The URL can be used to link to this page

20050151.pdf' , r DATE RECEIVED I i r CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS , IYABLI ��&IV f 14 6ZoF/l % Ix w MAILING ADDRESS 1 /�� W 8�' - kv�� CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NAME y L% /!Z✓( 1= ADDRESS CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NAME CBL # ADDRESS . 13 CITY ZIP TELEPHONE O STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKED BY a PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT /PARCEL NO. W .j40 _S OOODa ❑ NEW RESIDENTIAL KPLUMBING / MECH ADDITION ❑ COMMERCIAL ❑COMPLIANCE OR CHANGE OF USE REMODEL ❑ MULTIFAMILY ❑ SIGN ❑ GRA I G FENCE REPAIR �S ❑ ( X FT) ❑ DEMOLISH 13 TANK ❑ OTHER C ❑GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER CARPORT _-. ❑ FIRE ALARM (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTiV" EXPLAIN: R U oNUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL OF DWELLING / EA ARS Q O STORIES C�, UNITS NUMBER p2—a7OO DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE �' ` 1 , / J / aA oe� c5?1i(/ (� cam U LPERMITEXPIRES Z' I V u? USE PERMIT ZONE �U NUMBER JOB SfUIITE/APTT## ADDRESS /ICX / 46x:4 6v '�� /33: 'f'C/!!- 1•G��L� PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO. LID NO. LID FEE $ CP PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Pe Approved O RW Permit Required Q Street Use Permit Roq'd . E3 EXISTING PROPOSED Inspection Required p Sidewalk Required 0 REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Underground Wiring required E3 METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED t7 /i YES ❑ NO ❑ ru REMARKS z OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE. FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE Z .. ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY DATE FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE Lu W i L VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION BOND REO•D . POSTED DY ES NO 5 V SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED EXP b ZS LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REA%,r FRONT UR SIDE REAR CJ I D'•�,Sir Id/�..rlC ALL Z J z PARKINGLOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DAZE ng REO'D PRO�V_IDED Zci�• 1I� / 3 KS y tl' ,} �S � �eG.->, ��.a--I-L�-ck �--� • tea.-�-' . u.� c1.�-Q- I CHECKED BY TYPE OF C�ONSTR�TION, CODE OCCUPAN// E& �1 �(/ 3 GROUP SPECIAL INSPECTION AREA - - OCCUPANT REQUIRED YES ��/-� LOAD REMARKS _ PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PJER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REQ'D 9 i2rk VALUATION Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check State Surcharge Com• HEAT SOURCE GLAZING 76 LOT LOPE % Building Permit �� City Surcharge J 3a 2o PLAN CHECK NO: VESTED DATE PlumbingS26)Base Fee Mechanical _ THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO If I t BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY, ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC g a DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Grading SEPARATE PERMISSION. I= Engr, Review x PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS a PERMIT LIMIT. 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr, Inspection , SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION U) 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit 9 IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF � 2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # Q ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY = FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE 9 DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscape Insp. Total Amt. Due = NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION % /J n Recording Fee Receipt #�Lj I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION I APPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALLThis application Is not a parmit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building official or his/her Deputy: and Foos aro paid, and IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged In space provided. WORKMEN'S Q40WENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. OFfaG NA� DATE /C SIGN E O AGENT) DATE NED 425th �� /C7 771 m0220 RELEASED BY L DATE ATTI NTION EXT 1333 IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- ORIGIN�- F E YELLOW • INSP CTO CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED, UBC SECTION 109 PINK. NER GOLD -ASSESSOR \9/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES z O "I n Irn cM m0 O On C mm Q _ DZ r_ -I rnm l nr C N I 1 zr I � a z 1 —I. I = z } 0 i 0 m \ u11 \ < � ICD ANNN CL CD 0 IN 1, INEi rn wn ��\\ Cf► N ANN m \� oo� r� T . '. � �, � � �'- •` /�. h•��I�I III i III I _ \ I ,,�, / \ � "O.� I,`.. I �' .. e : •\\` `/`` �II1I) I III I I NMM ov ca 10 e LD .00 ff rM fey 0 10 Joe Z 00, Aoor •, , � -� elm t ..�;.� ti �.I;p 1r, e0o, OFto r 00 i WO M c_ j r�ee�000ee 22 3 [>A . / �,:/.� L J SII I Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. September 25, 2002 CITY Project No. KE02584A COPY z .+ Construction Systems Management Inc. c/o Mr. Mark Allen 0 rn 605 First Avenue, Suite 412 - Seattle, Washington 98104 =i v m L Cv M Subject: Footing Subgrade Bearing Evaluation 00 C 4 Proposed Addition Allen Residence 7112 Meadowdale Beach Road M z Edmonds, Washington c -i aZ rM Dear Mr. Allen: 0 Y Mn f> P This letter resents the results of Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.'s (AESI's) footing subgrade M m 4,111 i . bearing evaluation for the proposed new 4 addition* to the house located at 7112 Meadowdale 0 c Beach Road. The existing house was located above Meadowdale Beach Road, near the base of c Cn a hill. leading up.to the south. According to Plan Sheet ALL, dated September 16, 2002, r Q prepared by RLC Architect, . the project architect, the proposed two-story, wood -frame. structure addition is planned to extend some 15 feet into the yard, south of the existing house. M . i The yard was level and was covered by' grass, patios, and decks. The yard extended approximately 40 feet south of the house to the base of the hill. z. This. limitedgeotechnical evaluation was conducted to establish depth to bearing soils and the to soil's bearing capacity to. satisfy City of Edmond requirements: No other geotechnical items are addressed in this letter. We reconnoitered . the area of the new addition and drilled one hand auger boring to determine the type of soils in the vicinity of the new addition. The hand m auger boring was located in the middle of the south footing line for the proposed addition. The , hand auger boring was drilled to a maximum depth of approximately 6 feet below existing grade. The soils encountered in the hand auger boring consisted of a thin veneer of topsoil over medium dense advance outwash sand. The advance out wash sand was fine to medium and contained trace amounts of gravel and silt. Refer to the attached hand boring log. We recommend that •footings for the new addition should extend through the surficial organic rich topsoil to a depth 'of at least 18 inches below the.proposed adjacent exterior final grade and I 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 • Phone 425 827-770.1 Fax 425 827-5424 i November 25, 2002 Project. No. KE02584A Mr. Mark Allen 7112 Meadowdale• Beach Road - Z Edmonds, Washington 98026-5235 O fi M Subject: Opinion Concerning Existing Slope Allen Residence =i'All 7112 Meadowdale Beach Road w rn Edmonds, Washington m o 0 O 0 td Dear Mr. Allen: i rn mz The .purpose of this letter is to provide our opinion regarding the existing steep slope to the c south of your home with respect to your proposed addition. Specifically, you have asked fora z reduction in the toe of.the slope setback to 24 feet. We provide'the following observations, Ch testing, andprofessional opinions with. regard to the slope and your proposed construction: O � wn This letter is provided for the exclusive use of Mr. Mark Allen for specific application to this M m project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No other, O,. warranty. is expressed or implied. cn Frtl Ca ca I. Existing Conditions Z Associated Earth Sciences Inc. (AESI) completed a visual reconnaissance of the .steep slope located south of your house. Your yard extends some 40 feet from -your house to the toe of the Z steep slope. We observed an approximately 2-foot7high concrete retaining wall at the toe of the slope with a 1 -foot -tall rockery atop the concrete wall. The concrete wall was tilted down r• . the slope, past vertical by.. approximately 5 degrees: Above this lower concrete wall and z 1. O rockery assemblage were two more Tockeries. The middle rockery was approximately 5 to 6 feet high and set back from the lower concrete wall/rockery approximately 2 feet. Above the m middle rockery was an upper ,rockery that was approximately 4 to 5 feet high and set .back approximately 5 feet from the middle rockery. The rockeries appeared to be nearly vertical or slightly battered back into the hillside. The .slope above the rockeries was inclined approximately 1H:1V to 1H:11hV (Horizontal: Vertical) for approximately lor to .12 vertical ` feet.. The slope is therefore classified as a steep slope hazard area by the._City of Edmonds .development standards. { .. l, 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 • Phone 425 827-7701 • Fax 425 827-5929 Exploration We completed several shallow explorations with hand equipment within the slope to determine its composition. Based on our shallow hand explorations' the slope is composed of about 3 : feet of loose sand overlying medium dense, to dense advance outwash sand, We did not observe any spring activity -on or adjacent to the slope. You indicated that you have not observed any evidence of spring activity on the slope in the time you have been living iti the house. Our hand explorations did not disclose impermeable soils interbedded with the granular outwash sands. ;. Z: O Proposed Improvements m '. We understand that you will construct an addition to your home, which will extend toward the slope in'the area currently occupied by lawn. The addition will extend some 15 feet toward the � slope toe. At the closest point to the slop toe, the addition will be 24 feet away from the slope: c rn The addition will be. supported on conventional foundations (refer to the AESI letter dated m September 25, 2002): p C = m We understand that a new concrete retaining wall is also planned to replace the terraced m z rockeries. We recommend that the new wall be constructed at the slope toe and be at least as ea z long as. the new addition, : The swall should be tall enough to provide at least 2 feet of vertical _ catchment space behind the wall and above the adjacent ground surface on the slope side. C9 Footings for the wall may be designed for 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) if placed on the m advance outwash sand. All footings should be buried at least 18 inches for frost protection and no footing should be set on previously placed uncontrolled fill or organic material. 0 N n m C tn. The wall should be designed using an allowable active earth pressure *represented by an r z 0 equivalent. fluid of 70 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Wall lateral loads can be resisted by -+ friction between the , foundation and natural soils or supporting structural fill soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the: foundations. We recommend the following design parameters: MLN • Passive equivalent fluid 300 pcf L z O Coefficient of friction = 0.35. m The above values are allowable and include a safety factor of at least 1.5 The lateral pressures presented above are based on ahe conditions of a sloping backfill consisting of the existing hillside soils. The retaining wall should be lined with a minimum 12 inch -thick, ' free -draining washed gravel blanket or backfilled completely with free -draining material (excluding the first 2 feet below the surface). The drainage layer should be allowed to OL ` Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. August 12, 2004 Project No. KE02584A'+!!. ? t� ^n,y Mr. Mark Allen 7112 Meadowdale Beach Road Edmonds, Washington 98026-5235 CITY C o Subject: Opinion Concerning Existing Slope �� 0 Allen Residence m ;. s 7112 Meadowdale Beach Road Edmonds, Washington Co mnJ X. vm C rnv O Dear Mr. Allen: p C y: MMI The purpose of this letter is to provide our opinion regarding the existing steep sloe to the mZ P rP P P. g g g P P south of your home with respect to your proposed addition. Specifically, You have asked fora z reduction in the City of Edmonds required .toe of the slope buffer from 50 feet to 10 feet with an additional toe -of -,slope building foundation setback of 14 feet. Rear yard improvements Vi such as decks and landscaping rockeries, which are not part of the building addition foundation t f system, but are considered structures, must be constructed at least 10 feet from the toe of the _ existing slope. We provide the following. observations, testing, recommendations, and m m professional opinions with regard to the slope and your proposed construction. Our opinions o and recommendations are based in -part on review of an architectural Site Plan, Sheet AL0, a ca and Proposed Foundation Plan, Sheet A2:1 completed by Capital Architects, dated August 2, t m n 2004 z# r This letter is provided for the exclusive use of Mr. Mark Allen for specific application to 'this project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No other z warranty is expressed or implied.' i _ ca Existing Conditions Z O Associated Earth Sciences Inca (AESI) completed a visual reconnaissance of the steep slope m located south of your house in September, 2002. Your yard extends some 40. feet from your house to the toe of the steep slope. We observed an approximately 2400t -high concrete retaining wall at the toe of the. slope with a 1400t4all rockery atop the concrete wall. The concrete wall was tilted down the slope, past vertical by approximately 5 degrees. Above this lower concrete wall and rockery assemblage were two more rockeries. The middle rockery was approximately 5 to 6 feet high and set back from the lower concrete wall/rockery approximately 2 feet. Above the middle rockery was an upper rockery that was approximately 4 to 5 feet high and set back approximately 5 feet from the middle rockery. The rockeries appeared to be nearly vertical or slightly battered back into the hillside. The -slope above the 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kn Rind, WA 98033 • Phone 41?5 827.7701 •Fax -Q5 827-5.12.1 rockeries was inclined approximately 1H:1V to' 1H:11hV (Horizontal: Vertical) for 1 approximately 10 to 12 vertical feet. The slope is therefore classified as a steep slope hazard area by the City of Edmonds development standards. As such, the required City of Edmonds ` steep slope hazard area toe -of -slope buffer is a minimum of 50 feet. Exploration We completed several shallow explorations with hand equipment within the slope to determine its composition. Based on our shallow hand explorations, the slope is composed of. about 3 feet of loose sand overlying medium dense to dense advance outwash sand. We did not observe any spring activity on or adjacent to ' the slope. You indicated that you have not p observed any evidence of spring activity on the slope in the time you have been living in the n house. Our hand explorations did not disclose impermeable soils interbedded with the granular M outwash sands. Proposed Improvements c rn M.0 We understand that you will construct an addition to your home, which will extend toward the p c slope in the area currently occupied by lawn. The addition will extend some 15 feet toward the = m slope toe. At the closest point to the. slope toe, the addition will be 24 feet away from the . m z slope. The addition will be supported on conventional foundations upon medium dense to . y z dense advance outwash sand in accordance with recommendations presented in AESI's. letter r _ dated September. 25, 2002. 0� We understand that a new 7400t -high concrete retaining wall is also planned to replace the --� existing retaining wall and terraced rockeries. We reviewed structural plans for the proposed m m retaining wall by Robert Fossatti Associates, dated August 4, 2004. Please note that the 0 architectural plans we reviewed . incorrectly show• that the retaining wall is only 3 feet high. CCA The proposed retaining wall shown in the Fossatti plans has been designed in accordance with m CO) 0 recommendations provided in AESI's letter dated November 25, 2002. �'' Opinion L, D. Provided the building foundations and toe -of -slope retaining wall are constructed in accordance ! with the referenced architectural and structural plans, the toe -of -slope buffer can be reduced to (. 10 feet with an additional toe -of --slope building setback of 14 feet. This combined buffer and z building setback from the toe of the slope to the south wall of the* structure can therefore be reduced from the currently existing 40 feet to the proposed 24 feet. In our opinion, this m setback reduction is supported by the following conditions. • The slope is comprised of outwash soils. • There is no impermeable soil interbeds. • There is no evidence of spring activity on the slope in the vicinity of your house. • 'Slope vegetation will be maintained. L L1 • No development is proposed on the slope itself. 1 - • A new retaining wall is planned at the slope toe. ' i a i 2 _ �n i�or, 11 it :� J��I•�`}�ffi��ii'Ti�"i� � `: 11111ME110 low Dykeman Architects 1716 W.. Marine View Drive 2nd Floor Everett, WA 98201 RECEIVED Z �. } January 4, 2006 JAN- 31 2006 m Attn: Brian Jones BUILDING DEPARTMENT Re: Allen. Residence, Edmonds, WA CITY OF EDMONDS Dear Brian, 0 m t s moAt your request we have reviewed item #.l of the correction notice from the city of Edmonds dated December 27, 20054 n 0C Attached are stamped calculations and a detail 'indicating the required = m construction of the cantilevered woodframed deck. O D ZA. We understand that the engineer of record could not address this item, and the information our office has been.requested to provide is for .the: cantilevered wood framed deck only. We do not assume the responsibility 4.0 i of "Engineer of Record" for this project.' O X ` 'n X. t . Mai i eL our comments and recommendations are based on a quick review of the ,='3 r. (`( mm construction drawings and review of the information provided to our f office by way of sketches. The scope of our work did not include a site O Nr: ( visit and exposure. of subsurface conditions. If the subsurface C �.: conditions encountered during construction are found to be different i K cn f from those anticipated, we should be advised so we can review these } 2 0 j conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Such SEMI i unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures i to attain required engineering and repairs. If you have any questions please contact me at my office, 925-514-8222. Z' 1 Mai sinter y,.a wr►si 't Z ♦ �w0 tca Q j Ro e t J. sek Jr., PE m f► all R�lSlt� UVOU % - Z. b •O i :ivil anc Slruclural Encineering ��.:'I:. I�'1":I •oJ,1t1. Iflai. LVI(I i.'11� Wn �li'�:�{4:i 4•I ::.I jl.l i. L:! V6. �'I'J; JI -i ii AA Z'd b17Z8-t�15-9Zf BuueeulBu3 MJ e9t: L l go oc Uel CLIENTS i CLIENTS 7c p sic VVMWVV P 9 Loll i w_ - _ _ _• ---•• _• -- o_--- - _ VVVVVO 1. 11_ _ _ V. _ VWWVWWVOIV __VVVVVV r u..i.r vVVVVVV VIV_ _ _ - - - _ VIVI- IWII �l IV IN - .-- rr_ _ wwVVVwm _. .01 VVV,m L 014 - --- VI - 1111r - VVI - _ CIVIL AN TRUCTURAL ENGINEERING W st, 09 102, Everett, WA 98204 9BQ2 29th Avenue MAYES Everett Office TESTING ENGINEERS, INC 134th Street SW Suite A-1 Everett. WA 98204 ph 425.742.9360 LABORATORY TEST REPORT fax 425:745.1737 Project : Allen Residence Project No: E5301 Site Address: 7112 Meadowdale Beach Rd Issued on: 8-10-05 Edmonds,WA REC�� Permit # (s): AUG 2 2 2005 Client: Allen Residence original: D Engineer: Revised: ❑ PERMIT COUNTER Contractor. Zrr r FIELD DATA 0. (ASTM C31 and. C172) M Air Temperature: 80 OF Actual Mix Proportions: T Weather: Clear Ingredient Weight (per cu.yd) I (n = Product: Concrete ASTM #8 11239.0 Ibs, M Supplier: Rinker. Fine Aggregate 1,738.0 Ibs m 0O Ticket Number: 80001521n Water 299.0 lbs 0 C MixDesign ID : 1349018 Cement -Type I & II 564.0 Ibs . m WRA 23.0 Oz Rt A/E Admix 3.0 Oz C Z 79' F NR % Water L Cement Ratio Slump (ASTM C143) Samples N ' 0 i 0.530 6" 7-13-05 Required Strang P 3000 Psi @ 28 days I Placement Location and j m rn v y Footings. 32 gallons of water added the job site. 0 m COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS C CO) (ASTM C39, C1231, and C617 when applicable) M Date Made Sample # Lab # Date Tested Age (day) Load (lbs) Size (in) Dia (in) Surface Area Strength (psi) Failure Code r- 7/12/2005 0002 11620 7/19%2005_ 7 80540_ 6 x 12 6.01 28.37 7/12/2005 0002 11621 8/9/2005 28 118860 6 x 12 6.01 28.37 7/12/2005 1 0002 111622 1 8/9/2005 28 113880 6 x 126.01 28.37 7/12/20051 0002 111623 1 8/9/2005 28 114240 6 x 12 6.00 28.27 2840 NA X 4190F77N7A771 t -_=11 �-- 4010 NA Z T i Everett Office MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS, INC Su `e 113-; d1 Street SW Everett, WA 98204 ph 425.742.9360 LABORATORY TEST REPORT fax 425.745.1737 Project : Allen Residence Project No: E5301 Site Address: 7112 Meadowdale Beach RdIssued on: 7-20-05 B D 1 L D{ N G Edmonds,WA AUG 9 2005 Permit # (s): a0f1S— Q /S Client: Allen Residence original: Engineer: Revised:. ❑ Z Contractor: . FIELD DATA n (ASTM C31 and C172) Air Temperature: 80 ° FActual Mix Proportions: -i mn Weather: Clear _ Ingredient Weight (per cu.yd) M Product: ConcreteC ASTM #8 1,239.0' lbs p Supplier: Rinker 1 738.0 lbs O Fine Aggregate n Ticket Number: 80001521 Water 29960 lbs ' MixDesign ID: 1349018 Cement --Type I & II 56410 lbs m Z Sample Temp. Initial St( g Entrained Air WRA 23.0 Oz p —t (ASTM 01064) Temp. (ASTM 031) (ASTM 0231) A/E Admix 3.0 Oz Z 79 ° F NR Cl) Water/ Cement [S p (ASTM C143)' Samples) Recd 1 O M 0.530 6" 7-13-05 Required Strengt fh 3000 psi @ 28 days —1 i m m I Placement Location and Notes t70 - ' s Footings. 32 gallons of water added the job site.. COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS rn i (ASTM C39, C1231, and C617 when applicable) r m O 1 Z� Date Made Sample # Lab # Date Tested Age (day) Load (Ibs) Size (in) Dia (in) Surface Area Strength (psi) Failure Code To j 7/12/2005 0002 11620 7/19/2005 7 80540 6 x 12 6.01 28:37 2840 - NA i � 7/12/2005 0002 11621 8/9/2005 28 �T 6 x 12 0 C� J NA Z 4, (7/1212005 0002 11622 8/9/2005 28 �— 6 x 12 �� NA ) 7/12/2005 0002 11623 8/9/2005_ 28 C 6 x 12 �� 1.� NA Remark: Z Inspector(s): Mark Vassallo Tested by: Scott J Johnson Reviewed by: 1 m Timothy G. Wkerle, P.E. Branch Manager NOTES: Failure descriptions for. samplestested with neoprene pads are not required per ASTM Std. NA = Not Applicable, S = Shear, C = Cone, CSp = Cone and Split, CSh = Cone and Shear, Col = Column FC Field Cure NR = Not Recorded I 1P IN Nd Information in this report applies only to the actual samples tested and shall not be reproduced without the approval of Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. MTE Form #150, Rev 3, 7,0 9/23/2005 15:22 4258275424 AESI PAGE 02/02 FIELD REPORT P elofl A s s o c i a t e d Earth Sciences , Inc . Date I Project Namc Project No. ® 3/14105 ® ® ® revised lien Residence KE02S84A revised Weather 911 Fifth. Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland. Washington 98033 7112 Meadowdale Beach Road Sunny SO de 425-R27-7701 FAX 827-5424 Municipality Report Number Cit of Edmonds TO: Mark Allen Fngineer/Architect 7112 Meadowdnle Beach Road Robert Christiansen, ATA Z + Client/Owner Edmonds WA 98026-5235 0 ATTN: Mark Allen M General Con traetorlSuperintcndcnt AS REQUESTED BY Mark Allen Thunder Rid el Eric En strom Grading Contractodsuperintcndcnt '-1 T C0 Thunder Ride C r=11 THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: My o n Footint* Inspection- Residential Addition e =M M Onsite this morning to complete a footing inspection for the proposed addition to the existing house. p ==I C= t the time of our site visit the L-shaped foundation excavation for the addition had been completed up to A approximately 6 feet deep behind the existing house and daylightted towards the front, soutlaern end, next to to the garage. Soils exposed in the £oundationexcavati.on were evaluated visually and with a'/2" diameter, steel Tmn: In eneral the foundation soils consisted of medium dense to dense, natural sand. A small _ soli probe. I g , foundation area located next the garage contained a residential gas line that had not been relocated yet. The rn nl soil in and around the vicinity of the gas lizle was in a loose condition approximately I to 2 feet deep. ; o Co r- ct the exposed soil. and then fill rb vi ` Recommended to Eric that they remove l foot of the loose material, recolnpa p rm back to grade with compacted soil. Eric said the would excavate 1 foot, recompact and .leave the area low, z y filling it with foundation concrete later. I said that would be acceptablco .I also .recommended that the surface � of. the footing areas be reconnpacted with the large vibratory plate located onsite to reduce the surficially i disturbed soils. Contractor planned to comply., i Z In our opinion; the exposed medium dense to dense natural and recompacted surficial soils will be capable of _ . the proposed addition. z providing suitable foundation support for p p o m. RECEIVED MAR 2 3 2005 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR: i CITY OF EDMONDS I Fax: Milton Tltotnpson, City of Edmonds FIELD REP.: Scott R. Hannah, P.G. J f�-- COPIES TO: 425-771-0221 DATE MAILED: 3 '�'3 os PRINCIPAL / PM:. Kurt D. Merriman, FIELD REPORT Associated Earth Sciences, Inc: Page I of I ® ® ® ® Date Project Name. Project No. ; 3/14/05 Nlen Residence KE02584A 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Location Weather Kirkland, Washington 98033 7112 Meadowdale Beach Road Sunn 50 de 4254274701 FAX 8271m5424 Municipality Report Number TO: Mark Allen Ci of Edmonds Engineer/Architect 7112 Meadowdale Beach Road Robert Christiansen, AIA Edmonds, WA 98026-5235 Client/Owner I ATTN: Mark Allen FIL AS REQUESTED BY Genera} Contractor/Superintendent M t Mark Allen Thunder Ridge/ Eric Engstrom Grading Contractor/Superintendent �rn THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: Thunder Ride Cl) 2 C M Footing Inspection- Residential Addition rn v On Onsite this morning to complete a footing inspection for the proposed addition to the existing house. = m }<<; mz At the time of our site visit the L-shaped foundation excavation for the addition had been completed up to c yz approximately 6 feet deep behind the existing house and daylighted .towards the front, southern end, next to � the garage. Soils exposed in the foundation excavation were evaluated visually and with a'/Z" diameter, steel Co soil probe. In general, the foundation soils consisted of medium dense to dense, natural sand: A small O -n -n r, foundation area located next the garage contained a residential gas line that had not been relocated yet. The = rn soil In and around the vicinity of the gas line was in a loose condition approximately 1 to 2 feet deep. rn oW Recommended to Eric that they remove I foot of the loose material, recompact the exposed soil and then fill c ca back to grade with compacted soil. Eric said they would excavate 1 foot, recompact and leave the area low, CO) filling it with foundation concrete later. I said, that would be acceptable. I also recommended that the surface Zn of the footing areas be recompacted with the large vibratory plate located onsite to reduce the surficially. . disturbed soils. Contractor planned to comply. In our opinion, medium dense to dense natural and recom acted soils will be capable of providing suitable foundation support for the proposed addition. D P , z Upper Retaining Wallco Evaluation of the upper wall with a steel soil probe revealed the backfill in front of the key way to be in a o loose to medium dense condition. We recommended that the surface of the keyway backfill be recomapcted m with the large plate compactor located onsite. Upon recompaction of the backfill and review, of construction photographs it is our opinion that the retaining wall was constructed in accordance with the plan specifications. RECEIVED MAR 2 1 2005 I� DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. f CITY OF EDMONDS COPIES TO: FIELD REP.:' Scott R. Hannah, P.G. ` DATE MAILED: PRINCIPAL / PM: Kurt D. Merriman, P.E. Date Project Name Project No. 7/26/06 Ajen Residence KFM584A 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Location Weather Kirkland, Washington 980337112 Meadowdale Beach Road Sunny 80 deg i 42511,827-7701 FAX 827-5424 Municipality Report Number City of Edmonds TO: Mark Allen Engineer/Architect •% 7112 Meadowdale Beach Road Robert Christiansen AIA ) 0 Edmonds, WA 98026-5235 Client/Owner " _ ATTN: Mark Allen n AS REQUESTED BY Mark Allen General Contractor/Superintendent fit Grading Contractor/Superintendent THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: Scott Swan v rn C v a; On site this afternoon to address two issues discussed in AESI's February 7, 2005 letter regarding n 0 NOR construction of the new, cast-in-place retaining wall along the back of the subject property, In our letter, we commented that the backfill/drainage for the wall needed to be obsezved and that the backfill in front of m z r.. the footing toe key area needed to be suitably compacted to provide the design passive pressure (equivalent fluid) of 300 pcf. Z ` Our observations revealed that the wall was formed against the old rockery. As such, no backfill was 011 required and the rockery acts as a drainage blanket for the perforated drain pipe behind the wall: {;. MM The contractor had recently re-compacted the sandy soil backfill (placed over. a year ago) in the toe key vo area to a firm and unyielding condition that was at least 95 °% of the modified Proctor maximum density, n Rt r based on ASTM D: 1557. Therefore, the material was suitably compacted to provide a minimum 300 pef N ,. M n passive pressure.. In our opinion, construction of the wall conforms to the design plans. - ;i Z SNOOPS to Z O 0 M Fax: Scott Swan 206-9374983 FIELD REP, P. ..: Scott R. Hannah, 0 L1.1 COPIES TO: <dP DATE MAILED:` MI6 PRINCIPAL / PM: Kurt D. Merriman, P.E j VJ 1171 lliLP!"iT � � � I . ., ._ .. 1 � .. •LJJa�1VjlL 11 IVv�- {�'J.l / lil.Jll it 1J[11L 1L\VI LVILL •••( _ . DZ DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED Pin,,. �"- ► �� -� Cn A field inspection was conducted to. determine compliance with approved plans. Final approval O mn denotes that' there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of M rn I' vN r ///, C.M �..� t.�-.' r.�� t . ...rte n r1" /-Vm • 7\TT1 !1t 7. ♦ .T Z i/i DZ Permit Fees Collected at Permit Issuance _ # of Inspections: X $50.00 $ '-� d D !il� Receipt#: Receipt Copy Attached: Yes /� m m Only required if refund is due O r - CM Z -i Inspection Fees TO BE PAID $ � C., z 0 0 i Contact notified of fees due ❑ by phone correction notice given Z5 i M Date Paid: 'L� �'(� Receipt #: Collected By: ❑ Engineering Notified, of Payment Received �i✓d l.^L:/r9KIb;iT. t/R:Iar 4.:C.'af.'1::C,:U'$K'�r JfU%R •Clr.'n::b:'N.i !•. d:.�:...4: :} m..f V, t.p9 ti,r. YA',::.:.S:Y......f :... .•Y... "G.'l'.3::6::. F::v.al.E'['JfJ,:O/iS:At:r V2.C:v wCfY'd.:CdL� _ ¢ REFUND Due: $ f ef/Y.X.J`•s.%n::I di.JiV. 19Y;6'!"i<A..1 .:Y.:T. u.ovs,....n:w`. ".Jr.VSa:.+ry,KA.,J./'Ra;ic'w.r. .Jgr ;di n/vvT:'!Cb /.r.1.X p<✓ .v':. a:md.�.w.::vs.s,rJ; r^:�r,'/.V'/.1,.w:a.:f'.r.r.. fs.'/. Reconciled .By:'17ii�--� �. Date Original to: ❑Permit File Copy to: ❑ Engineering Admin (refunds only) Revised 3/2/06 (A M M D I Z -i Inspection Fees TO BE PAID $ � C., z 0 0 i Contact notified of fees due ❑ by phone correction notice given Z5 i M Date Paid: 'L� �'(� Receipt #: Collected By: ❑ Engineering Notified, of Payment Received �i✓d l.^L:/r9KIb;iT. t/R:Iar 4.:C.'af.'1::C,:U'$K'�r JfU%R •Clr.'n::b:'N.i !•. d:.�:...4: :} m..f V, t.p9 ti,r. YA',::.:.S:Y......f :... .•Y... "G.'l'.3::6::. F::v.al.E'['JfJ,:O/iS:At:r V2.C:v wCfY'd.:CdL� _ ¢ REFUND Due: $ f ef/Y.X.J`•s.%n::I di.JiV. 19Y;6'!"i<A..1 .:Y.:T. u.ovs,....n:w`. ".Jr.VSa:.+ry,KA.,J./'Ra;ic'w.r. .Jgr ;di n/vvT:'!Cb /.r.1.X p<✓ .v':. a:md.�.w.::vs.s,rJ; r^:�r,'/.V'/.1,.w:a.:f'.r.r.. fs.'/. Reconciled .By:'17ii�--� �. Date Original to: ❑Permit File Copy to: ❑ Engineering Admin (refunds only) Revised 3/2/06 " J J W C) 0 � N � O O � N O O L L Ln i �l3 � _ T [n TO T, . TO O J J J -%I V v J J J J J J N N N W W W CL a n . W c 03 S =r aCLCD a D> j m 0' rn Q - Q. CD N O C a� 0 0. 90 CL NIgo � r 0 CD 0 CD C Qr� M. �� n@CD o any c� cr � .g'wMom ..v CD CL x o 0� fR a o y v CL m s N n� (a C N i�CL W 0 N U) o p-7 O 7 S N O CL CD toN cn �� CD 0 CL Ad ' i�I.NAL P11011�.('"11' APPROVAL 1+(a11M 1 ' r1I'. J. de LP POP f r tP, Ad P. :' ' , ; :. r r '1VI'Emo TO Pr tMl'I' ((UUIZDINA`['OIZ; Iiil[L,D1NG DIVjS[ON �ed �' iY K,' t yt2 g�.. :CS I-? I_. ", Tai: 1 �•,-. X14 FRO _`` ' _' - --'----1lIRE' 1)I/1'nl:l1�1IINi 1)n[1 r; ; ;` ,�' {} L — i lit:r, ,� // • _ f�NGIM•[•.[Z1N(� DLV�SION_DA1 G: b ;rn hf r 1 it ♦ — /i�'�---"�•�Yv:. ..-..... �.V.1—r... 'vr• _�.. •. r . t •—� 11i t (.1Add r. Ilt 4 , /77 • r i Pl Frltil. $,('N %, ty 1 red delr ' - ,, l - ' ry I -• Id, P $ ` , s, t ��_ �� PLi�NNING DIVLSIUN:Un i'L t 1 ;,,r4„ ; r' 4 I , ',2s ..d ,: Y.a P3�" dt E ASI SI(.N t r .. lt" a. 1 c J.: r wn i r 4 i n •r y ;n ay I:,• f r , \ :/ Pr.r, r Y,! Z ♦.(,.'fit D}^1I1�tT S�Aa .I' �_, k - t 5 , ,- .r I Add;/( a 5� fr .+ y v�,.• ,-1 .r r �_� �' _—_��.�. _ ...—__mss_•_ C. PIP ..� p r 1�1.r4f •.,t �.r�i','3'r T 7 r" f..sT, Pasi,"'r at 1• �.1a IPA JI^f `•sir{PC vrSl'yGi+i�'.f�+N,' ir\ r r i — _ r .., r. r ' ri `l,yl rr .ti f i•.PI 7Pr t'Y t'11{ ✓r ,t .,�(fY.r(nY t .;�.Pd::J h ,1, a 1• i J S t�71'�f-"�'J-• [1V��fiy ,\. �frL///'/�r `r't.L.i4P�1^.'(� i,rP`I PPA ?.yJi'llk—AIId PA i '^'f� ' 1• i L l trr r t" is lYs t l- + :w 1 rr1 $^ t.vy�1 K ••a P. r "' a�_i•,: r.1. - t r. -y. TPe.' .ja <tr�.t�S'^t� �p ti sv. Luall 'i;I• ^-c 1ilw`1 r• - <f t a i (SFr 4 r / {;'; j .PP . ?'y. ➢ rT III l74% d - r n 1 t:4(tf'f LI tr \ l f 4'`�*+..F � .IT s died , D ( AI)131f — — DM [3 RNSPIEC`TED. dl ; f' ''r jo y ^";f '—.A ,,. ✓ _ tr y `L .tet 1 ^' ryro y t ''� }, J ` �� + is rr� I j - r telId. y•-\ i f F L (�itj' ' ()N'b�_W0 K,ropu INSPEC ED Ir .ac {�.r am nth. �. iLwylr 7. .RPre.V el ifil3 ��.r •'-.r I :1 a. 1+"SAT 'S S i, F !{`R L): IA��. 1 J.r��4 Y •! • .' v e�d�; g itN o as conductcd:!'l�► detcrfi luo coin .lialkc"iti'l a moved itlairis �: r t✓ SSKK�%_Is ..'4�%i.1:. 3y4fLtlrE t"_r. .C�i ._ -..�' _,.. ....,5.. t_•..: �. .. ':�_�_rrJ , _F:S.i7:LLL �?P Ire.:�'i! :ihW.lcaivi�..y �Ir 1. O 0. m C/) R vm m0 O -i On C mm Z p -I C PP I Z r= m T N Ad D m m iI o� r Cc m N z� -i D X ldm D z ---i 2 z O c� i m