The URL can be used to link to this page

20040206.pdfDATE RECEIVED RMIT EXPIRES_S�3_ LP E T OSE PM T CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE IN U MIMBIE R JOB SUITE/APT# CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION ADDRESS "72 OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS- / 2" P � S I PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO LOT NO LID NO. r__.l rL L �', A-> 5 -2 k.� LID FEE $ MAILING ADD Ss z I ESCP Approved L3 3: PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Permit Required 13 0 (� t/ 7 1 1, . 'A'FOL-PROPOSED street Use Permit Roq'd CITY EXISTING'tZ L 4 inspection Required ZIP TELEPHONE Sidnwalk Required underground REQUIRED DEDICATION— Fr Wiring required NAME METER SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED if YES NO U—S IVA LU vz-- I Z,�> I z ADrESS REMARKS z OWNEFIXONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE Z5 z us it" cl Y ZIP JT>LEPHONE NAME CBL# (it 1 RING REVIEW By DATE ADDRESS 10 BY DATE CITY ZIP TELEPHONE M VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINEORADB# INSPECTION BOND STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE gILECKED BY REO'D POSTED ICIYESX�0 S SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. COMPLETE , EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX o _j 00 0 0 EXP X LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (Fr.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.) NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING MECH ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT I SIDE REAR FRONT UR SIDE REAR COMPLIANCE OR "%� 1 '1-- .1 1 _t I C1 17 --, i� ADDITION COMMERCIAL CHANGE OF USE 0� t-%�? 1 ic�; —7,43'11 Ar +z PARKING LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY D 5 REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN REQ'D PROVIDED CL FENCE El REPAIR CYDS X — FT) REMARKS DEMOLISH TANK OTHER GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER z CARPORT ROCKERY FIRE ALARM = (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) E, rL VLAIN: CHECKED B TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION Cl OCCUPAN E 7 GROUP 0 5/444Y U) ul NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL SPECIAL INSPECTION JAREA all OCCUPANT a OF DWELLING AREAS M 7, 1 1 1 NUMBER REQUIRED LOAD 0 STORIES UNITS kYES -�r DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REMARKS z PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REO'D 42 P.EPz"x3_-S0 �e,5 r___ IVIE2 VALUATION (r�2 $ � CP Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check State Surcharge HE,5T SOUR�E MAZINg% LOT SLOPE *7 i�/* Building Permit _-_00 City Surcharge :7 . PLAN CHECK NO: VESTED DATE Plumbing 21 � � -�- Itill-.4-kot :? Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS %�ORK TO PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC BE DONE ON PRIVATE Grading q- E DOMAIN (CURDS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE _0 ..... . J SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr. Review u PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS PERMIT LIMIT I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr. Inspection SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY 3c FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT HE Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due 0 DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE _j 0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION. A =1 - Recording Fee Receipt # I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION �PPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER. I AGR�E TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC. CALL This application is not a perinit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOH CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION Building 011icial or hisitier Deputy: and Fees are paid. and receipt is acknowledged in space provided. WORKMEN'S COMF)ENSATY"RANCE A,�D RCW 1 $6.27. OFFICIALS SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE . JOWNkR 0 AGENJ)- DATE SIGNED., (425) 311 dw 4 L L 71-0220 7 1 A BY DAlt LF ATTENTION E)ff 133 a c:71/ IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL /C'' A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- ORIGINAL FILE - YELLOW - INSACTOR CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK - OWNER - GOLD - ASSESSOR 04/02 PRESS HARD —YOU ARE MAKING 5 COP ES GREEN - ACCOUNTING _1V z 0 1 0 171 --I -n X M C: M 0 0 0 C:: --I K X M M Z JO -A c:2 x Cl) 0 _n M M 0 5 0 r_ 0 1711 0) C/) M 0 Z X z Cn z 0 1 0 1711 '1� FIRSTLINE CONSTRUCTION tNC- T)44 MAPLE STREET HEIGHT CALCS EDMONDS WA. 98020 A= 104.00 PH. (206) 498-5339 APPROVED AS NOTED B= 112.00 LOT COVERAGE BY ENGINEERING C= 109.00 D LOT AREA = 8115 S.F. D=103.00 I IOUSE & DECKS = 1530 S.F, COVERAGE = 1530 / 8115 = 18.8 % E= 107.00 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES Dat9f AVG.GRAD ROUSE EAVES & PATIO = 1800 S.F. ACTUAL= MOO- DRIVEWAY&WALKS= 862S.F. MAXIMUM=132.00 TOTAL 2662 S.F. C Np APP . ROVED By PLAPMING t�1�5Te" SITE ADDRESS 10304 242 nl PL. S.W. EDMONDS WA, 98020 TAXPARCEL# ICU 0- Q� Let >: cj " 4(/ I v m k/ =3 m Az cn cn cn 0 m c loo C3,0 stTs 9�.Ak-A Sc'6.L-G: �=00-r i's f %cl Is- Q�l 00 9 P%C*E IVE D FEB 2 5 2004 PERMIT COUNTER I lto� �' e -1 ---- z 0 i 0 m --i -n 0 M m 0 0 0 0 c m m z c CD 0 -n .m m M 0 —cf) 0 r- 0 m c cf) K cl) M 0 Z :..i 3: z --i :c cl) z 0 i 0 m -01 Y ciry Co I'D TUBBS8802du3sIncee RV. CV Firstline Construction, Inc. 16605 - 7 1 st Place West Edmonds, Washington 98037 JPk J� January 9, 2004 Geotechnical Engineering Report Residential Property 10300 Block of 242 n, Place West Edmonds, Washington File No. HAL2-01 INTRODUCTION This letter presents our conclusions and recornmendations regarding geotechnical conditions pertinent to proposed residential development of your property located in the 10300 block of 242"' Place West in Edmonds, Washington. Our services have been performed at your request and in accordance with our services agreement dated December 16, 2003. The subject property consists of Lots 2 and 3 of Short Subdivision S-2000-82. We understand that you propose to develop tile property to include two single family residences. You have asked us to evaluate geotechnical conditions within the property as a basis for providing you with information and recommendations pertinent to tile proposed development. Specifically, our scope of services includes: Review of published geologic and topographic information regarding the subject site and adjacent areas. 2. Surface geologic reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. 3. Subsurface investigation of soil conditions at'the site by means of test pits excavated by a backhoe and operator you provided. 4. Preparation of this geotechnical engineering report providing our observations relative 0 t:l to geotechnical conditions at the site and providing our conclusions and recommendations regarding geotechnical elements of the proposed development. C) Our services have been provided on the basis of a review of existing information availableto us, geologic reconnaissance of thesiteand adjacent areas during December2003, observation of test pit explorations on December 19, 2003, discussions with you and Mr. Gary S. Cooper, and our experience. 7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com z 0 M Firstline Construction, Inc. January 9, 2004 Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS The property is located between 104"' Avenue West and 242"' Place SW in Edmonds, Washington as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. As shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2, which is based on a drawing dated 4-2-02 by JBMF Consulting Engineers, tile subject property consists of a Lots 2 and 3, located in the southeastern part of the shortplat and accessed via 242"d Place SW. Our Critical Areas Evaluation report dated April 10, 2002 for the area of the short plat that includes the subject property, described topographic, vegetative and prior development conditions within the area of the short plat. Since that report was submitted, the area of the short plat has been cleared and graded to create three buildinuipads, driveways accessing the three lots have been constructed and paved, and storm and sanitary side sewers have been installed. Site grading included construction of a keystone block wall and two rockeries. Recommendations for design and construction of these improvements was not included in either our previous or present scope of services. We understand that the existing rockeries will be reconstructed based on recommendations by others. Geologic conditions within tile area of tile short plat were also described in our earlier report. As part of our present services we explored subsurface conditions within the area of the short plat via six test pits, including four test pits within the subject property, excavated at the locations indicated oil the Site Plan. A description of the subsurface exp ' loration program and the logs of the test pits are presented in the Appendix. The observed subsurface conditions are consistent with those described in our earlier report. The subject property is underlain by glacial outwash consisting of sand and gravel deposited during the advance and retreat of the last glacier to occupy this area some 13,500 to 15,000 years ago. Local patches of glacial till, deposited directly by the glacial ice, exist within the area of the short plat but none was observed within the subject property. Some fill locally exists within the site. Because of the high infiltration capacity of the surficial soils, little or no surface water runoff occurs within the site, and no emergent groundwater seepage was observed in the test pits, on the slope adjacent to 1041" Avenue West, or elsewhere within the site. 7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com z 0 4 0 M -A -n M C: M 0 0 -40 0 -4 r M rn z —z -4 Cn o -n -n rn M 0 5) 0 0 M C Cl) 9 C/) M 0 Z r- X z z 0 M I Firstline Construction, Inc. January 9, 2004 Page 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL The subject property is suitable for the proposed residential development provided that proper site development procedures and the recommendations below are followed. The native soils underlying the site consist of glacial outwash sand and are suitable for conventional residential foundation desi-n and construction procedures. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK We recommend that all sod, organic soil, fill and debris be removed from settlement sensitive areas (e.g., building, pavement and slab areas). The subgrade surface in slab and -rolled with heavy rubber -tired equipment after excavating pavement areas should be proof to the desired grade. The purpose of the proof -rolling is to bring the near -surface soils to a uniform density and to identify any loose areas which might require recompaction or removal and replacement with structural fill. Temporary cut slopes for foundation excavations are expected to be as much as ten feet in height. Temporary cut slopes in the medium dense to dense native soils may be inclined as steeply as IH:IV and, except for minor sloughing, can be expected to stand at that inclination for a period of several weeks if protected from drying. Temporary cut slopes in existing loose or fill soils may be inclined as steeply as t.5H: IV if protected from drying. Protection from drying applies to natural soil moisture only. Do not add water to temporary cut slopes to improve stability. If steeper temporary cut slopes are required we should be consulted to develop shoring recommendations. We understand that you anticipate a permanent cut slope up to 8 feet in height within the eastern portion of the subject property, and two -tiered rockery wall for erosion protection of that slope. If rockery walls are used for this purpose, we recommend that each wall be no more than 4 feet in height, and that the toe of the rockeries (see Figure 3) be located above a plane sloping 45 degrees downward from the adjacent property line. If higher cut slopes are required we should be consulted to provide other recommendations for slope protection. STRUCTURAL FILL All new fill in settlement -sensitive areas shall be placed as compacted structural fill after the site has been prepared as described above. All structural fill material shall be free of debris, organic contaminants and rock fragments larger than 6 inches. The suitability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes 7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com z 0 A 0 M -i -n M C M __10 0 0 C X M M Z C 0 _n _n M M 6) 0 r- 0 M C C#) 9 Cn M 0 Z z Cn z 0 i 0 M 0. M Firstline Construction, Inc. January 9, 2004 Page 4 increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. Structural fill shall contain no more than 5 percent fines for placement in wet weather. The percent fines can be higher for placement in dry weather, providing that the fill material is moisture -conditioned as necessary for proper compaction. The sandy native outwash soils at the site are suitable for structural fill. Structural fill placed in building or pavement areas shall be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557. Utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent, except for the upper 2 feet which shall be compacted to 95 percent. We recommend that structural fill be placed in loose layers not more than 8 inches thick if a small vibratory roller compactor is used (or not more than 12 inches if a I 0-ton or larger vibratory roller compactor is used), conditioned to the proper moisture content for cornpaction, and uniformly compacted before placing subsequent layers. FOUNDATION SUPPORT The proposed residence can be supported on conventional spread and strip footings founded on firm native soil, or can be supported on structural fill directly overlying firm native soil. Footings may be proportioned using an allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot. This value applies to the total of dead plus long term live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering design loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. This value also assumes a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous spread footings and 24 inches for isolated spread footings. The minimum depth of embedment below final adjacent grades is 18 inches for exterior footings and 12 inches for interior footings on firm native soil. Footings adjacent to a downhill slope shall be sufficiently deep to provide at least 6 feet of horizontal separation between tile footing and the slope face, and shall be sufficiently deep or distant from the slope that a 1: 1 plane extended from the edge of the footing does not intersect the slope face. Because local areas of loose soi I may be encountered at the same level as the medium dense to dense soils, we recommend that the soils beneath the footings be compacted using hand operated vibratory equipment in lifts as described above. Any loose or disturbed soils in the footing excavations, including any test pit backfill, should be recompacted prior to concrete placement. Floor slabs can be supported on grade if site preparation is accomplished as previously recommended, or can be supported by structural fill directly overlying firm native 7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com Z 0 i 0 M =1 =55 M, Firstline Construction, Inc. January 9, 2004 Page 5 soil. The subgrade soils should be proof -rolled as recommended above and compacted using vibratory equipment or replaced with compacted structural fill if loose areas are observed. A base course layer consisting of a minimum thickness of 4 inches of clean gravel containing no more than 5 percent fines should be placed beneath the floor slab to provide uniform support and a capillary break. FOUNDATION RETAINING WALLS The basement walls for the proposed residence function as retaining walls and shall be designed as such. Assuming that the walls that are allowed to deflect 0.01 times the height of the wall, we recommend an active lateral pressure equivalent to a fluid density of ill compacted and drained as outlined 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), assuming level backr below. If the backfill surface slopes no steeper than 2H: IV percent upward away from the wall, a lateral soil pressure value of 60 pcf should be used. Resistance to lateral footing loads can be developed both through friction on the base of the footings and passive pressures along the sides. Friction resistance on the base of the footing be computed using an internal soil friction angle of 30 degrees. Passive soil pressures may be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot, providing the backfill around footings is compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM D- 1557). These resistance values include a factor of safety of about 1.5. The above lateral soil pressures assume the walls will be backfilled with clean, free - draining sand or sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve). This drainage zone should be at least 18 inches thick horizontally. The drainage material and remaining backfill placed behind the wall and not supporting structural elements should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Heavy compaction equipment should not be operated within 3 feet of the retaining wall s; no compaction tests will be necessary within 3 feet of the walls. A permanent subsurface drainage system should be installed at the base of all subsurface walls. These subdrains should consist of rigid, smooth -wall, 4-inch-diameter (minimum) perforated PVC pipe, nonwoven filter fabric such as Mirafi drainage product or equal, and surrounded by pea gravel or well -graded gravelly sand or sandy gravel with less than 3 percent fines (soil finer than the No. 200 mesh sieve) based on the fraction smaller than 3/4 inch. Tile drainpipes should discharge into tightlines sloped to drain by gravity to the existing storm sewer system. Roof drains shall not discharge into the footing drain system. 7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com Z 0 A 0 M Firstline Construction, Inc. January 9, 2004 Page 6 SITE DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL We understand that the City of Edmonds requires water to be routed through ail on - site infiltration trench prior to being conveyed to the storm sewer system. We recommend that the bottom of the infiltration trench be sufficiently deep and distant from any adjacent downhill slopes so as to meet the setback requirements specified above for footings. We Z recommend that water from footing drains be routed directly to the storm sewer via a tight 0 line. If the footin- drains must be routed through the infiltration trench, the outlet from the tn infiltration trench to the storm sewer shall be at ail elevation at least 3 feet lower than the q =Fi footing drains in order to avoid the possibility of water from roof drains backing up into tile footing drain system. M C M The surficial soils within tile subject property are susceptible to potential erosion and 0 -40 0 shallow debris slides if disturbed by construction or other activities. Erosion controls are C: = M therefore recommended, including the proper control of surface water runoff, minimizing the M Z jo --I time of exposure in the area stripped during construction, and prompt revegetation. Z LIMITATIONS 0 -n This report has been prepared for Firstline Construction, Inc. and its representatives -n for use in planning, permitting and designing residential development of Lots 2 and 3. 0 1.1:1 t:1 M M —Cn Descriptions of subsurface conditions relative to foundation support and other aspects of the 0 0 r- 0 M proposed development are based on surface observations and shallow subsurface C co 7— Cn explorations, and conditions should be confirmed by observations in the excavations at the Q 0 Z r- time of construction. M Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices followed in this Z area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, expressed or implied, should be F5 understood. Z 0 M 7505-A West Lake sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com Firstline Construction, Inc. January 9, 2004 Page 7 We trust that this report meets your present needs. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. Yours very truly, oj ash, z Tubbs Geosciences 0 z 0 Ilk- :j 0 M EMinet 9 tst 6 0 �&e eo 0) 0 M C Donald W. Tubbs Donald W. Tubbs, Ph.D. M 0 0 0 Engineering Geologist 0 C �j S. M WAS M z C z 0 > Cn z 330 0 -n 24 _n /ST- /0 AL Enayat S. Aziz, P.E. M M X Z/7o '055 EXPIRES: 12/24/04 Geotechnical Engineering consultant to 0 0 M C Tubbs Geosciences CD C cn, M 0; Z r Document ID: FIAL201 RI X z M z 0 M 7505-A West Lake sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com m: i7. ;is d K a t �-ov aL owl it to 0 IN 4111- 111'. 1 1 \ Q I 40P.I 0 1 it At -.*N 'A� 1.4 a It AU I It 'N lee a 51 own 6 -914 '.ma� 1 Q Nt a it a a a RIt 01 It a At I J, as a is J.. S a at Is It IIIIII I S\ to � I I, I 6"r led it's 400 kk is Is to oil kvI. 0 Will it 0 IV it AV S Ni-Tanks.) Is IN all kv a a It Iv wt, It tk Ig'o 'ire IN I L- zl�t It IN a a 0 ISH k 01 INN a it off N, t.oq slop 0 0 JV It A f �I`I/ I .dr. I I I Id, W� a \ 4 X OIL, I JI. ty 1 1. 1. d IS �il N' ;1' r '�Z�' �T 41 rp a foe it n 0 TUE313 S CC5@ SO 0 C 'u ( B:, n C S VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 EM z 0 1-11 0 m 0 C:: X M M z > z X W 0 m M 0 0 0 m c C/) cl) M 0 Z rm X > z c/) z 0 �i 0 m Alow - —1 It to I Iv c 401 all IS It 101 Fill js 101 ITT 1%7 J-0 1, 9 4, If TIP W -9 1-- P- -ald c[3� .1 -41 1�_" P. &I z' 10& —M . iji�l (L371 NI) *9 P, Jf\ i I i — rm""'! at. FT -ke ore LU CL LLI �z Fn I LL co co OR-IGINkt- G: I BATTEV-.-- I V. W CD EXCAVAX%OW ONL%( -8- MIN -THICKNE% 4- V QUAKILY 5 ZL5Z I"MINUS WASHED VkOUC AS t4EEDSD FILTr=P- FARZIC AS NEEDG-D -iC;;' PER-F-PIPE AS NEF-Dr--D FOP, SUIBSUPtFACE V4A,1rP_K. Rockery walls shall be constructed of rocks in the following size categories: Two -man rocks (300 to 600 pounds), 13" in least dimension; Three-man rocks (800 to 1200 pounds), 16" in least dimension; Four -man rocks (1500 to 2200 pounds), 18 " in least dimension. The rock material shall be hard, sound, durable and free from weathered portions, seams, cracks, and other defects. Rocks should be as tabular in shape as possible-, rounded or very angular rocks shall be avoided. The larger rocks shall be placed at the base of the wall. Four -man rocks shall be used for the bottom course in walls higher than 6 feet. The lowest course of rocks shall be keyed into firm foundation material at least 12 inches below the adjacent grade. Rocks shall be selected and placed to minimize void space between rocks. Rocks shall be placed in a manner such that the long axis of the rock is normal to the face of the wall. To the greatest extent possible, rocks shall be placed with faces in contact; point contact shall be avoided. Inclining interfaces between rocks shall slope downward toward the back of the wall. After setting each course of rock, voids between the rocks shall be chinked on the back with quarry rock to eliminate any voids larger than two inches across. TUBBSO&OOC 118M@90 ROCKERY WALL SCHEMATIC FIGURE 3 Z 0 4 0 M I t APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS The subsurface conditions within the subject site and adjacent areas were explored by excavating six test pits with a track -mounted backhoe on December 19, 2003. The test pit 0 =1 locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The locations are approximate and were M estimated in the field based on site features shown on the Site Plan. The explorations were backfilled with the excavated material and compacted with the backhoe bucket. 0 T he test pits were continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firm C M M who observed the materials encountered, noted ground water conditions and maintained a 0 0 0 C detailed to- of each exploration. The soils encountered w ere classified in general accordance M M with the classification system shown in Figure A- 1. The test pit logs are presented in Figures MZ1 _Z A-2 through A-3. C i�w-� vi, 0 M M Vi 0 0 M C CD 9 CD M 0: Z M z 3: z 0 0 M SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GROUP MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL GROUPNAME GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE GRAINED GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL SOILS More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Retained on No. 4 Sieve WITH FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND More Than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve SP POORLY -GRADED SAND More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction SAND SM SILTY SAND Passes No. 4 Sieve WITH FINES SC CLAYEY SAND FINE SILT AND CLAY ML SILT GRAINED SOILS INORGANIC CL CLAY ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY Liquid Limit Less Than 50 SILT AND CLAY MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT More Than 50% INORGANIC Passes CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY No. 200 Sieve Liquid Limit 50 or More RGANIC F o OH ORGANIC CLAY. ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil in Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. Moist - Damp, but no visible water 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained D2487-90. from below water table 3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. lr--:Zl a TUB 13 S U 8 00 a cc" 0 (3 nT1 C (B a SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE A-1 z 0 i 0 M z .4 0 m c M m 0 0' Vj� ol 0 C 3: M, M Z, c -Z 'Tl m M IN' 1p) 0 m c Cf), m �zo Z, z 0 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND CLASSIFICATION SURFACE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION (FEET) TEST PIT TP-3 0. 2.5 SP Brown sind with sonic gravel, sonic silt, trace of roots, sonic construction debris (loose, damp) [fill] 2.5 .3.5 SP Gray sand with sonic gravel, sonic silt, sonic roots, Sonic construction debris Z' (niedium dense, damp) Ifilll 0 A 0 3.5-4.0 Sm Dark brown silty sand with sonic g avel, sonic roots (niedium dense, damp) m 1buried topsoill with sonic gravel, sonic roots (ineditin 4.0-7.0 Sm Medium brown silty sand i dense, danip) IVashon recessional 01it"Washl 0 M C: Brownish gray sand with sunic silt, trace of graveZ, trace of roots (dense, danip) 7.0-9.0 SP m 0 0, JVashon advance outwishl 0. 0 C, ct on 12/19/03 Bottom of test pit at 9.0 fe x M M Z' No groundwater seepage observed -71 C > z TEST PIT TP4 CO) SP Dark brown sand with sonic gravel, sonic silt, sonic roots (h.-K)s c, danip) 0 -n. -n 0-0.5 [topsoil] Brownish gray sand with trace of gravel, sonic silt, trace of roots 6.0-3.0 SP m M (medium dense, damp) lVashon recessional OUtWaShl 0 m 3.0-6.0 S P Brownish gray sand with sonic gravel, sonic silt, trace of roots (very dense, danip) C= (A 9 0) '10 IVashon advance outwaslij m 0 z r Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet on 12/19/03 7-1 No groundwater seepage observed z z 0 m DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT LOG OF TEST PIT TUBB S n C a FIGURE A-3 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND CLASSIFICATION SURFACE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION (FEET) TEST PIT TP-5 0.3.5 Sm Dark brown silty sand with some gravel, some roots (medium dense, danip) [fill] 3.5 -4.5 Sm Reddish brown silty sand with trace of gravel, trace of roots (niedium dense, damp) [Vashon recessional outwashl Z. 0 4.5-7.0 SP Medium brown sand with some silt, trace of gravel, trice of roots 0 (medium dense, damp) [Vashon recesssional 011twishi Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet (in 12119/03 No groundwater seepage observed X M C m —4 0 TEST PIT TP-6 0 0 C: 0. 1.0 Sm Medium grayish brown silty sand with some gravel, trace of roots (dense, dimp) X m m z 10 1.0-2.0 Sm Dark brown silty sand with trice of gravel, some roots medium dense, daunp) C > Z thuried topsoill 2.0-6.0 SP Medium grayish brown sand with sonle silt, trace of gravel (niedium dense, damp) 0 -n Washon recessional outwaslil n 6.0-7.0 st, Brownish gray sand with some silt, some gravel (dense to very dense, danip) m M [Vislionadvince outwashl Bottom of test pitat 7.0 feet on 12/19/03 0 m C: No groundwater seepage observed 9 0) M 0 Z X z Z 01 m DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT LOG OF TEST PIT 0 0 TUBBSQMO r-�' rrz� FIGURE A-4 TUBf3SQ@1@0C �$n C90 Date: 4/1/04 F I E L D REPORT Page: 1 of I Owner: Firstline Construction, Inc. Project: 10304 - 242 "d Place SW File #: FIR 1 -0 1 Permit #: 2004-0206 Purpose of visit: Foundation inspection Field report#: I Weather: Sunny Prepared by: Donald W. Tubbs I arrived at the site at 10: 15 am. The building pad has been prepared for the foundation. Most of tile pad is directly underlain by native soils consisting of glacial outwash sand; the westernmost portion of the pad is underlain by a little over one foot of structural fill consisting of outwash sand excavated from the eastern portion of the foundation area. The soils within the foundation area have been compacted using hand -operated vibratory compaction equipment. I probed the soils within the foundation area using a half -inch steep probe, and observed that the native soils and the structural fill have been compacted to a dense condition. The compacted native and fill soils within the foundation area were verified as suitable for the design bearing value of 2000 psf provided in our geotechnical report dated January 9, 2004. No ternporary or permanent cut slopes greater than 10 feet in height exist within tile site. Tile permanent cut slope adjacent to the eastern property line is between 8 and 10 feet in height. The slope includes an upper segment inclined approximately 2H: IV, and a lower segment consisting of two tiers of keystone block walls separated by a gently sloping interval. Each of the two keystone block walls is approximately 3 feet in height. The toe of the upper wall lies below a plane sloping upward 45 degrees from the toe of the lower wall. The toes of both walls lie above a plane sloping downward 45 degrees from the adjacent property line, as had been recommended for the rockery walls that were discussed in our geotechnical report as a possible means of erosion protection. It is our opinion that the keystone block walls that have been constructed will adequately provide the intended erosion protection along the lower portion of the slope. 0 I left the site at 11: 15am. Attachments: Distribution: RECEIVED APR U-5 2004 DEVELOPMEM SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS Signed: est Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 425 882-4850 www.tu com z 0 M C M M 0 0 0 0 C M M Z K) —1 CE 3: C/) 0 -n n m M 0 0 0 M C (1) F. 0) Q 0 Z z z 0 1 0 M 0; � Height Calculation Worksheet Address: n Date: cs- 1 6-,:'4 hWector(s): 01� 1. Datum Point: C Is Z. 2. Datum Point Elevation: t 0�� M 3. Average Grade: t 3-7 - .4. Maximum Elevation Allowed: I o'"?- averagdgiade),41*25 OM MO 0 5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House: 0 0 C -,D (datum elevation) (grade to transit level flueshot to house) 08 M M z 6. Measurements from line shot onto house to roof ridge: CE o -n 10. V M M W 0 0 M C 0) 9 Cn MO Z X z W Total c� z 0 --I M 7. Actual Elevation:.t 08-9�S— (reference point elevation) + Ad.-�9 (measurements from #6) tli � 94 Conclusion: (actual) is greater A:'Iesslit�baO, (allowed); therefore the house i.V is not over the height requiremen—f-p—er—ECDC 16.20.30 requirements GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 . . . . . Website: www.dedrnondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning Building Engineering C. April 27, 2004 Z ok; Firstline Construction Inc. 944 Maple Street q Edmonds, WA 98020 M C: 0 0 0 C Dear Mr. Licata: M M Z� nd The correction notice dated 4/26/04 for 10304242 Street SW did not include a re- C —Z inspection fee. The correction was for the eight items noted. I am returning your check number 1045 for $55.00. Please drop off a check for $5.00 to cover the coping fee. o -n -n Sincerely, M M W 0 0 M C CD 9 cn, Mariellarrison Permit Coordinator Z z co GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwacLedmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT it? C. ()�3 Planning Building - Engineering June 21, 2004 Firstline Construction 944 Maple St 0 Edmonds, WA 98020 M Building Permit: 2004-0206 -A 9 Site Address: 10304 242nd PI SW Cl) Expiration Date: 3/17/05 M C M 0 __10 0 C The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the last remaining inspection on your M project is a final inspection(s). The final inspection(s) determines that there are no M Z outstanding life -safety issues and approval allows the City to close your permit file. C _Z The City considers the final inspection to be one of the most important inspections � conducted on a project. In order to grant final approval the following must be complete: 0 -n n smoke detectors, house numbers, guardrails, handrails, self -close doors between garage and residence, egress from sleeping rooms, safety glazing, weather-stripping, any M M Engineering department requirements etc. Of course not all of these things may 0 V5 0 specifically apply to your project but it does give you an idea about the kinds of things 0 M that must be complete as well as some items that do not need to be installed such as: C (D M Ch paint, carpet, moldings, wallpaper, etc. Please be advised permits expire one year from M 0 Z the date of issuance. If you will need more time to complete the work, permits can be renewed prior to expiration for one half fees. If the permit expires without a final approval granted by the Building Inspector, full fees are required in order to renew the permit. This can be very costly to you and we strongly encourage you to check your permit expiration date and call for the required final inspection(s). Note: If more than one department is required to final your project, this is noted on your Job Card. Z 0 Please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 if you have any questions. 0 M Shiperely, Pen-n' ordinator Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan FINAL PROJECT APPROVA-111, FORM TO: DATE: MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE—___� r ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE kwl PLANNING DIVISION DATE---------- PROJECT-- SITE ADDRESS -- PERMIT# ADB#--------PATE.INSPECTED-1:�L/—,� DESCRIPTION OF)WORK TO BE INSPECTED A field inspection was conducted to determine final 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: GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED C3 Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector FAILE D FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES [3 Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inspector. 1 2. 3. RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL Date Si (>caprv1.doc.1:tem , p:b1dg:fbrnis10/01 z 0 i 0 M --i -n 3: M M 0 --1 0 0 C M M Z 10 4 C —Z X 0 n > M M 0 U5 0 r- Q M (n Cn M C) Z r- M 3: z Cn z 0 i 0 M RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED SETBACKS ..................... FOUNDATION: Footing ...................... Wall.......................... Pier/Porch ................. Retaining Wall ........... Slab Insulation .......... PLUMBING: 11 C-M&Z Underground ............. Rough -in ................... Commercial Final ....... HEATING: GasTest .................... Gas Piping ................. Equipment ................. Commercial Final ....... EXTERIOR SHEATHING NAILING.......................... FRAMING ........................ FIRST FLOOR FRAMING ... 0 INSULATION ................... Floor Insulation ......... Wall Insulation ........... Ceiling Insulation ....... SHEETROCK NAILING ... SPECIAL INSPECTION ... Al, S MISCELLANEOUS .......... FINAL APPROVAL FOR OCCUPANCY .................. zxq,ozotp I/ The initials NIT are Milton Thompson, a temporary contract inspector for tile City. z 0 i 0 M --I -n 0 M IT! 0 0 --I C) 0 C --I K X M M Z C _z o -n ri ITI IT! 0 0 M cl) Cf) ITI 0 Z z z 0 0 171