The URL can be used to link to this page

20040723 (2).pdfDATE RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS Pi j/t.�J Ww MAILING ADDRESS o CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NAME ADDRESS Ir 2 7-- CITY ZIP TELEPHONE �'J NAME %%rill!/ rT/�%fa `` �i�// ll� CB � �e p ADDRESS: s /f,/4/ r CITYZIPZIP TELEPHONE STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKED BY 'ROPERTa TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. , NEW F4L RESIDENTIAL ❑ ADDITION ❑ COMMERCIAL ❑ REMODEL ❑ MULTIFAMILY ❑ REPAIR GRADING- CYDS ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK GARAGE RETAINING WALL Z CARPORT ❑ ROCKERY r(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: o NUMBER NUMBER OF OF DWELLING to STORIES 2 UNITS DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE ln/ giV rll l 9/511 PLUMBING / MECH ` COMPLIANCE OR ❑ CHANGE OF USE ❑ SIGN ❑FENCE ( X_ ❑ OTHER ❑FIRE SPRINKLER FIRE ALARM CRITICAL v� AREAS �t NUMBER N / HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % LOT SLOPE % Jiro 107C PLAN CHECK NO: , , ,. VESTED DATE �`G/ I I PERMIT EXPIRES USE }_� PERMIT ZONE /�. NUMBER jUU ADDRESS - SUITE/APT# jam. r PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO, LID NO. j —3� . LID FEE $ PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Pe mit Requivedred ❑ RW Permit Requited 0 Street Use Permit Roq'd EXISTING PROPOSED Inspection Required Sidewalk Required REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Underground Winng required METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED YES NO ❑ Q REMARKS = z OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE 8 Z to n�,'( lv •r �� Sim �c'li.,lu-�i� I t ;`� c:�ttcIJ•�?. EERING REVIEWED BY DATE er YYJ �',mn 1) FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE W cc VARIANCE OR CU INSPECTION BOND . j REO'D TED `I YES ONO g O SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSJFD EXP V� LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PROPOSE FRONT SIPE REA{i� FRON� UR�1DE%REAPr ell Ito PARKING LOT AREA fw}NNING F]F�VIEW D Y DATE REO'D 1 PROVIDED ' FT) REMARKS THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. PERMIT APPLICATION: 160 DAYS PERMIT LIMIT, 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF hits OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CHY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' 4 HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. SIGNATURE (OWNER J�E T)) DATE SIGNED LLl ! !`/ i t4r.1 b CHECKED BY _ 176 `i 101- D w I(J/i 3/0 l ooxj5 lr V(/t u I o(P 404V OCTL 1INC' Id i i P S #�wa/-e ' r OF GROUP ll SPECIAL INSPECTION JAREA OCCUFfANT REOUIRED�R YES-:!o F 35r 1 �� LOAD REMARKS a PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/IBC109/IRC109 FINAL INSPECTION REQ'D 9 t_'•..-,I ;. 'e/I-ii, .%. 4 j -Yi•7, ,.r, _sl.v /7i,3 ,:A.. L_ m VALUATION $`� /5G:1 Description Plan Check Building Permit Plumbing Mechanical Grading Engr. Review L Engr. Inspection de FEE Description FEE State Surcharge City Surcharge Base Fee e;i�r Plan Chk. Deposit G �� Receipt # L Total Amt. Due 1 <! Receipt # APPLICATION APPROVAL CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided. OFFICIALS SIGNA��E DATE //4771 m0220 REI,ErytFD BYL j DATE AT,TENTIOl1 MA 11333 L_ IT IS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCU PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/IBC110/IRC110. Fire Review Fire Inspection Landscape Insp. Recording Fee 09/03 PRESS (HARD =YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES 'l ORIGINAL FILE YELLOW - INS CTO PINK -OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR IVA O n M — t —n vm m� �O On (C —I K XM m Z p�q DZ O 'T1 'n Zl mDDm_ O� nM m �Cn m Z� M D Z O —I n M SEWER > > c `r� FUN��iNLM T L 1 T /`� �a�16'�i cJ n� S ��'/'� r2-/�`J �U r iZ %,' c� WATER NS REQ'D. OWNER/CO{ dTt I-kC .11 i iS RLS /� �NSPECTIO 1=CR EROEt,,40N 1..A1`dD D r 4 4p ti�v .y AL�4366.77 4-0220 EXT. 1326 N zgot (0B N ^' •I�\\ .. rl� L IC ove.7- 1 NUJ ALL EX OSED SURFACESg.�.L.—� �t 110� rz BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS 907 S,F= i _ o I m,% -1 Akxl O fJ H{ pJ StE ``l Z3 & 1 GP.T, 2 I ICo �o � Ir.b.tl� 01 1 N 1 I o K 3o DETC-1JT I oIJ T T1MU IVEWAY SLOPE E oD 14 op E� / PGti or s �v RING I I r SEu/G� �sdg'i:: uP .9 Gott` jai "k /I l?E I=1LTc r.;Q,*►t° /� ter/ STtzl P ACE 1 -•- ' �' •� _ Q F o fkn C� •��G / SILT II TUe J 6r= It I core% r 101�1� I t�p � 7 t cc IJ F I L T2 AT l O 11�1 I - q I r�Y.� �`• 1= K. . E lsf��Y Y l 'I'iCC I-! C G. Sig L.CDN 71iP. FT6�A1 �I • I 0I p _ po 11~i T r 1 o IJ �� •� N I — 7 _ — o , V / �4 Orc ZqO. %0 I .. �'� pVc_.7i=TC-►,►TIol�1 01-8 ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLINE o�TI_ I t_I1�1� -To rLo,� Rr-_sTRlc� o� WISP, /1.1 F11_'1' P. ' c� MATERIAL SCH 40 ----- I sO Jcc-r- In j��} uk'A 1 , -rNWFST N - 12 /� ZZS, !oR�11 t)IiGErn�{.iTS o F .. I� , F810 RANCOR �= 2 37 4 ' sr ¢ s-.z��3 - s4 sew � lbo v I �- C = 2 310.� ' '� v.rtLt��...�.,Ess:.t5t...uti✓t�/ - � 2 410 4y-1 , -�r �x Ac_c: r , -� z 703 z_sC>D a c�� l l � � r, - Z.z 8.�• 1 :.•�__._._:._ . _.. W i Par= r D 1=� A Vln. = 232.8 ' [{(}1� a12' ��SlL/ags ► RECEIVED p ten-►-1 APPROVED AS NOTED ��u. ►r �. - zs-r.a BY ENGINEERING ' 6 ' I T6. Scl. tEP 1 4 2004 AcrL)al_.. Z67.5 z7, I9' ail�j--I .� Dt�:.,._._. �.�._. PERMIT COUNTER PP'' I/�PEIZ.110U5 S U�Fr �.Ft►l�al._ cON-1 O Ufl_S H��II rn la 5:_ s Sir-, �_�-,- : 3713 ��. a s -CAL z O O s : r- s{L F I tr Lso c.o . A s . N bISPOSE- of ,-�ccESS A� Cl' .Xt,. Cory _� I� '^ P•rrrz•avG� s ITG L= i�) s 01 L� To t5 E co./E v rm b 4 '1 �pa z, f 1 0.1 off 15 obb 2© d 3 - 43 c{ 296 481 1 bomb 30, r Tomo sd - - I I I 2 IE=23112 (2) Sx6 WYES (N&S) l 61 :; I ...:::....::::: ; Q 1 / :�: W CO TO GRADE GARAGE :!..'..:::...�:: v IE=233.08 — 236 00 : { .:..Off::::::: .: I FFE- 1a-1::•: ' • � ( � 1 SE�WER�UNE Soo S=10' OffCORE RECHANN I I I I I I I I •' SSMH I I •' 0Rih1240.5� I I I I S a 3260 IFY) SWf�. M.H. 4/ ,.,.. go WWI 4 Yj 1 �� D SD I SEP 14 2004 a ti I fImI U"r'_ PERMIT CONTER . Oleo. .. 71 10,00,•: me �•:.: (2) DO 0 If30 2DOMESTIC a tv WATER METERS ( ) {:: ' ::. n PER WE STD DETAIL E6GARAGEOleo"�. go mFFE=240.00 e 1. 11 i i t I Iry"/ 1 1 i EAST WATER 04/15/2004 15:,08 4257478561 GEOTECH PgGE: 01/02 ►T'�. 13256 Northeast 20th Street, $uitq if) Bellevue. Wasbin�,I.bn 980CLI CONSLTLT'A WrS., INC. (4231 747-5618 FAX'f423) 7474$3d] April 16, 2004 JN 03322 Alan Jackson 16401 Highway 99 Lynnwood, Washington 99037 z O Subject: Review of Dispersion System Plans Proposed Residences - Lots 1, 21 and 3 M 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Zi 9 Dear Mr. Jackson: via facsimile@ (425) 767-9ff2 p M v We have completed a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the plans for the proposed � 0 stormwater dispersion trenches to be constructed on the northern three lots (Lots 11 2, and 3) of the C subplat. The plans we reviewed included Sheets C-1 through C-6. The plans were prepared by = m CSP Engineering and are dated October 13, 2003, We completed a geotechnical study of this site m z JO on September 3, 2003. C Dz The proposed dispersion trenches are to be located along the western edge of the development area. The natural grades on the land to the west of the proposed dispersion trenches are inclined rn at approximately 20 to 30 percent and the slope is fully vegetated with mature trees and m undergrowth. The grading plan and drainage plans indicate that the new dispersion systems will be located at existing grades with no fill added to the existing grades above or below the system. A m m vegetated filter strip will be installed along the downslope side of the dispersion trenches to create a v level'discharge area and to reduce potential erosion. 0 m C cn Given the relatively gentle inclination of the slope below the proposed dispersion system and the m 0 n soil conditions observed in our test pits, it is our opinion, provided that the recommendations Z r provided in the geotechnical study are followed, that the installation of the planned dispersion system will not result in slope instability at the subject site. 2 Z --I Cn z O 0 M G GEOTECN CONSULTANTS. INC, 04/16/2004 15:08 4257478561 GEOTECH PNGE' 0V02 Alan Jackson JN 03322 April 16, 2004 Page 2 We trust this letter fulfills your needs at this time. Please contact us with any questions or if we can further assist you. Respectfully submitted, y�. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Z. e� 0� 0_ (7' in vm James H. Strange, Jr., RE, M v Geotechnical Project Manager 00 c cc: Graham Northwest, Inc. — Kris Stotz or Dave Stafford m via facsimile: (425) 984-0120 D Z r Lisa Bride via facsimile: (425) 672-9182 W. 0� Mountain Shadow Construction — Jerry Dawes _ via facsimile: (425) 745-5805 - m M O� JHS: jhs c M. 9 Cl) Z� D. Z c; 2 Z 0 n0 m r. ,ff I' GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. 'I 1 •:� 1 CITE' OF EDMON S SPECYAY, INSPECTION AND TESTING AGREEMENT The project at 2 lP 7r�`L'' issued under building permit number Z '7= requires special inspection and/or testing per IBC Chapter 17. The complete lid of special inspections is attached to this document. BEFORE A PERMIT CAN DE ISSG'ED: The owner and contractor and special inspector shall complete this agreement and the attached structural test(s) and inspections schedule including the required acknowledgements. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL INSPECTORS: Each special inspector shall be approved by the Building Official prior to performing any duties or inspections. Each special inspector shall submit Statement of Qualifications to the Building Official for review. Special inspectors shall display identification when performing special inspections on site. Special inspection and testing shall meet the minimum requirements of JBC Chapter 17 and the following: A. Dutiei and Responsibilities of the Special Inspector 1. Observe Work The special inspector shall observe the site work for conf6rmancM1th ap oMfsstamped) plans and specifications and applicable workmanship provisions of the IBC. Architect or Engineer reviewed shop drawings may be used only as an aid to inspection. Special Inspections are to be performed on a continuous basis —meaning that the special inspector is on site at all times observing the work requiring special inspection. Periodic inspections, if any, must have prior approval by the City based on a separate written plan reviewed and approved by the Building Official and the engineer or architect of record. 2. Report Now -conforming Itelrs The special inspector shall bring non-couforming items to the immediate attention of the contractor and note all such items in the daily field report. Any item not resolved in a timely manner shall be immediate cause of the special inspector to notify the Building Official of the plan deviation, error, change or omission. It shall also be the duty of the special inspector to promptly notify the engineer or architect. 3. Complete Daily Reports Each special inspector shall complete and sign both the special' inspection record and the daily report form for each day's inspection. These records shall remain at the jobsite with the contractor for review by the City Building Inspector. 4. " Furnish Weekly Reports The special inspector or inspection agency shall furnish the City with weekly reports of tests and inspections. The project engineer or architect, and others as designated shall also be copied on reports. 'Weekly reports must 'include the following: • Description of daily inspections and tests made with applicable locations List of all non -conforming items • Report on status of non -conforming items (resolved or unresolved) • Itemized changes authorized by the Architect, Engineer and City if not included in non- conformance items. $. Furnish Final Construction Report The special inspector or inspection agency shall submit a Anal signed report to the City stating that all items requiring special inspection and testing were fulfilled and reported. AfWXd,"the L.O,\TEW\BUILDLNG1Specialimpc,ctionAgreement BC.doc 7/04 PF. RN11I (:. CUH i -, O n m vm m� -I O On 2 M mZ ID DZ r= c O -n m mm o � nr �N m Z� Z 2 Z O n M '1 r OCT-17-2004 08:26 PM P.01 • y [ t \mow' �f J?,'f iCGi�i`l `t" v �• Y.1ni �t `t}a}..tr�.�V•' 4 1M -j• r N=- •-�\.r . .r :i.: 'tr v'a 'j; .. ♦ tit. t t} 'i., S l r ..a 1� rtk r'• t �..•__-+.uu•_.. � '. .�:, �%+i .Z �'� a��s(.YI 'iI'r> � .ar.-r ..—��'..—..\ �.�.r.�...—..a:.1r\'ti1..'\v2�r'J.... _i.. .ter. rl.tl`r�}':t�� • ed is iq couformance with the approved plans and specifications, his/her }tnowledge the pruj rovisions of the [BC• Items not in approved change orders and the applicable workncsri ip action coverage, ('ue-, �d conformance or ustresolved items or any discrepancy nsp shy be specif►ca11y ins ections, periodic inspection when continuous inspections were required, etc•) P itemised in this report. con rector Res ons'bilities l _ Notify the Special Inspector actor when work is ready for special i it i5 the duty of the contractor to notify the special insp ysoted oA the approved plans and inspection. Note, the items listed on the attached Schad A� notice shall be provided by the equate specifications are required to have special inspects contractor so that the special inspector has time to become familiar with the project- i z 2. provide Access to Approved Maus for ybvigag the special inspector access to approved plans at the I O The contractor is responsiblep rn ,jobsite. 3. p etain Spedat Inspection Records -i* i'he contractor is responsible t0 ietaln at the jobsite all spet�ai inspection records submitted by the i These records are to be provided to the City building inspector upon request. i p rn s �ecial inspector. T j m C• C r Ui r,aTaonw ie[ inspectors ar insp0CdOn age"L*3 nirements 1. approve spec • The building department shall approve ill special inspectors and special inspection req 2. Monitor special Inspection and approve weekly reports Work requiring special inspection and the performance of epedai inspectors shall be monitored by the City Building Inspector. HIsMor approved mast be obtained prior to placement of concrete or other similar Activities in addition to that of the Special inspector. 3. Issue Certificate oi•Q=npaftcY inspection reports The Budding Ot'liclal may issue a Certificate of QccapancY after ad weekly special iylsp P including the final report have been submitted and accepted. D. Owner nonsibififies the owner's agent shall fund The project owner or the engineer or ard9tet of record attsrig special inspection services. E, Exudgger or Architect of Record Resvanathillf The engineer or arcbitect of record shall include special inspection requirements on the plans and specifications. ACKNONLEDGEMENTS • I have read and agree to comply with dw teems and caoaditevens of this agreem�e�nt. i'� l Own40 er ' �' licb 1r. Date Lzirl Special YnspecKor Cis 1� General Contractor '�, Date �-- City Building Official Date L;`,TEMP\BUILDINGlSpecWlnsp cmAgmcmendOCidoo 7104 Oc _M mZ p Dz r= O Wn -n mm_ Om r C urn, 9 to -zl �r1 ' D { D z O n m MJECIPHMM PRQX=ADDKE35MS REINTORC D CONCRETE, GUNITE, GROUT AND MORTAR STRUCTURAL S EkUWELDIING: Coma.. Gmdk clm Moriar — Sample and Tat (:m %psi& mcutbcis below) E T _ Sbop Material Idendficstion Wes& bapectim O Sbop D Fick! - Uftmf lc Inspection 0 Sbop ❑ f;dd Aig"tr= h Baiting bqmmm 0 Sbcp ❑ Feld DA32S p N ❑x 4l= C1 A490 Z — Mcui Deck Welding Lupxoon O — Rsinfwting. Swel Welding lmpcctioa , n ,_..,. Metal Stud WcldinE Itnpavo� ITl PRECASTIPRESTUMED CONCRETE: � C=vc Insw Wddatg lnvmioe -I 9 ILI _ -m �- 'r. r - . , . FIREPRI�OFfNG: _ _ I'hoematt iaspestioo m rn0 — Density Tuts O mmi _ ThkimrssTws O c _. ]ripe a Batebiag mmi m Z INSULATING CONCRETE: A DZ _ Sample and Test r acetnettt i _ i'i espetst W _ daft wciou O m i IILL MATERL46L! .�. Aaceptaace Tots rn rn MASONRY Placctttulnspection p 0 M Special lnipmioe Sttesaa Used Field peoRty C ..._ Prcliminary Acccpta.cc Tests (Masonry Units. Wall Prisms)'' 9 co __.. Snbsa mmi Tests (Macaw Grwt.1ield WmA Primm) STRUCTURAL WOOD: Z r r... Plact:taaoe inspecdon of Units _. Skew Wall Nailing Inveaicio Impaction of Giu.istr Rb. ;u — Inspwion of Truss Joist Fab, 2 ADDI'I'IOINAL INSTRUCTICINS OR OTRER TESTS — Sarmpk and Teg C°Q`I ownu z AND INSPECTIONS: �� ; C ' �• ��c.�-r�•l��y;-C�r- �/�t%c �vr<i7L (s-�cc -�c.c�ai�c. / iv�t.li ivc rri Fam 4c ocled ay •.l �2i= i Tckplwtte TOTAL Pr05 , O m '1 04/16/2004 15:08 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 01/02 r"`! �` T' �.� H 13256 Northean 20th Street, suite i( 1s! IS i Bellevue. Washington 4$005 CONSUILTANTS., INC. (4?5) 747-5619 FAX r425) 7474363 April 16, 2004 JN 03322 Alan Jackson 16401 highway 99 Lynnwood, Washington 99037 z Subject: Review of Dispersion System Plans O-i Proposed Residences - Lots 1, 21 and 3 0 1230 — 7th Avenue South M Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jackson: via facsimile: (425) 767 9f12 o rn c We have completed a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the plans for the proposed M p stormwater dispersion trenches to be constructed on the northem three lots (Lots 11 2, and 3) of the 0 n subplat. The plans we reviewed Included Sheets C-1 through C-6. The plans were prepared by = CSP Engineering and are dated October 13, 2003, We completed a geotechnical study of this site m m Z on September 3, 2003. l O =A cg The proposed dispersion trenches are to be located along the western edge of the development _ area. The natural grades on the land to the west of the proposed dispersion trenches are inclined Cn at approximately 20 to 30 percent and the slope is fully vegetated with mature trees and 0 -n undergrowth. The grading plan and drainage plans indicate that the new dispersion systems will be m located at existing grades with no fill added to the existing grades above or below the system. A m rn vegetated filter strip will be installed along the downslope side of the dispersion trenches to create a level discharge area and to reduce potential erosion. 0 C1) r 0 rn CD Given the relatively gentle inclination of the slope below the proposed dispersion system and the C Cn soil conditions observed in our test pits, it is our opinion, provided that the recommendations z 0 provided in the geotechnical study are followed, that the installation of the planned dispersion system will not result in slope instability at the subject site. D z --I 0) z. 0 -•1 n M RECEIVED SEP 14 2004 I ti PERMIT COUNTER I GEOTECN CONSULTANTS, INC, j c my C j 04/1E/20C�4 15:,08 4257478561 �-,EOTECH PAGE 02102 Alan Jackson JN 03322 April 16, 2004 Page 2 We trust this letter fulfills your needs at this time. Please contact us with any questions or if we can further assist you. Respectfully submitted, �7 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC, VW 0140 9 - James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Geotechnical Project Manager cc: Graham Northwest, Inc. — Kris Stolz or Dave Stafford via facsimile: (425) 984-0120 Lisa Bride via facsimile: (425) 672=9182 Mountain Shadow Construction - Jerry Dawes via facsimile: (425) 745-5805 JHS: jhs GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 0. n m vrn ; mom` O -i O n C. =m mZ DZ r= N Om m �o MM 00 0) r C� CC/) z� X. z' z O 0 m 1pI E° i I eyiiylzutIq _Thebu 4t5/418bbl GEOTECH PAGE 62 13256 Northeast 20th Stma, Suite 16 G T C Bellevue, Washington 98005 CQNSULTANTS, ANC. (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747.856I September 3, 2003 JN 03322 Alan Jackson 16401 Highway 99 z Lynnwood, Washington W037 0 0 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study rn Proposed Wilderness Stuff Short Plat 1230 � 7th Avenue South �' Edmonds, Washington v m c Dear Mr. Jackson: via facsimile. (425) 787-9112 o oC: We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineermg report for the proposed single-family = M residences to be constructed in Edmonds, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of m z exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide p -i recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls, This work was authorized by your acceptance of our Contract for Professional Services' dated July CO 24, 2003. o M We were provided with a preliminary site plan that includes some topographic information. AFM = MI Industries, Inc. developed this plan, which is dated September 14, 2002, Based on this plan and m m on conversations with Alan Jackson, we anticipate that the development will consist of dividing the o Fn approximately 1.8-acre site into four lots and constructing one single-sfamily residence on each lot. c M The houses will be accessed via driveways off of 7th Avenue South and will be set back 25 feet 9 rn from the street. Each house will consist of one floor of living space and a garage over a daylight z 0 basement. Some cuts and fills will be necessary to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of approximately 8 to 10 feet below existing street grade, and a small backyard will be filled at finish floor elevation. No development is proposed on the western side of the site, as this area is a = designated wetland. - D z --I If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided = with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of Z z this report are warranted, o M SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site, The undeveloped, wooded site is located on the western side of 7th Avenue South in Edmonds, The site slopes from east to west, with elevations varying from approximately 246 feet at the southeastern comer to approximately 200 feet at the southwestern corner. Most of the western part of the site is a relatively flat designated wetland, and there is a creek that winds along the western property line. The proposed development area is located on the sloped, eastern portion of the site. The slopes are inclined at approximately 30 percent and are covered with tall deciduous and evergreen trees, The ground is GSOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. bylld!'Lba4 lb:btl 4Y5/4/bnb1 L-ILL) PAGE 03 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 2 covered with blackberry and morning glory vines near the street and with ferns and other low growth vegetation elsewhere. There is an area on the southern part of the site where approximately 10 feet of yard waste and construction debris have been dumped to form a locally steeper slope. Dumped garbage, yard waste, and construction debris were observed scattered throughout the site. The adjoining properties are developed with single-family residences. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating seven test pits at the approximate z locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the o proposed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during n exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposam l 1 -a m The test pits were excavated on July 24, 2003 with a small, rubberAracked trackhoe provided and N MA operated by Alan Jackson. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation O M process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" m v samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs o 0 are provided in Plates 3 and 4 of this report, c iM Soil Conditions m z p -I cZ The test pits encountered a 6- to 24-inch layer of topsoil and 2 to 3 feet of weathered sand _ and gravel with abundant roots overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel with cobbles M and occasional boulders. One to 2 feet of sand and gravel fill was encountered overlying p m the topsoil in Test Pits 11 4, and 7. The dense to very dense sand and gravel was Mn encountered to the maximum explored depth of 9 feet below existing grade. The depths of m m N� soil layers, including topsoil, that are indicated on the logs are approximate. More exact definition of soil unit thicknesses would require more explorations. 1 o m Large amounts of yard waste, garbage, and construction debris were observed scattered 9 CD throughout the site and were encountered in the topsoil and in the fill. This debris will need z l to be removed during site clearing. 71 X Groundwater Conditions I z Groundwater seepage was observed at depths of 6 to 6.5 feet in Test Pits 3 and 5; { _ however, the test pits were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the seepage ff levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not indicate Z the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with O rainfall and other factors. n rn The final fogs represent our interpretations of the field logs. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. i GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. , UW IJ/'Lbb4 lb: bb 41b 14 tbbbl C-EU I ECH PAGE 04 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THiS REPORT. ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD zz READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. The proposed development will consist of dividing the site into four roughly equal lots and rn constructing one single-family residence on each lot. The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that the earthwork for all of the houses can be completed at once. If the development plans change, we should be notified so that we may update our v m recommendations accordingly. C v mp The test pits conducted for this study encountered loose fill, topsoil, and highly weathered sand and 0 c gravel overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel. Competent, native soils were encountered = M between 1 and 4 feet below existing grade, with the thicker loose, surficial layer encountered near m z the top of the slope on the eastern side of the site. The native sand and gravel soils encountered p —{ below the root line are competent to support the four proposed single-family residences on >z conventional foundations. These soils are also suitable for reuse as structural fill throughout the _ site. The topsoil and weathered sand may be reused as fill in non-structural areas such as �' landscaping beds. Dumped construction debris, yard waste, and garbage were observed -n E j throughout the site. This material is not suitable for reuse as fill and should be removed during site _ clearing. m m_ o Based on the topographic information provided to us, and on our understanding of the project, M some cuts and fills will be required to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of 8 to 10 feet 9 C below existing street grade. Because the proposed houses will be set back at least 25 feet from z 0 i the edge of the street, cut slopes inclined no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) can be made 7A (Dn within the eastern property line. Please note that this inclination applies only to the native sand and gravel; the fill and debris encountered near the surface on most of the site should be removed --� during site clearing, Also, groundwater was encountered in two of the downslope test pits during j z exploration, If groundwater is encountered during the excavation on the upslope side of the site, the cut slopes below the groundwater table will likely experience some sloughing or caving. To = mitigate the potential for instability of the cut slopes below the groundwater table, the cuts may Cn have to be backfilled with rock ballast. We should be contacted at once if groundwater is p encountered during the excavation of the cut slopes. All cut slopes should be protected =� Immediately ,with plastic sheeting and should be monitored daily by the superintendent for I m Indications of Instability. Soil stockpiles and debris from site clearing should not be stored at the. ! top of any cut slope. The foundation walls between the adjacent residences are approximately 10 feet apart as shown on the site plan. The soil between the foundation walls of the proposed residences should be removed as part of the mass excavation where it cannot be inclined at 111 (H:V). Taking into account a space allowance of 2 feet on each side for footings, drains, and forts, cuts cannot exceed 3 feet between the foundation walls. GEOMCH CONSULTANTS. INC. by/1�/'Lbb4 lb:bii 42!314Mbbl kntUIEUH F'AUL bb Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 4 Based on the site plan, it appears as though cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be necessary to achieve finish floor elevations of the northernmost houses and southernmost. The plan shows each of these houses set back 5 feet from the northern and southern property lines, respectively. Because the site soils may be inclined no steeper than 1*1 (H:1) shoring will be required to make the proposed cuts unless the finished floor elevations of these structures are revised. We can make recommendations for the design of these temporary shoring walls if they are required. Based on the topographic information provided to us, fill on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be required to level the finish floor of each house at its proposed finish floor elevation. However, we Z recommend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill. Finished fill slopes o should not be inclined steeper than 2.5:1 (H:1/)_ Depending on the desired back yard layout and i 4 the location of the wetland buffer, it may prove more economical to overexcavate, place the 1 M downslope foundations on native, dense sand and gravel and leave a tall crawl space, or to step the buildings down the slope. Alternatively, a reinforced fill rockery could be constructed near the western edge of the development area to level the site. Regardless of which method is chosen, we v m recommend that the downslope foundation wall be designed as a retaining wall to retain the soil v v within the crawl space or beneath the slab down to the footing level. Fill rockeries taller than 4 feet m o will require geogrid reinforcement, we can provide a design if necessary. We should review the p c grading plans once the house layouts are finalized. i mz The site sand and gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. The earthwork contractor should prepare the fill areas by removing the topsoil and highly weathered sand above } > z the root line. The new fill should be benched into the dense native soils by cutting flat benches into {; the dense native soils. Each horizontal lift of fill should be tested to ensure that adequate Fn compaction is being achieved. o X The foundation walls should be backfiiled with free -draining structural fill. The site sand and gravel m m below the root line is acceptable for use as wall backfrll. Footing drains should be installed at the o CD base of each foundation wall. We recommend that each residence have its own independent n m foundation drainage system, so two separate drains would need to be placed in the backfill , 9 � between the adjacent houses. Drainage should also be provided behind all retaining walls and z 0 rockeries. I X The erosion control measures needed during site development will depend heavily on the weather -I conditions that are encountered during construction. Site clearing Mil expose a large area of bare D soil, and the erosion potential on the site is moderate due to the slope of the site. We anticipate z that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas and around the _ wetlands. Straw bales should be placed against the silt fence for added protection during grading. C Rocked construction access roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of mud z carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, these roads should follow the: j alignment of planned pavements. Soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet ! rn weather. Following rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface, Geotech Consultants, inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the ' recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. by/1J/Ybd4 lb:5a 4'L5f4ftibbl latUltlH NAbt bb I Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 5 We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS The site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 18-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code NBC)_ In accordance with Table 164 of the 1997 UBC, the site soil profile within 100 feet of the ground surface Is best represented by Soil Profile Type Sc (Very Dense Soil). The site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS The proposed residences can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, dense, native sand and gravel, or on up to 5 feet of properly compacted structural fill placed above this competent native soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. Adequate compaction of structural fill should be verified with frequent density testing during fill placement. Prior to placing structural fill beneath foundations, the excavation should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have been exposed. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 18 inches, respectively. Footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings supported on the dense, native sand and gravel found below the root line or on structural fill placed above these competent native soils. A one-third Increase in this design bearing pressures may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thickness, will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a distance of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. Lateral toads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 0 m -� -n vm m 0 �0 0C mZ p� az r_= �(1) o-n mM 0 r 90) Z� D z 0 -41 0 M 0 i , 09/13/2004 15e58 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 07 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 6 VALUE Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure 250 pcf Where: (i) pof is pounds per oubio foot, and (it) passive eaAh pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate and we should be contacted for a revised recommendation, We recommend maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above ultimate values. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: Where: (i) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (0) active and passlve earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid pressures. For a restrained wail that cannot deflect at feast 0.002 times Its height a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psi times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure. The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety factor. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1,5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners or bends in the walls. This is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur where a wall is restrained by a corner. The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added GEOTECN CONSULTANTS, INC. O n rn =f �t vm rn 0 �O oC mz p �i DZ r_ -f mm or' r K c -Z.i r —I D ! Z 2 to Z O n M 7 nyi l i� Ybb4 i b: nb 42514 tdbbl GEOTECH PAGE 08 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 7 to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid density, a traffic surcharge should be applied to the eastern foundation wall of each residence. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be Z well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should 0 be accomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the m m higher soil forces that occur during compaction. =i9 Retainina Wall Backfill and Water roofi N = vm Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining m v structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt —i o or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of C Omni 9 particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The native sand m z and gravel encountered below the root line during our explorations is suitable for reuse as p retaining wall backfill. D z r= The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for aCn retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the p -n ' wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively -" impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also i m slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into m the backfill. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural F711 contains o � recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining c c and foundation walls. z The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof the below -grade walls. The performance of subsurface drainage systems will degrade over time. Therefore, waterproofing should be provided where moist conditions or some seepage through the D walls are not acceptable in the future. This typically includes limiting cold"joints and wall Z penetrations, and using bentonite panels or membranes on the outside of the walls. _ Applying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion is not considered waterproofing, but will only helpCD to prevent moisture, generated from water vapor or capillary action, from seeping through Z the concrete. With any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is O important to prevent a build up of water vapor that may be transmitted through concrete n walls from the surrounding soil. m SLABS -ON -GRADE The building floors may be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop the native sand and gravel, or on structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. by/ld/Ybb4 i0*0b 42W4/b0b1 bhUILCH PAGE 09 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 8 All slabs -on -grade should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum flinch thickness of coarse, free -draining structural fill with a gradation similar to that discussed in Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls. As noted by the American Concrete institute (ACI) in Section 3.2.3 of the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture protection is desirable immediately below any onrade slab that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI also notes that vapor retarders, such as 5-mil visqueen, are typically used. A vapor retarder is defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (psf) per hour, as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted, However, if no potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used, A vapor barrier, as defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0,00 perms per square foot per hour when tested In accordance with ASTM E 96, Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement, In the recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded compactable granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be placed over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection of the retarder or barrier and as a "blotter" to aid In the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose. However, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI literature because of the potential that the protectioniblotter material can become wet between the time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement, i I I which is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barrier/retarder. i ! Therefore, if there is a potential that the protection/blotter material will become wet before the slab is installed, ACI now recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then recommends that, because there is a potential for slab cure due to the loss of the blotter material, joint spacing in the slab be reduced; a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and "other measures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs" generally agrees with the recent ACI literature_ We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these issues and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance on the use of the protectioniblotter material, Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all means should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission. ROCKERIES We anticipate that rockeries may be used to level the backyards. At least 12 inches of quarry spalls should be placed behind rockeries to reduce the potential for soil eroding through them. A perforated drain pipe surrounded by drain rock should be installed behind the rockeries. We recommend limiting fill rockeries to a height of 4 feet and constructing them on only competent native soil. The lower two-thirds of the rockery should be constructed with 3- to 4-man rocks and the fill should be placed and compacted to structural fill requirements. Prior to rockery construction, the fill should be placed beyond the planned rockery location and then cut nearly vertical so that the soil in back of the rockery is thoroughly compacted. Since grading plans were not established at the time of this report, the relationship between the proposed footings and GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. 0 1 n m -=r -n om m0 �0 On i M m Z A� C z �C O m m� m9U5 o c� rnCn Z� z C z o -1 M by/ ld/'Lbb4 In nd 4Y0 l4 t=bl LULU I tUH h'Alat 1f7 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 9 proposed rockeries could not be determined. Foundations closer to the back of the rockery than two times the height of the rockery would exert a surcharge on the adjacent rockeries; surcharged rockeries or rockeries taller than 4 feet will require the use of geogrid reinforcement in the backfill. We can provide a rockery detail if necessary. The construction of rockeries is, to a large extent, an art not entirely controllable by engineering methods and standards, it is imperative that rockeries, if used, are constructed with care and in a proper manner by an experienced contractor with proven ability in rockery construction. The rockeries should be constructed with hard, sound, durable rock in accordance with accepted local Z practice and City of Edmonds standards. Soft rock, or rock with a significant number of fractures 0 or inclusions, should not be used, In order to limit the amount of maintenance and repair needed m over time. Provisions for maintenance, such as access to the rockery, should be considered in the design. vm EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES m 0 � 0 Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government 0 safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in m z unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be � made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington>c� z Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as _ f a cut slo s greater than 4 feet in height cannot be excavated at an lb Type B. There o re, empor ry pe , inclination steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the p Mn p groundwater exiting cut slopes ! � bottom of a cut. As discussed in the General section of this report, g g p 'd d tabilrzation of the cut If groundwater is encountered in any of the cuts at the TM can lead to raps es rn m above the line of seepage and the site, the excavation should be immediately backfilled to o Cl) geotechnical engineer should be called to the site to evaluate the need for remedial measures. o r— n rn The above"recommended temporary slope inclination is based on what has been successful at m Cn other sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuffs are those that will remain unsupported fora Z relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. The cut slopes M should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. i D Please note that gravel can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and utility Z contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. I All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:1I), Fill slopes should j Z Z not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2.5:1 (H:V). To reduce the potential for shallow 0 sloughing. fill must be keyed and benched into the existing slopes. Adequate compaction of the 0 slope face is important for long-term stability and is necessary to prevent excessive settlement of j m patios, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of the slope. I This can be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final i inclination. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. ; 1 Any disturbance to the existing slope outside of the building limits may reduce the stability of the I slope. Damage to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed i areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. Soil from the excavation should not be placed on the slope, and this may require the off -site disposal of any surplus soil. i i C,FC)TFGH MNSULTANTS. INC. i 4 IVVIJ/20114 1b:5H 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 11 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 10 I We anticipate that cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be required to achieve the proposed finish floor elevations. Based on the setbacks indicated on the site plans, the only locations where there may be insufficient room within the property lines to make the proposed cuts are on the northern side of the northernmost house and the southern side of the southernmost house. If the house locations or elevations cannot be adjusted to maintain the recommended cut slope inclinations, shoring will be required to make the proposed cuts. We can provide design recommendations for shoring if it is necessary, z DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS 0 n Foundation drains should be installed around the perimeter of each of the residences. We rn recommend that each residence have its own independent foundation drainage system. Drains should also be placed at the base of all earth -retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded j. " -� by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non -woven, geotextile filter _ fabric (Miraff 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert m o should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space, and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the 0 C foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 3. For the best = m long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. m z JO In general, an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water that may .bypass the footing drains. We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should ; they become necessary, during excavation and foundation construction. CD o n mn I r -I Groundwater was observed during excavation of the test pits. If seepage is encountered in an m M �, excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated U5 pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches ii p r at the bottom of the excavation, f r nm The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away Z � from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, :- slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to the residences X should slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be = provided where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. z Additionally, a drainage swals should be provided upslope of each residence to intercept surface run-off and direct it into the storm drains. We recommend that catchbasins be placed in each of = the driveways to capture surface water and direct it into the storm water system. Water from roof, storm water, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes; it should be tightlineo o d t a suitable outfall located away from any slopes. 0 rn GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and 1i other deleterious material. A large amount of dumped garbage and yard waste were observed throughout the site; these materials will need to be removed during site clearing. The stripped or removed sand and gravel above the root line should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in nonstructural areas, such as landscape beds. i GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. } 09/13/2004 15c58 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 12 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 11 Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or In other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. As discussed In the General section, the on -site gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. However, we recommend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill, z The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction o equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness m should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents 55 recommended relative compactions for structural fill' v m m0 LOCATION .i 0 O • C Beneath footings, 95% m Z C) slabs or walkways _ Where. Minimum Relative Compaction Is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation o 1557-91 (Modified Proctor). The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils; the gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits, z r --I 2 O 'n mrn O� r 9 Cn m Z� --I D z Cn z O --I 0 M 09/13/2004 15:58 41b/4t8bb'1 utUILUH rH�t 1d Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 12 Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a property constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Alan Jackson and his representatives for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials, and selective engineering analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of z practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is o expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, m techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. M �_ v rn m� --I O ADDITIONAL SERVICES p c to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide m Z In addition 9 geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm p -+ that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate > Z whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the = recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the Cl) event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of ronstruction. f However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the = 4 contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, m m_ will be the responsibility of the contractor. p rn 0M Subsequent consultation and testing services during the design and construction phase would be C Cn Cn charged on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with terms and conditions of our attached z 0 schedule of fees and general conditions. This work often includes a review of the geotechnical aspects of the plans and interaction with the architect, civil engineer, and structural engineer. Also, it may involve geotechnical observation and testing services during the construction phase, which would also be charged on a time -and -materials basis. Unless otherwise notified by the owner, we would assume that your acceptance of this proposal is also authorization to consult with the design Z team as required on a time -and -materials basis. _ 1 C z During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services only o when requested by you or your representatives. we can only document site work that we actually 0 observe. it is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our M recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. I 09/13/2004 15:58 4257478bb1 bF.UIEUH F'ALAm 14 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 13 The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plate 3 4 Test Pit Logs Z O Plate S Typical Footing Drain M rn amia We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we _ may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. rn rnv p, On Respectfully submitted, srn GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 10 DZ ram mi O -n Erin M. Toland i Geotechnical Engineer m m vm O r. James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Geotechnical Project Manager EMT/JHS: esm GEOTECH CONS[ I MANTS. INC ULU I LC H rHlat 1 VICINITY MAP 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington IJy/ IJ/ 21JU4 lb: bb 41b /4 /abbl UtU I tL;H HAUL I TP4 approximate ,, 60 TPM wetland boundary 4, ti •• proposed plat lines N TP4 proposed SFRs .c o CO %;TP-6 rl c ' D i + TP=l s r 230 240 SITE EXPLORATION I GEOTECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South CON'5TiI.TAAN t% W" Edmonds, Washington t W 1J/ 1bb4 lb: b8 42b /4 /8i bl utu I LUH t /Aut 1 / Test Pit 1 Depth (ft) Soil Classification Soil Description - 1.0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 1.0 - 5.0 SW Brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, slightly moist, medium -dense 5 0 - 6.0 -becomes dense to very dense *No groundwater encountered, some caving from 0 - 3.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 2 DescriptionDepth (ft) Soil Classification Soil 0 - 1.0 FILL Brown sand and gravel FILL, with yard waste, loose 1.0 - 2.0 TOPSOIL Old, black TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 2.0 - 4.0 SW Brown SAND with gavel and cobbles, highly weathered, with abundant roots, slightly moist, medium -dense 4.0 - 9.0 Brown, gravelly SAND with cobbles, very moist, dense *No groundwater encountered, some caving from 0-2.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 3 Depth (ft) Soii Classification• Description 0-1.0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose, mixed with construction debris incl. 12- inch concrete rubble 1.0 M 6.0 SW Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, medium -grained, slightly moist, dense 6.0 - 7.0 -with more cobbles, becomes very wet 'Groundwater encountered at 6.5 feet, some caving from 4.0 - 6,0 feet during excavation Test Pit 4 Deptil (ft) Soil Classification Soil Description 0- 0.5 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSAIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 0.5 - 2.0 FILL and TOPSOIL Gray -brown sand FILL with gravel and occasional cobbles, medium -grained, slightly moist, loose to medium -dense, mixed with old TOPSOIL at 1,5 — 2.0 feet 2.0 - 6.0 SW Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, medium -to coarse -grained, very moist, dense 6.0-7.0 -becomes wet *No groundwater encountered, some caving from 4.0 - 6.0 feet during excavation G-EOTECH CONSULTAMS9 nvC� TEST PIT LOGS 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington z 0 0 m 0m mo �0 0c _M mZ >D � Cz r= �C/) n mm orM r rn Z r n z z 0 q 0 rn 1 b9/19/1bb4 1b:b8 42b/4fdbbl ULUILUhi rHut la Test Pit 5 a2 4.0 - 7.0 est® 0-100 1.0 - 3.0 3.0 - 6.5 Vo gry c test Pit 7 2.0 - 4.0 4.�5 o grounc Soil Classification �:)Oil Description TOPSOIL Brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose SW Gray SAND with gravel and cobbles, moist, medurnAense SP -becomes gray -brown, medium -grained, wet, dense encountered at 6.0 feet, some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet during excavatk Soil cla�"sifiration Soil Descripfioii TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose SW Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, moist, medium -dense SID -becomes mediurrr-grained, very moist, dense ter encountered, some caving from 3.0 - 5.0 feet during excavation =ILL Gray-brown•sand and gravel FILL, dry, loose and Old TOPSOIL SW Gray -brown, highly weathered SAND with gravel and cobbles, with occasional roots, slightly moist, medium -dense -dense, wet.at 7.0 feet 1101114110 tered. some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet during excavation GEGTECH CONSUI.'I"rS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington z O m v= Cm m� �O OC iM mZ >z r_ —1 O -n M mm o � nr m 7r D z --I 2 C z O --1 n M I 09/13/2b04 15:5S 41b/4/8bbl Slope backfill away from foundation. Provide surface drains where necessary. Backfill (See text for requirements) Washed Roil (718" min. size) 6" min. Nonwoven Geotextile Filter Fabric latu ! LUH Tightline Roof Drain po not connect to footing drain) rm4at i �j SLAB .p .0:'.0,•fJ:�.p,.A:�.p,.fD.O•p.•a.Q•p,•C.�.n,.4 +.RS,:•s>..:,.;.,...� • opp•aDe.ODo'pDe.eCp° ppo-C64" p 0 e.��'oo o.�4 . xasv>:<:<aos<a' .::� C'O �SSyO D n �:} P ens d1. O,•�• « P D Q 0 Q* >3b:1 ivV Tian 00ello `�-,.•• ^,;O '4.Op�S,• Adp w• �d1p • • d•eS rr•>:MAo:oAeAf., I i b • O . f+ , e 'p •i• . f b • b b • : C •, •s:+;:«»:.= Meer , • 0 cw �• i .�4T1� wwi�rwwr� '+ 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (Invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space, Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) Free Draining Gravel (if appropriate) NOTES: (1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of.water that bypasses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer to report text for additional drainage and waterproofing considerations. GEOTECH CONSMAM S, ING T 1230 - 7th Avenue South E:AronnnA& 1AMohinntnn z 0 M om M 0 �0 0� _M M Z p� cZ CD 0 DD mm_ 0 r 9CO � � z in z 0 -q 0 M Height Calculation Worksheet Address: ?` ce Date. . v� Inspector(s): M S YYZ 1. Datum Point: h �4 2. Datum Point Elevation:, 152 3. Average Grade: : a (`' C7 .4. Maximum Elevation Allowed* 20(average grade)+ 25'S�7 1 5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House: d4or' ?,(datum elevation) +�S b� (grade to transit level lineeshot to house) = o� 4( 7 6. Measurements from line shot onto house to roof ridge: 3l #a 1 j i d Total • 0 7. Actual Elfvation: )4q 12 (reference point elevatio(measurements ` 40� from #6) 1-v,+avrv� Conclusion: S�7 . °1 (actual is great /less than (allowed); therefore the house is/ is not over the height r uirement per ECDC 16.20.30 requirements ce CN U�ul rs, CC N IOW N uj `n Q N U. rU, N I'Yr IV 0 .li i s and Hip r: LL 0 Z Z o I°7° p Nof U I 1 n i� N m Ln O O O W N N d Cl) Q Z N in 0 w Q I O c f > I cD 1 = m Ld �N w O p� � O Dz O r —� _ILI Q00 CD 0"n N Z 0)Z m N N 06 O Of LLI Of Q UN J m M Z V) n' O r Q Q f-- n rn (/7LLI M O N I r O Z N U)Z 0. O LLI O I p I U. ~ > I z I D _` J Ld Ld m 0 Q m Z W LLIQ � O p N 1 0 c _ z = Z >- 1 F= w CD U z z W W W Lid U LLLJ J m (D f— > 0 l a Z)�o i J ! rn Q z V) Um) w LLJ In 0 W Xa. w �j O U W U) � W O 0 O Or U Lti IZ Of Mw V ~ H � Q NE ONd�iS� 211 J S C� WO N�V, Z 0& PR oc o I i GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR yl.14014 tsiti uL 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 Website: www.dedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ; Ih c . 1 S 9 Planning • Building • Engineering March 2, 2005 Copy �,p � Mountain Shadow Construction Inc. CH 0 01 PO Box 6145 Edmonds, WA 98037 Re: Building Permit: 2004-0923 Site Address: 1226 7`l' Ave S. c Expiration Date: 11/03/05 0 OC Dear Mr. Dawes, m Z'' The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the last remaining inspection on your project D z is a final inspection(s). The final inspection(s) detennines that there are no outstanding life- r = safety issues and approval allows the City to close your pennit file. 55 O M 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: smoke m m. detectors, house numbers, guardrails, handrails, self -close doors between garage and v0co residence, egress from sleeping rooms, safety glazing, weather-stripping, any Engineering M department requirements etc. Of course not all of these things may specifically apply to your project but it does give you an idea about the kinds of things that must be complete as well as Z some items that do not need to be installed such as: paint, carpet, moldings, wallpaper, etc. a Please be advised permits expire one year from the date of issuance. If you will need more ;U time to complete the work, permits can be renewed prior to expiration for one half fees. IF D the pennit expires without a final approval granted by the Building Inspector, full fees are z 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 p noted on your Job Card. 0 m Please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 if you have any questions. Sincerely, JoAnne Zulauf' Permit Specialist I: I.xrempws'r'sUvlaster I_ettersLSlt%viantLtrSI44R • Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Citv - Hekinan. Janan NN 07/18/2005 16047 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 01 .3256 NE 20t" Street, Suite 16 GEOTECH Bellevue, WA 98005 CONSULTANTS, INC& (425) 747-5618 FAX 747�8561 FaxJN: 03322 TO: Jeny Dawes F"MI AdhurTulee Z com*a„y; oats: JUIy 18, 2005 0 iFAX: (425) 74&5805 Pages: 3 including cover page m` Phone: (425) XXX-yyyy RE D2Hly Feld Retaort _ ❑Urgent ❑For Review El Please Comment OPlease Reply OPleasa Recycle _ 0M ! MO 0 _ 0 ' Commenfis•. MraDawes, , =m Per direction from James H. Strange, Jr., P.E., we are faxing to you the two pages of a daily p -ii field report that covers the days November 17, 2004 and November 19, 20040 n z If you have any questions, regarding the information contained in this daily field report, you CD can contact us and ask for James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. or his voice mail. He is our o 71 geotechnical project manager of the company. _ rn m v0) 0 �- rnCD ; Thank you. m 0) Arthur Tulee, Z� RECEIVED X Technical Editor JUL 19 2005 z a. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. _ CITY OF EDMONDS CC • Page 1 07/18/2005 16*47 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 02 DAILY FIELD REPORT OE OTE C i Jt. TRAVELJPREP ME JOB NUMBER CONSULTANTS, XKC. d33ZZ. TIME ON SITE DATE 13256 NE 2M Street, Suite 16 TIME OFF SITE DAY WEEK Bellevue, WA 48W5 425-747-5618 FAX 425-7474561 IHOURSAARGED WEATHER JOB WCATION CL[ENTIGWRJER C, R% GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S SUPERINTENDENT MILES PRWTN LECJ'OLt� •• GRADING CONTRACTOR GRADING ERIN ENOENT vlarrORS PAGE a r / . ry"iZ A2Wr , NEx7 SITE w51'f: GOPY TO: _ _ . -� C`_l.s . SICNATU O n m cM m 0 -1 O 0c _m m z. p � Dz 2 Omn 77 mM 0 r� r c cmi) cc/) m 7" r E z z O 0 m u 13256 Northeast 20th Strut, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washingun 9M. CONSULTANTS, INC. (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 August 9, 2005 JN 03322 Mountain Shadow Construction PO Box fi 145 Edmonds, Washington 98026 Attention, Jerry Dawes P0 Subject: Final Letter —Geotechnical Engineering Observations AUG 1225 - 7th Avenue South ' 2095 ashington DPD PermitrNo. 20044923 oPrNFNrS68VIOFs Dear Mr. Dawes via facsimile: (425) 745=5805 Geotech Consultants, Inc. provided geotechnical engineering observations of the foundation of the new residence at 1226 — 7th Avenue South in Edmonds. Our worts began on November 17, 20041 and was completed on November 19, 2004. The foundation excavation exposed anticipated loose fill and weathered sand over medium dense to dense gravelly sand. Over -excavation was required in some parts of the foundation to expose the medium -dense, native sands. The medium -dense to dense native sands exposed in the observed footing subgrades are acceptable for 2,000 psf allowable bearing. Field memos regarding our observations have been given to you and have been forwarded to the City of Edmonds. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact us. ZJK/JHS: jhs Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 0/r EXPIRES 01-31- R James H. Strange, Jr. P.E. Geotechnicai Project Manager GEOTFCH CONSULTANTS, INC. r> z'; O m, Cn cm m0 o� i� mz ID "1 D Z' r= Cn OM _� mM or" C� -z-1 r. z 0 z O 0 m i. FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM TO: DATE: MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE PLEASE SIGN r ENGINERING DIVISION DATE 5 O E - PLEASE SIGN n M PLANNING DIVISION DATE PLEASESIGN �. PROJECT Ih .� ►n S1-ac6Q�;> aftyz� m co SITE ADDRESS l Z Z �0 7 4yz= s � o OC PERMIT # ZOO 4 _ Q 9,� 3 ADB# DATE INSPECTED 7 l 4, m rn Z CZ DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED i �C/) i A field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with -approved plans. Final approval o -n denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of D� PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of : m M 0 r. n C C GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL M ZrM i �D D Z GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED ❑ Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector �n I. Z o i -i 0 m FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES ❑ Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inpector I. 2. 3. RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL Date Signature 1:tcmp:b1dg:fomis:ocaprv1 3/25/04 a RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED SETBACKS —�/ yf FOUNDATION:' Footing ..........•........... y)�/1 ..jam .%I - 2'f Wall Pier/Porch Retaining Wall l Slab Insulation PLUMBING: �-ow;e. S e.u4¢i� Underground 7 c�Qpd'D eij 9 ............. r1n p'1 u1S4- Co r r�2C O11t" j�i� 1 f�' llICJ Rough -In I 'L� Z.—Z• &T S�c�a Off- hose Commercial Final ...... HEATING: Gas Test .................... J - 1 'J^�rv, Gas Piping�� Equipment Commercial Final ....... EXTERIOR SHEATHING NAILING",',,"... FRAMING 1 �J a-��'� FIRST FLOOR FRAMING... 1 �. INSULATION 61�as Floor Insulation ......... Wall Insulation ........... Ceiling Insulation ....... SHEETROCK NAILING SPECIAL INSP CTION ... ).1141 �N/ MISCELLANEOUS FINAL APPROVAL FOR S OCCUPANCY .................. �y L I ! / �.•. HY .I IN Y• A J.1�r1 w ..{}!4 .1.!^1... 1. •..i •. . J• •r.Tjp�.� f 047 �•,>< �-.n gJl?%OS' r/?�C4� ��'(/�'ti'G6f' 7P0 V5. O� ..w•rr+rs.rveam.wm 1 Y The Initials MT are Milton contract...'"•.-"".�.�.""" Thompson, a tcmporary - , ector for the City -,.� ' •.. ___..wK,�•_> ._,:..� tnsp ..