and compaction; 0 Installation of underground utilities; 0 Construction of rockeries; 0 Construction of a Keystone retaining wall; and 0 Erosion and sedimentation control. Foundation Pin Pile InstaUation A total of 63, 4-inch nominal diameter, pin piles were installed to provide foundation support for the house. A pile load test was performed on the first installed pile to verify the pile design capacity and to develop driving refusal criteria. The pile Contractor, McDowell NW Pile King, used a Bobcat 337 rubber -tired loader with a mounted BTI TB425X harnmer to drive 51 vertical and 12 battered (lH:5V) piles to refusal. The refusal was set as 12 inch of penetration in 48 seconds or longer and it was met at depths ranging from 31 to 53.5 feet below grade. We verified that all installed pin piles met or exceeded the specified design vertical capacity of 12.5 kips per pile. Foundation Subgrade Preparation Exposed subgrade at the depth of shallow footings, floor slabs, grade beams, retaining wall foundations, underside of utility pipes and conduits, and access driveway was inspected to ensure its firm and unyielding state. Amy soft spots and areas, as well as concentrations of organics were removed under supervision of HWA field personnel and replaced with compacted structural fill. Gradation and Proctor Testing of Structural Fill Representative samples of imported materials that were to be used as structural fill were obtained from on -site stockpiles or from the supplier, and tested in our laboratory for gradation conformance with the project plans and specifications, and for their compaction characteristics. Two gradation and two Proctor tests were performed on the collected samples of structural fill materials in accordance with testing methods ASTM D 422 and ASTM D 1557, respectively. Structural Fill Placement and Compaction HWA field personnel monitored placement and compaction of approved structural -fills under the garage floor slab, behind the Keystone retaining wall, and under the C 10.15.04.rinal report 2 RWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Eli M (W 1A. N izP, October 18, 2004 HWA Project No. 2003-106-21 driveway. The fills were placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness, and were compacted using equipment ranging from a jumping jack, through plate tampers, to a vibratory drum roller. An HWA inspector performed on -site compaction testing using a nuclear density gauge. All placed structural fill was 'Verified to be compacted to at least 95% of the material's maximum dry density. Installation of Underaround Utilities We observed installation of the storm drainage and sanitary sewage drainage systems carried out by the earthwork subcontractor. The storm drainage system consisted of swales, house perimeter footing drains, retaining wall drainage pipes, catch basins and connectors to the municipal storm sewer system. Generally, both storm and sanitary sewer pipes were laid on imported bedding fill. The pipe trenches were backfilled with approved well -draining granular soils. The trench backfill above the pipes was well compacted; however, density tests were not performed due the variability of the backfill materials. Compaction was approved based on the number of passes of the compaction equipment and probing of the compacted fill. In our opinion,all underground utilities installed on site were performed in accordance with geotechnical recommendations, and the project plans and specifications. Construction of Rockeries Two rockery walls were-i ' nstalled on the project by a rockery subcontractor, Kirk Rockeries. The first rockery was about 72 feet long, did not exceed 4 feet in firiished height, and was installed along the eastern side of the house. Up to 2 feet of overexcavation of foundation subgrade was required under the rockery due to the presence of soft and organic soils., The second rockery was constructed in the northwestern part of the site, near the existing roadway (74 1h Place West). In the northwest comer of the property, construction of a hammerhead turnaround for emergency vehicles required a substantial cut in the existing slope. The cut was supported by a system of two rockery retaining walls. The upper wall was about 50 feet long and between I and 5 feet high. The lower rockery was located 5 to 6 feet in front of the upper wall, and down a 2H: IV slope. The lower wall was about 62 lineal feet long and between I and 5 feet high in the area of the hammerhead. The lower wall was then extended by about 52 lineal feet farther south, parallel to 74h Place West and at a setbAck of 10 feet from the western property line. The finished height of that section of the rockery was also between I and 5 feet. Placement of additional grading fill in front of the wall toe was required in order not to exceed the maximum specified finished wall height of 5 feet. 10.15.04.rinal report M HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. .... ...... ... L October 18, 2004 HWA Project No. 2003-106-21 We verified that the rockeries were constructed using hard, durable, two- and three- man rocks and were stacked in general accordance with standard rockery installation guidelines. Smaller rocks were placed to fill voids and spaces between larger rocks and quarry spalls were placed as backfill behind the walls. Drainage behind the walls was provided by installing 6-inch diameter perforated drainage pipes connected to the storm sewer system. Vertical clean -out pipes were connected to the wall drains as specified in the project plans. Construction of Keystone Retaining WaU A 120-foot long Keystone wall was constructed by KeyWall NW, the wall subcontractor, in the southwest part of the property. The wall ranged in height from I to 9.5 feet and supported the access driveway embankment. Its foundation support consisted of a continuous reinforced concrete shallow footing. We verified that the wall was constructed in general accordance with the design by the structural engineer and with the project plans and specifications. Erosion and Sedimentation Control During our periodical visits, we observed implementation and performance of erosion and sedimentation control measures. The temporary measures included installation of silt fences downslope of areas of potential disturbance, placement of straw bales, and protection of exposed slopes and stockpiles. Protection of exposed soils against erosion was achieved using visqueen sheet covers and sandbags. After an initial period of maintenance, the property Owner retained a subcontractor specializing in erosion control work. The subcontractor, Northwest Erosion Control, Inc., provided inspection of Best Management Practices, and the implemented measures on a weekly basis. Repairs and upgrades were provided as required. Stabilization of the project site has been achieved by hydroseeding and establishing native vegetation, including shrubs and trees, on the majority of exposed slopes. In addition, all above -ground storm water drainage system elements have been installed. The remaining exposed slopes have recently been regraded to gradients not exceeding 2H: IV, and are scheduled to receive sod the week of October 25, 2004, thus, completing the permanent protection of the slopes. In conclusion, we are of the opinion that the earthwork on the project was performed ih general accordance with the geotechnical recommendations, and the project plans and specifications. We observed and verify that all disturbed areas and slopes on the project site have been, or will soon be, adequately protected and stabilized. In our Ij. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Z� 10. 15.04.fmal rqmrt 4 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. M Sincerely, HWA GEoSciENcEs INc.. LWO11 JEMRES 1211&OS Les C. Banas, P.E. Senior Geotechnical En gmeer 10.15.04.fuW rcport 5 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. L 05/06/2004 09:54 4257789a0c Sent By: HP LaserJet 3100; 7�. MICHEL CONST PAGE 02 4256727998; May-e-04 7:S7AM; Pagn 2/2 May 8, 2004 File No. 4663-0-04 Edmonds Building Department 250 r Avenue N. Edm . onds, Washington 98020 re; Hillman Residence 15915 701 Place W.. Edmonds, Washingwrl Dear Slrs. At the request of Rob Michel. the project contractor, we have dispatched a survey crew to the above refarence property to ascertain the elevation of the roof peak of the now residence currently under construction. Toestablish the height of Me residence we used the Invert of CBS 42A as depicted on the Road and Drainage propered by John Mellor, datedAuquat 30,2001 and established the elevation of the sanitary sower manhole at the northwest corner of the property. We find the elevation of the north rim of the manhole to be 98.96. This elevation is indicated to 99.0 on the plan. From this bench mark we have determined the elevation of the roof shooting at the peak to be 140.35. Should you require any additional information, please, call me at 425-775-1591. Sincerely, I qft4oft� Jeffrey Treiber P.L.S. President RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2004 PERMIT COUNTER I,qvcll - i;iu"llnd & Aswclulil- fitc- 1940n .11(d AYC- VV-- S141C 200. ty,MVgj, WA 9A0j* 47S.77S.IS91 425-6n YY98 rp, 0 "A I ZONEGMMM� I APPROVED BY PLANNINrl Let noar 'Nir or mactam: The City of Edmonds hereby authorizes the release $50 000 from the above referenced Restoration Frozen Fund. All interested City departments have approved the release of the Restoration Frozen Fund. :0. Sincere ly, Mafta son Senior Permit Coordinator Cc: Applicant File Uremp/DST's/MasterLetters/ReleasePerformanceO2/01 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Citv - Hekinan. Janan . fix A VINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM too DATE: MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE "ASE SIGN I- $At�m ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE I12ASE SIGN -PLANNING DIVISION DATE FLIMSE SIGN PROJECT — SITE ADDRESS PERMIT #-2Ad -ZWf _ADB# DATE INSPECTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED_!�� A field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with -approved plans. Final approval denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of I Y GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAI GR ANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED ,., 0 Ir d"fim"Irlirirflive : �/_ + +_ t, : E, VR_,11, LU VW111-. U&I LW, I Y LtDPVALVL jr, FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES 0 Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inpector I . PA 3. RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL Date Signature 1:temp:b1dg:fonPs:ocaprv1 3/25/04