Loading...
20050152.pdfDATE RECEIVED CITY OF. EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUINESS �IIc� MAILING ADDRESS 0 -111 L I'I r1`1 M t,� I�,') LL r_'✓�C'.t { ��,��..5� CITY ZIP TELEPHONE E: Dpl�Y0.s 1,014 r/1}' "741 NA t c ADDRESS CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NAM_ E # ADDRESS] 30, 0 !'s i LAi At L_!`� (r•l KI✓ �ZsL.q �✓�� J5 �u CI ZIP TELEPHONE 0 421 STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION ATEC Y I•���� N� �.C. �(.C� N t� a N,U PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. ❑ NEW �i`ESIDENTIAL 11 PLUMBING /MECH ❑ ADDITION ❑� COMMERCIAL ❑ COMPLIANCE OR CHANGE OF USE ❑ REMODEL ❑ MULTIFAMILY ❑ SIGN ❑ REPAIR ❑ GRADING❑ l ENCE X CYDS ❑ DEMOLISH, ❑ TANK 11OTHER GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER z ❑ CARPORT IZROCKERY ❑ FIRE ALARM (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS R ASri T RY) EXP to Sr iE NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL OF DWELLING AREAS STORIES UNITS NUMBER DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE " )' I PERMIT EXPIRES USE PERMIT-oL ZONE NUMBER 2C/ C� JOB �J / / SUIT IAPT# ADDRESS t 1jj�o( PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO. LID NO. LID FEE $ TESCP PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Pe Approved p RW rmit Required O Street Use Permit Req'd t] EXISTING PROPOSED Inspection Required p Sidewalk Required E3 REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Underground Wiring required I, METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED YES ❑ N013 REMARKS OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE 'I) 1111 G; o f 1mal l l 1 q,11. r91 ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY r w a I` VARIANCE OR CO SHORELINE OR ADBN IIiSISECTION BOND REQ'D POSTED .� -. 10YES 0 g .._._T SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED EXP Xg LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE' REAR FRONT UR SIDE 'REAR z z z PARKING LOT AREA P NG REVIEWED BY DATE 5 REQ'D PROVIDED 0-� � I_ ;4, C CHECKED BY ITYPAOF CONSTRUCTION CODE OCCUPANT GROUP SPECIAL INSPECTION JAREA OCCUPANT 'REQUIRED YES LOAD REMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/IBC109/IRC109FINAL INSPEC116NREO'D 9 m `- VALUATION - Pa� Description- 7.FEE Description FEE 0Z JV� Plan Check + I State Surcharge HEAT SOURCE GIAZING % LOT SLOPE % Building Permit � City Surcharge PIAN CHECK NO: n�1 VESTED DATE Plumbing Base Fee 1 Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED, THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO I iBE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY, ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Grading 7 DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE g SEPARATE PERMISSION. i Engr, Review PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS CL PERMIT LIMIT. 1 YEAR • PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr, Inspection SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION ✓ rn 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HF.R SPOUSE, HFire Review Plan Chk. Deposit HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS 2 IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIAI.S, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVFR NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE Landsca a Ins Total Amt. Due 9 DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE p p' �. = NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S AI111 IIY TO ENFORCE. ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.* Recording Fee Receipt # I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE TIIAT I IIAVE. READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND TILAT I AM TILE 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 permit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING TIIE WORK AUTIIORRLED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are 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 C ATIUN INSURANCE AND RCW 10 27. OFFICIALS SIGN RE DTE SIGNATU WN ENT) ! DATE GNED (425) 7/ �e 771 "0220 RCL AS BYp DA ATTEN ION EXT 1333 ITIS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL ORA CERTIFICATE OFOCCU• ORIGINA -FIL YELLOW -I PEC OR PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED, UBC 109 / IBC110 / IRC110. PINK - R GOLD -ASSESSOR 09/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES = Associated Earth Sciences, Inc[Fee q . a September 30, 2002 Project No. KE02584A yw!)v1..• ::, u CAOUNTER PERMIT Construction Systems Management Inc. c/o Mr. Mark Allen 605 First Avenue, Suite 412 p Seattle, Washington 98104 n M Subject: Slope Evaluation and Retaining Wall Design Recommendations N -� Proposed Addition Allen Residence e 7112 ' Meadowdale Beach Road m O Edmonds, Washington O C im MZ rJ Dear Mr. Allen.: y z This letter. presents Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.'s (AESI's) slope evaluation and retaining O on i wall recommendations for the slope south of the proposed new addition to the house located at I 7112 Meadowdale 'Beach Road. A footing subgrade evaluation has been prepared for the M M M rn project as a separate letter to satisfy. City of Edmonds requirements. o co C N The purpose of this letter is to summarize our observations and opinions regarding the slope to K CO), the south of your house and to provide design parameters for a proposed retaining wall at the r z �. toe of that slope. At your request, this letter is a separate document from our footing subgrade evaluation letter. This • letter has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted M' engineering practice for your exclusive use. Since we did not perform a detailed subsurface exploration or slope stability analysis, the information about slope stability should be ) z considered for informational purposes only. We would be happy to provide a scope of service and cost estimate for a more detailed analysis if requested. Z O The existing house was located above Meadowdale. Beach Road, near the base of a hill leading m up to the south. The yard to. the south of the house 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: We performed a visual review. of the slope to the south of your house. There was an j approximately 2 -foot -high concrete retaining wall at the toe of the slope with a 1 -foot -tall r: rockery atop the concrete wall. The concrete wall was tilted down the slope, past vertical by approximately degrees. Above this lower concrete wall and rockery assemblage were two PP Y 5 de g , more rockeries: The middle rockery was approximately 5 to 6 feet high and setback from the u lower concrete wall/rockery approximately. 2 feet Above the middle rockery was an upper 911 f iftlt Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 • Phone 425 827.7701 • Pax 425 827-5424 • 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 1HAV to 1HAI/2V (Horizontal: Vertical) for approximately 10 to 12 vertical feet. An approximately 2-foot=high, nearly vertical arcuate scarp that was devoid of vegetation was observed approximately 25 feet up from the toe of the slope. The scarp extended from the east property line west to about the middle of the slope, approximately opposite to the existing brick chimney. of the deck's fireplace, Above the level of the scarp, the slope flattened to approximately 2H: IV for several hundred lineal feet to the residential lots above. There were several small -diameter alders and numerous old wooden fence posts present on the z lower slope, between the scarp level and the rockeries, all of which were leaning downslope, --t indicating that the surficial slope soils have experienced some downslope movement in the . n rn. past. There were several larger trees above the scarp level that were nearly vertical. The majority of the slope was covered in blackberry vines, small sapling trees, and bushes. No. -n N ground water or .signs of ground water seepages were observed on :the slope. There were -� _. numerous mountain beaver burrows across the entire slope face. m rnv �n We drilled one hand auger boringin the middle of the south footingline for the proposed e addition and hand excavated several shallow areas on the slope to determine the general type of rn z shallow soils in the vicinity of the new addition and on the slope. The soils encountered in the C hand auger boring and the shallow hand excavations consisted of a thin veneer of topsoil over medium dense advance outwash sand in the yard area and approximately 4 feet of loose .slide _ �Vi debris/colluvial soils on the slope also overlying the advance outwash sand. The advance 0 rn outwash sand was fine to medium and contained trace amounts of gravel and silt. Refer to the T attached hand boring log, mm ON Based on the reconnaissance and the site soils, it appears that the lower, eastern portion of the N hillside above your back .yard may have experienced landslide movement in the past. The r rn n western portion of the lower part of the hillside does not appear to have moved recently but MA consists of similar soils and topography as the eastern half, indicating that there is a potential for future movement: i The approximately 30 -foot distance from the toe of the slope to the existing house is probably adequate to contain significant debris flow material associated with a major slope movement.. in The reduced distance (approximately 22 feet) between the proposed addition and the toe. of the z 0 slope may not be adequate depending upon the size of movement and other factors. It is our understanding that a low retaining wall is planned for the toe . of the western portion of the m slope. Reportedly, this wall is planned to be approximately 6 feet high. We recommend that the new wall be constructed at the slope toe and be at least as long as the new addition. The wall should be tall enough to provide at least 2 feet of vertical catchment space behind the wall and above the adjacent ground surface. Footings for the wall may be designed for 2,500 pounds per square foot if placed on the I 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. I, 2 The wall should be designed using an allowable active .earth pressure represented by an 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 r passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the foundations. We recommend the following design parameters: • Passive equivalent fluid = 300 pcf t. Coefficient of friction 0.35. The above values include a safely factor of 1.5 "zONES. The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a sloping backfill rn 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 MEMO.+ material (excluding the first 2 feet below the surface). The drainage layer should be allowed to v rn drain through the wall via weep holes, The weep holes should be spaced approximately every m v r r 8 feet horizontally and be at least 2 inches in diameter. ' n cI All, Please contact me if you have any questions or if we can be of additional help to your m z CZ Sincerely, -� ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. N Kirkland, Washington 0' OJ— n rn JEWMAV14 11 C 4 cN ,- S .,, l r m - of W ail, �'„� 0 t CO -I /toe gotngirmn Clue 4 014 <' r 608 ��y L `��r'�' MEMO N hselL d Ge°\° ' E�(P19Q6 it / Z(f / John D. Coleman 0. rn John D. Coleman, P.E.G. Kurt D. Merriman, P.E. Project Geologist Senior Associate Engineer f 41 !1 41 •J? Attachment: Hand Boring Log 1DC/af KE02584A 1 PROJECTS\2002584\KE\WP - W2K 3 I Ld t . . } .. ', i i �. .. } 1' 2 n. j, d ,.. . j. ' i � i . L . - i i 1 .. I �. �. ' I. Building Code: Uniform Building Code 1997 II. Design Loads; A. Roof Roof (snow) = N.A. psf B. Floor Floor live load = N.A. . psf (typical) Floor live load = ' N.A. psf (corridor) Floor live load = N.A. psf . Floor live load = N.A.psf C. Wind Wind speed = N.A. mph, Exposure = I wind = D. Seismic Seismic zone.= 3 Z = 0.3 1 seismic = 1.00 Soil profile type = Sd Ca = 0.36 Cv =50 4 E. Lateral Earth Pressure (soil fluid density) Restrained at top N.A. Z Unrestrained at top =. 70 0 _ n lil Idli 111. Materials (design stresses): m A. Soil Allowable bearing pressure = 2500 psf, Friction (sliding coefficient) = 0.35 -�0 ` Passive bearing pressure = 300 pcf O m Perimeter frost depth= 1.5 feet C p Interior footing depth= N.A. feet n B. Concrete Foundations F'c = 4000 psi O C Walls, columns F'c = 4000 psi = nn Structural slabs F'c = N.A. psi MZ , C. Masonry F'm = N.A. psi Special inspection? - D Z D. Reinforcing Fy = 60 ksi ASTM A615, Grade 60 r = E. Steel Rolled WF shapes Fy = N.A. ksi ASTMA572, Tech. Bulletin #3 ca Plates, bar & other rolled shapes Fy = N.A. ksi ASTM A36 0 Mn Pipe Fy = N.A. ksi ASTM A53, Type E or S, Gr B { , Tubing Fy = N.A. ksi ASTM A500, Gr B m m F. Glu -Lam Simiple span: Fb = N.A. psi Combination 24F -V4 C) Cantilevered span: Fb = N.A. psi Combination 24F -V8 O G. Sheathing APA Performance Rated Panels, per NER 108; Exposure 1 c M. Roof: N.A. CO i Floors: N.A. P z Walls: N.A. H. Sawn Lumber - Basic Design Values -1997 N.D. N.A. _ , 2' ..�J_---Fy E.1csi --. -___ :_ Z --, - Z' 0 0 M R O B E R T . Subject: Site Retaining Wall RFA #: 020341-02 4 Project: Allen Residence L Date: ; A S S O C I A T E S Client: Mark Allen Sheet No: Robert Fossatti Associates Title : Job # , 2030 First Avenue Dsgnr:Date: 1:30PM, 3 DEC 02 Suite 203 Description Seattle, WA 98121 Scope ` I 206-2564803 Rev: 560100 ; User:Icw06o73Ve<5.6.1,uoa.2ooz Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Page 1 (c)1983-2002 EN RCALC Engineering Software g:\projects\020341.01 alien residencevetwall ..Description Allen Res. Retaining Wall Criteria oil Data - -- Footing Strengths & Dimensions Retained Height = 7.00 ft Allow Soil Bearing _. 2,500.0 psf fc 4,000 psi Fy 60,000 psi Wall height above soil 0.00 ft Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Min. As % = 0.0014 Heel Active Pressure = 70.0 Toe Width = 4.00 ft Slope Behind Wall = 1.00:1 Toe Active Pressure = 0.0 Heel Width = 2000 Height of Soil over Toe = 12.00 in Passive Pressure = 300.0 Total Footing Width Soil Density = 110.00 pcf Water height over heel 0.0 ft Footing Thickness = 12.00 in ZO FootingllSoil Friction = 0.350Illy Key Width= 12.00 in Wind on Stem= 0.0 psf Soil height to ignore _ n . for passive pressure = 12.00 in Key Depth - 22.00 in M Key Distance from Toe = 0.00 it got. Cover @ Top = 3.00 in @ Btnl 3.00 in JJ Design Summary Stem Construction Top stem almost - Stem OK ! ' Total Bearing Load = 6,289 lbs Design height ft= 0.00 O M y` resultant ecc. I= 4.70 in Wall Material Above "Ht" = Concrete Cp` r Thickness = 12.00 m O Soil Pressure @ Toe = 638 psf OK n ' Rebar Size = # ` 5 Soil Pressure @Heel = 1,459 psf OK Rebar Spacing 16.00 C, Allowable _. 2,500 psf Rebar Placed at = . Edge = rn Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable m Z Design Data ACI Factored = - -1 t @ Toe 490 psf fb/FB + fa/Fa = osasi O � ACI Factored @ Heel 1,122 psf C Z Total Force @ Section lbs = 2,915.5 D Footing Shear @ Toe _ 9.7 psi OK Moment....Actual ft-# = 6,802.8 r Footing Shear @ Heel = 60.6 psi OK to Moment, ,,Allowable : = 10,479.3 t Allowable = 107,5psi Shear.....Actual psi 23.8 O �t Overturning Stability Ratios 3.51 OK Shear..... Allowable psi = 107.5 Sliding = 1.50 OK Bar Develop ABOVE Ht. in 18.50 2 Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component Used) Bar Lap/Hook BELOW Ht. in = . 6.00 filit. rf1 Lateral Sliding Force. 2,835.0 lbs Wall Weight = 145:0 C CO) less 100% Passive Force= 2,054.2 lbs Rebar Depth 'd' In= 10.19 n r ;, less 100% Friction Force= - 2,201.1 lbs MPrn my Data si = C011' ! Added Force Req'd . _ 0.0 lbs OK P r m ....for 1.5: 1 Stability = 0.0 lbs OK Fs psi = Z r Solid Grouting Footing Design Results Special Inspection = Modular Ration' _ Toe Heel Short Term Factor = I i Mu :Upward = 5,046 0 ft # Masonry Block Type = Normal Weight Mu' : Downward = 2,912 59513 ft-# Concrete Data Mu: Design = 2,134 5,513 ft-# fc psi = 4,000.0 Congo Actual 1-Way Shear = 9.67 , 60.61 psi Fy psi = 60,000.0 W Allow 1-Way Shear = 107.52 107.52 psi Z' Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings O, Toe Reinforcing = # 5 @ 18.00 in Toe: Not req'd, Mu < S ' Fr Heel Reinforcing = # 5 @ 19.25 in Heel: #4Q 12.50 in, #5@ 19.25 in, #6@ 27.25 in, #7@ 37.25 in, 08@ 48.25 in, #'9@ 4 n Key Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key: #4@ 16.00 in, #5@ 24.75 in, #6@ 35.' M. r • MARK C. & GALINA J. ALLEN 7112 MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 425-7414944 (H) 2064914476 (Cell) November 10, 2004 Ms. Ann Bullis, Assistant Building Official City of Edmonds Development Services Department ; 121 5h Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Z O 5 Re: Plan Check # 04-394 m Dear. Ann, T CA _ I am in receipt of your letter dated October 26, 2004 regarding our addition/remodel. As we discussed on v rn the phone I have a fbw concerns about this letter and the items as outlined. As you are aware I have had m v meetings at your office with the Building Official and your Engineering department in response to these -� n items. I will address each item in order. mz 1.. Throughout your review you bring into question the retaining wall about the Geotechnical A mi Engineer's report making a recommendation to replace the existing failing retaining wall at the e z base of the slope with a proposed seven foot high retaining/catchment wall. A, representative _ from American Earth Sciences and I met with The Building Department Director, Star Campbell,Cn and Steven Bullock of your office in reference to this retaining wall in the critical area. We O T+ discussed what the definition of the "toe of the slope was" having to do with the existing rockery � and if there was any effect that this wall would have effecting the critical area. It was determined m m at that time the toe was the dirt behind the rockery and that we could modify the rockery.with this v N engineered retaining wall as designed so that it would not interfere with the slope or the n rn guidelines stipulating this critical area. Only 4 rocks were removed from the far NW corner to e accommodate the retaining wall this is why we were not required to obtain a critical areas ! m 0 variance for this retaining wall. The director then stated that we would have to comply with the -i code guidelines set forth and work with your engineering department to ensure that the wail was M completed correctly.. -� D } The wall that was professionally engineered by Robert Fossetti and Associates was brought to the } Z City of Edmonds on July 27, 2004 when I talked to two of the City's Engineers at the desk. I hadca in hand the permit paperwork, the check, and the engineered drawings to `submit for permit.. However, when talking to your engineers at the desk about this retaining wall in the critical area p the City requirements were addressed handout#B62, the same one you have enclosed with your letter. Under the retaining wall height definition "For permit purposes, retaining wall height is m defined as the height measured vertically from the finish grade". On the engineered drawings the finish grade is six feet vertically about the finish ground. I waited approximately 35 minutes while the two engineers talked about the retaining wall and the finish grade issues. After their discussions and talking to other personnel in the City of Edmonds, your two engineers, specifically Jamie Hawkins stated that the code was ambiguous and therefore based on the way it was written I did not need to have a permit. Therefore, based on the City of Edmonds Engineer Representative, Icompleted the retaining wall without a permit. Photographic documentation was taken to document the compliance of building this retaining wall as designed. I have taken all of the requited steps through the City of Edmonds, talking to The Director, Steven Bullock, , Star Campbell and your Engineer Jamie Hawkins regarding this retaining wall and the addition on our home to ensure that I was in compliance with the City and all applicable parties concerned were completely informed of what was taking place. Additionally, I do not understand that two months after meeting with all the City Officials and f then given the authorization from the City of Edmonds Engineering Department to proceed with the completion of the retaining wall that you are now superseding their decisions and directions and asking for additional information and funds. I would request that a meeting of all parties be convened to once again address these issues so that you can listen to all the other City representatives about what they have authorized me to do. j 2. The special inspection and testing agreements have already been submitted to the City of Edmonds over twelve months ago. However if these need to be resubmitted I will complete them within the next two weeks. 3: In paragraph number three you stated that, "please be aware that the permit cannot be issued until Z i' the variance has been approved by the planning division". As I have indicated before, l hada meeting with The Director, Steven Bullock, and Star Campbell about this issue. In this meeting I m was directed by the Director that I was to block the area at the front of the home indicating that it was awaiting variance approval- which was done on the submitted plans:. We were told that we needed to modifythese drawings as you have indicated we completed them as the Director had $ Y P Ca = instructed us to complete. v m Cv I was also directed by the Director that two permits would need to be completed 1.) One for the n addition and 2.) One, once the variance was approved. This is the way that the architect and I o'C proceeded and submitted the drawings in accordance to what the Building Director had directed us to do. Once again I am receiving different directions from the building department after the m i> Director has designated what needs to be accomplished in order for us to get approved for the D z permit. _ I I am not understandingwhy there is a sever lack of communication between all the departments p Mn Y within the City of Edmonds, but it makes it very difficult for an individual home owner to I accomplish their goals when it comes to completing an addition. You yourself state that this has m m taken an extremely long time to get through the City of Edmonds, almost 2 full years. And as v CO) you know the hearing for the front entry variance is on November 18, 2004 at 3:00 PM, so r hopefully after that approval we can finalize all the paperwork for a permit to complete our home. N r I would like you Lto know that I am not trying to be adversarial in any manner; I just want you to know the frustrations.I have had working with the City of Edmonds to complete my addition and to get a permit issued. Please contact me so that we may have the opportunity of resolving these issues in a.timely manner. L L z +'. Thank you for your continued assistance in this matter and I look forward to working with you _ throughout the addition. z 0 Sinc urs m Mark C. Allen Z1r GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 '• (425) 771 120 • FAX (425) 771-0221 �.r Website imci.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Inc . 8°I� Planning Building • Engineering ti. Z+ 0 February 23; 2005 m mn v m Mr. Mark Allen M v M.. 7112 Meadowdale Beach Road0 .O Edmonds, Washington 98026 =m M 10 ,> RE: Permit for retaining wall c z Dear Mr. Allen; _ -0 mn The purpose of this letter is to respond to a voice mail message you left for the Director. Mn � Because Mr. Bowman is out of the office this week he has asked me to return your :MM telephone call but I have been unable to leave a message at your home. cM If I' understand your position you are objecting to the notation placed on the building C c - I permit that states, `work .done prior to obtaining a building permit'. Your objection r z centers on a conversation you had with an engineering employee about permit requirements. It is my understanding that Mr. Bowman has previously discussed this specific topic with you and explained the City's position. It is a fact that the entire j required building permit was z retaining wall was completely constructed before the q g p y obtained. The notation is made to alert persons of this fact because there will be noco progress inspections records for the work. Z. However, any correspondence that you wish to be made part of the permanent record for this project may be submitted to me prior to the closing date of the permit and I assure rn you such documentation will become part of the permanent permit file. Sincerely,. Jeannine L. Graf i .:.. s Building Official r r Incorporated August 11, 1890 • t`y 911 Fitch Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 425427-7701 FAX 827-5424 TO: Mark Allen 7112 Meadowdale Beach Road Edmonds, WA 98024.5235 ATTN. AS REQUESTED BY Mark Allen THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: Date L Project Name Project No. 7/26106 Men Residence KE02584A Location Weather 7112 Meadowdale Beach Road Sung 80 deg Municipality Report Number of Edmonds. ineer/Architect bert Chrisdartren AIAent/Owner r Z ark Allen General. Contractor/Superintendent Grading Contractor/Superintendent O Scott Swan Ca On site this afternoon to address two issues discussed in AESI's February 7, 2005 letter regarding m n construction of the new, cast -in-place retaining wall along the back of the subject property. In our letter, C r we commented that the backfillldrainage for the wall needed to be observed and that the backfill in front of m z the footing toe key area needed to be suitably compacted to provide the design passive. pressure (equivalent p =I fluid) of 300 pcf: - y z ' r_ -1 Our observations revealed that the wall was formed against the old rockery. As such, no backfill was in required and the rockery acts as a drainage blanket for the perforated drain pipe behind the wall. .on The contractor had recently re -compacted the sandy soil backfill (placed over a year ago) in the toe key M M area to a firm and unyielding condition that was at least 95 % of the modified Proctor maximum density, p N based on ASTM D: 1557. Therefore, the material was suitably. compacted to provide a minimum 300 pcf c N passive pressure.m z0 In our opinion, construction of the wall conforms to the design plans. Z 0) "O_ 0 M REC9 DLVEt OPMf•'N i eel, viGES CTR. i CITI' OF EDIdOND9 Fax: Scott Swan 206-9374983 COPIES TO: FIELD REP.: ScottR. Hannah, P.G. DATE MAILED: �11fI ss PRINCIPAL / PM: Kurt D. Morriman. P, E, lei i Z i. O m t7 m Ca On site this afternoon to address two issues discussed in AESI's February 7, 2005 letter regarding m n construction of the new, cast -in-place retaining wall along the back of the subject property. In our letter, C r we commented that the backfillldrainage for the wall needed to be observed and that the backfill in front of m z the footing toe key area needed to be suitably compacted to provide the design passive. pressure (equivalent p =I fluid) of 300 pcf: - y z ' r_ -1 Our observations revealed that the wall was formed against the old rockery. As such, no backfill was in required and the rockery acts as a drainage blanket for the perforated drain pipe behind the wall. .on The contractor had recently re -compacted the sandy soil backfill (placed over a year ago) in the toe key M M area to a firm and unyielding condition that was at least 95 % of the modified Proctor maximum density, p N based on ASTM D: 1557. Therefore, the material was suitably. compacted to provide a minimum 300 pcf c N passive pressure.m z0 In our opinion, construction of the wall conforms to the design plans. Z 0) "O_ 0 M REC9 DLVEt OPMf•'N i eel, viGES CTR. i CITI' OF EDIdOND9 Fax: Scott Swan 206-9374983 COPIES TO: FIELD REP.: ScottR. Hannah, P.G. DATE MAILED: �11fI ss PRINCIPAL / PM: Kurt D. Morriman. P, E, lei i 'A field inspection was conducted , to determine compliance with • approved _ plans. Final approval N ! denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of o PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED SETBACKS .:................... _ FOUNDATION: Footing .............:.:..:... Wall ........:..........:...... Pier/Porch ................. Z Retaining Wali ........... Slab Insulation .......... rn PLUMBING: N Underground ....:... _ vrn C .Rough-In .....,........ m v y 0 Commercial Final ...... O C 3: HEATING: Z Gas Test .................... _ D Z Gas Piping off Equipment wn wn Commercial Final M EXTERIOR SHEATHING NAILING v N O r f. nrn FRAMING .....:.................. c� Cn FIRST FLOOR FRAMING... r Z n INSULATION .. D Floor Insulation ......... f Wall Insulation .::..:..... Z Ceiling Insulation ...:.:. E' SHEETROCK NAILING ... O : SPECIAL INSPECTION ... m. MISCELLANEOUS ....:..... FINAL APPROVAL FOR Q OCCUPANCY . . ..:.......... �•J l ti� ,� u 1fh ,J �,� C?. i L.t. lnk1 S cJ 6. ��► c .`� ' P� �,C: �-►'fn 2/t%Y- Cj 7�-1�4r-- 7��'_ , iv►�t,�� �� r_c,��•�►�ca� l,�f �-c�c.� -1�4n, A7Q-.;2 rbc I 1�+=tib' 1/rs:4r7CAO W; �r T� cc:-��.+r�, n���� T�•1-,4rr �r��=u �--c.... n� ��i����� � �Y�-t �`� �=�.►=L�:.��(cn`z. A1C? � 1��.- �F- ►�-�_v, � �� I°�--�.�/� •3�•D Faz.., i'cfrc� �1'r'-.-aL,', vF-� W�.i..� i fjAcek ) LL A7M 7) 9; ? c�f 1 ::X" F) -O>'w; tr,>—`THS 00+ The Initials MT are Milton 2sr..6�JThompson; a temporary contract Inspector for the city.