Loading...
01-102513f City unityDevelc1opment Services FederalWay Comm�mity Building - Single Family Permit #:01 -102513 - 00 -- SF 33530 lst'?Vay S Federal Way, WA 98603-6210 Inspection request line: 253.835.3050 Ph: 253.661.4000 Fax: 253.661.4129 Project Name: HICHA Project Address: 33105 42ND PL SW Parcel Number: 327905 0060 Project Description: NSF - Construct NSF residence with attached garage; includes plumbing and mechanical. **proposed selling price $300,000, 4 bedrooms** HIGH POINT PARK DIV NO 03 LOT 6 Includes: Census category: 101 -New si #1 #2 #3 -W4— Occupancy 4Occupancy Group: R-3 U-1 Construction Type: Type V - N Type V - N Occupancy Load: Floor Area (Sq. Ft.): 1 st Floor Proposed Sq. Feet.................................1686 Basement Proposed Sq. Feet................................1200 Census Category ................................................. 101 - New single family houst Garage Proposed Sq. Feet....................................885 Mechanical................................................. Yes Occupancy Group#2...........................................0-1 Total Building Sq. Feet........................................5300 Zoning Designation ............................................. RS 7.2 2nd Floor Proposed Sq. Feet................................1529 BasicPlan ......................:.......................... No Construction Type#2.......................................... Type V - N Height of Structure .............................................. 33.5 Occupancy Group #1 ........................................... R-3 Plumbing................................................. Yes Total Proposed Sq. Feet.......................................5300 Plumbing Fixtures Description Quantity ;, Description lQuantityl I escription Quantit Dishwashers 1 Laundry Washer Outlets l� Bathtubs 1 Lavatories 6 Water Heaters — Showers �' I Sinks Water Closets 4 Mechanical Fixtures Description Quantity -Description Quantity Description Fans 6 Ducts Fireplace Inserts Ranges 1 Furnaces I —1 Hoods 1W CONDITIONS: 'UC000' 1. Height survey required by framing inspection. 2. Replace significant tree by replacing with one new evergreen tree that is mim 10' in heigh or deciduous tree that have a mim 3" caliper. 3. No building shall encroach onto any building setback line or easement shown or not shown. 4. Maximum building height is 30 feet above average building elevation, per Federal Way City Ordinance #90-51. 5. The driveway shall be paved per FWCC, Sec. 22-1453. The driveway shall be paved from the existing roadway pavement edge, or curb, to the garage or carport. 6. Maximum driveway width is 30 feet. 7. Prior to any clearing or grading on a lot, the owner/builder shall install temporary erosion/sedimentation control facilities approved by the City. These facilities must ensure that dirt or sediment laden water does not enter the nnhlic drainaue system- adiarent late or nnhlic streets. The owner/hnilder hears the resnansihility to Owner Applicant Contractor Lender MICHAEL HICHA MICHAEL HICHA MICHAEL HICHA MICHAEL HICHA 5129 SW DASH POINT RD 5129 SW DASH POINT RD 5129 SW DASH POINT RD FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 5129 SW DASH POINT RD FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 Includes: Census category: 101 -New si #1 #2 #3 -W4— Occupancy 4Occupancy Group: R-3 U-1 Construction Type: Type V - N Type V - N Occupancy Load: Floor Area (Sq. Ft.): 1 st Floor Proposed Sq. Feet.................................1686 Basement Proposed Sq. Feet................................1200 Census Category ................................................. 101 - New single family houst Garage Proposed Sq. Feet....................................885 Mechanical................................................. Yes Occupancy Group#2...........................................0-1 Total Building Sq. Feet........................................5300 Zoning Designation ............................................. RS 7.2 2nd Floor Proposed Sq. Feet................................1529 BasicPlan ......................:.......................... No Construction Type#2.......................................... Type V - N Height of Structure .............................................. 33.5 Occupancy Group #1 ........................................... R-3 Plumbing................................................. Yes Total Proposed Sq. Feet.......................................5300 Plumbing Fixtures Description Quantity ;, Description lQuantityl I escription Quantit Dishwashers 1 Laundry Washer Outlets l� Bathtubs 1 Lavatories 6 Water Heaters — Showers �' I Sinks Water Closets 4 Mechanical Fixtures Description Quantity -Description Quantity Description Fans 6 Ducts Fireplace Inserts Ranges 1 Furnaces I —1 Hoods 1W CONDITIONS: 'UC000' 1. Height survey required by framing inspection. 2. Replace significant tree by replacing with one new evergreen tree that is mim 10' in heigh or deciduous tree that have a mim 3" caliper. 3. No building shall encroach onto any building setback line or easement shown or not shown. 4. Maximum building height is 30 feet above average building elevation, per Federal Way City Ordinance #90-51. 5. The driveway shall be paved per FWCC, Sec. 22-1453. The driveway shall be paved from the existing roadway pavement edge, or curb, to the garage or carport. 6. Maximum driveway width is 30 feet. 7. Prior to any clearing or grading on a lot, the owner/builder shall install temporary erosion/sedimentation control facilities approved by the City. These facilities must ensure that dirt or sediment laden water does not enter the nnhlic drainaue system- adiarent late or nnhlic streets. The owner/hnilder hears the resnansihility to - POST THIS CARD ON THE FRONT OF BUILDING r -ice BUILDING DIVISION VV INSPECTION RECORD INSPECTION REQUEST PHONE #: 253-835-3050 PERMIT #: 01 -102513 -00 -SF OWNER'S NAME: MICHAEL HICHA SITE ADDRESS: 33105 42ND SW ( ) UNDERFLOOR FR () ROUGH PLUMBING: DWV��%�/�� Water piping —— (-TROUGH MECHANICAL�7 Qr CS '-f-- Gas piping O SHEATHING Roof Floor / Z () SHEAR WALLS 5 Z. O ' CJ 2, C,� ( ) ELECTRICAL ROUGH -IN () FIRE/DRAFTSTOPS ALL THE ABOVE MUST BE APPROVED, PRIOR TO FRAMING INSPECTION Ditch Cover ( ) FRAMING/FIRESTOPPING ( ) INSULATION: Floors /-- / is - o Z C -.1j WallsZZ, Attic r THE ABOVE MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO:APPLYING 'SHEETROCK ( ) WALLBOARD NAILING ( ) SUSPENDED CEILING THE ABOVE MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO TAPING OR INSTALLING CEILING TILE ( ) ELECTRICAL FINAL ( ) PLANNING FINAL ( ) PUBLIC WORKS FINAL ( ) FIRE FINAL THE ABOVE MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO BUILDING DEPARTMENT FINAL ( ) BUILDING FINAL DO' NOT, OCCUPY THIS BUILDING UNTIL BUILDING FINAL IS .APPROVED �rof z— CONSTRUATON PERMIT APPLICATION VV FiY PPLICATION NUMBER_: - _ _ _ _ _ - Od 5JC7 �UN rz PPLICATION NUMBER: PPLICKHONNUMBER: __-______-__ �jY OF FEDERAL WAY Fg�f�J(ANOf Fs rEquired information — Please print (in ink) or type** Please note: Electrical, Fire Prevention Systems and Engineering permits may require a separate application. PROPER T;Y INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: -/ i OJ N➢ �G. S(N ASSESSOR'S TAX/PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (ATTACH SEPARATE DESCRIPTION IF LENGTHY): OT (o/i� ij' /'p; PROIECT INFORMATION TYPE OF PROJECT (This application): ❑ BUILDING C1- PLUMBING MECHANICAL ❑ DEMOLITION ❑ ELECTRICAL ❑ ENGINEERING❑ FIRE PREVENTION SYSTEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Provide detailed description): f, '/ El j ho' PROJECT NAME: Y!'�' PROPERTY OWNER: G�jTi.O�jL•. CONTRACTOR: ■ PEOPLE INFORMATION NAME: DAYTIME PHONE: MAILING ADDRESS (STREET ADDRESS; CITY, ATE, ZIP): a. $'.:. ►`•=© t?�L b A NAME: DAYTIME PHONE: MAILING ADDRESS (STREET ADDRESS; CITY, STATE, ZIP): EVENING PHONE: j ( ) I CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUSINESS LICENSE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: CONTRACTOR'S REGISTRATION NUMBER: EXPIRATION DATE: (copy of card required) APPLICANT: NAME: e"t"t:`z" /1; c w4s (2a6 ) G69 — 7-3-4/L7- MAILING .3`/ZMAILING ADDRESS (STREET ADDRESS; CITY STATES ZIP), EVENING PHONE: 1<�RFEt _ tt%i`t ct/U� (2S3)(oC41 - 79ifl RELATIONSHIP TO PROJECT: FAX NUMBER: ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ TENANT ❑ OTHER ( DESCRIBE): ( ) - E-MAIL ADDRESS: CONTACT PERSON FOR THIS PROJECT: ❑ PROPERTY OWNER ❑ APPLICANT ❑ CONTRACTOR MN,fNA ` IAA);&A)(9Ay .r-Gr� INFORMATION EXISTING USE: ���) EXISTING BUILDING ASSESSED/APPRAISED VALUATION $ PROPOSED USE: D�'iAc%�� �Jr� PROPOSED VALUATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS: $ SPRINKLERED BUILDING? ❑ YES ❑ NO FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM PROPOSED/ REQUIRED: ❑ YES ❑ NO WATER SERVICE PROVIDER: C''LAKEHAVEN ❑ HIGHLINE ❑ TACOMA ❑ PRIVATE (WELL) SEWER SERVICE PROVIDER: Er'LAKEHAVEN ❑ HIGHLINE ❑ PRIVATE (SEPTIC) 0 Construction Permit Fee Calculation Sheet *******PLEASE NOTE: ALL FEES MUST BE VERIFIED BY CITY STAFF PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF PAYMENT. CHECKS FOR INCORRECT AMOUNTS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED!******* Building, mechanical, and fire prevention system fees are based on the following schedule. TABLE A TOTAL VALUATION FEE FACTOR (1) $1.00 to $500.00 (1) $24.25 (2) $501.00 to $2,000.00 (2) $24.25 for the first $500.00 plus $3 27 for each additional $100.00or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 (3) $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 (3) $71.46 for the first $2,000.00 plus $1500 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 (4) $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 (4) $403.61 for the first $25,000.00 plus sia82 for each additional $1 000. or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00. (5) $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 (5) $664.35 for the first $50,000.00 plus $7.50 for each additional $1.000.0 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00. (6) $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 (6) $1,025.55 for the first $100,000.00 plus $6.00 for each additional $l, 000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00 (7) $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 (7) $3,337.23 for the fist $500,000.00 plus $5.09 for each additional $1,000.00or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00. (8) $1,000,001.00 and up (8) $5,788.23 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $3.91 foreach additional $1,0j0. or fraction thereof. Bold number is the base fee for the specified increment Italicized underlined number is the lee per additional specified increment PLUS: Add 65 percent of the base building permit fee for plan review tee. Add 25 percent of the base mechanical permit fee for mechanical plan review fee. Add 15 percent of the base building permit fee for Fire District #39 surcharge, commercial only. Add $4.50 for WA State Building Code Council, plus $2.00 per unit for duplex & above. ** Electrical, plumbing, and mechanical fees are calculated separately ** PROPOSED VALUATION: FEE FACTOR FROM TABLE A: Number: Estimated Permit Fee: (1 Estimated Plan Review Fee: (2) Estimated FW Fire Department Surcharge: (3) (COMMERCIAL ONLY) ■ BUILDING (a) Base Fee: (b) Additional Increment Fee: PROPOSED VALUATION: (Q�/lUV FEE FACTOR FROM TABLE A: Number: (a) Base Fee: (b) Additional Increment Fee: Estimated Permit Fee: ( Estimated Plan Review Fee: ■ FIRE PREVENTION SYSTEM PROPOSED VALUATION: FEE FACTOR FROM TABLE A: Number: (a) Base Fee: (b) Additional Increment Fee: Estimated Permit Fee: (6 Estimated Plan Review Fee: Base Fee Number of Fixtures $21.00 + ( X $7.00/fixture) _ (8) Estimated Permit Fee Estimated Permit Fee X .65 = Miscellaneous Fixture Charge: (10) Sub Total (Page one): Line(s)(1)+(2)+(3)+(4)+(5)+(6)+(7)+(8)+(9)+(10) = (11) (9) Estimated Plan Review Fee site plan for ; Lot 6 High Point Park III lot size 21,076 sq ft structure size 2692 sq ft (roof) driveway size 828 sq ft total impervious sq ft = 3622.5 sq ft walkway size 102.5 sq ft 1.) 21" diameter fir - to be removed 2.) cluster of 6 alder trees ranging from 12" to 21" in diameter - to be removed 3.) 26" diameter fir - to be removed / FILE 345 I r, ,ddL—. LL V) V O M� 345 I r, ,ddL—. 9 TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences 33105 42nd PL SW NSF IIICHA 01 -102513 -00 -SF Mr. Sadru Sayani Qualico Homes 33110 Pacific Highway S., Suite 1 Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study High Point Park III 33100 Block Hoyt Road King County, Washington Dear Mr. Sayani: 6/22/01 September 13, 1989 Project No. T-793-1 JUN 2 2 CITY OF FEDERALWAY BUILDING DEPT. As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the proposed development of High Point Park III located in the 13100 block, east of Hoyt Road in King County, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of our study was to explore subsurface and groundwater conditions at the site in order to provide information on the geotechnical feasibility of this site for the proposed development. We have also developed recommendations for road construction, foundation systems, grading and drainage. The scope of our work included test pits, site reconnaissance, laboratory testing of representative soil samples, geotechnical engineering analyses, and the preparation of this report. This report presents the results of our observations and studies along with supporting field and laboratory test data. SUMMARY Our study indicates that the site is underlain at shallow depths by silty to moderately clean sands, cemented sands and gravelly sands. Conventional spread footings may be used for support of residences. The footings may be placed on these native soils. Some deep fill exists on the site and foundations should extend through it to firm native soils. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 ' Mr. Sadru Sayani September 13, 1989 Groundwater was not encountered on the site. On the slope areas the soils appear to be well drained and there was no evidence of shallow groundwater. Slopes on the site range from gentle in the western portion to moderately steep and steep in the southern and eastern portions. No signs of instability were noted on the site. Structures should be set back a suitable distance from the top and bottom of steep slopes. Additional setbacks should be planned for the top of the steep road cut adjacent to Lots 10, 14 and 15. The following sections of this report describe our study and explain our recommendations in greater detail. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the proposed plat of High Point Park III will be developed on the west facing slope east of Hoyt Road. in King County, Washington. We were provided with site plans showing roadway and lot layouts. Approximately 11 acres are planned to be divided into 25 lots for single family residences. A tract in the southwest corner has been designated for use as a detention pond. Approximately 650 feet of roadway will be constructed across the site. The existing 331st Way transects the site and will provide access to the residences, along with the new roadway construction. The steep slopes on portions of the site will require a fair amount of grading to attain reasonable road grades and buildable lots. Cuts up to 25 feet and fills up to 10 feet are planned along the proposed road alignments. No details on lot grading was available at the time of this study. No building details were available at the time of this report. We expect, from previous experience, that bearing wall loads will be less than one kip per lineal foot and isolated loads may vary from 10 to 20 kips. We should be requested to review site plans and grading plans once they are finalized so that supplementary recommendations may be developed. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING The subsurface exploration was conducted on August 15, 1989. Subsurface conditions on the site were explored by excavating thirteen test pits with a backhoe provided by Deeny Construction Company, Inc. of Seattle, Washington. The test pits were excavated at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The locations of these test pits were determined by measurements from existing features and existing topography. Project No. T-793-1 Page No. 2 • Mr. Sadru Sayani September 13, 1989 0 The field exploration was monitored continuously by our geologist who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative soil samples and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described on Figure 3. The logs of the test pits are attached to this report as Figures 4 through 10. The soil classifications shown on these logs represent our interpretation of the field logs and reflect the results of visual examinations as well as laboratory tests performed on samples obtained from the test pits. Representative soil samples collected from the test pits were collected and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Grain size analysis was performed on several samples. Moisture content determinations were performed on all samples. The results of our laboratory testing are shown on the test pit logs and on the sieve analysis plots on Figure 11. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The project site occupies 11 acres on the west facing slope east of Hoyt Road in King County, Washington. Elevations across the site range from approximately 270 feet in the northwest corner to 415 feet in the southeast corner, accounting for a total relief of 145 feet. The site is presently undeveloped forest land. A mixture of middle aged fir, alder, maple and madrona occupy the site. Underbrush is moderately dense in areas and sparse in others and consists of salal and fern. Berry vine and nettles are abundant along the lower western portion of the site. Slopes on the site range from gentle in the central -western portion to steep along the eastern and southwestern portions. The steepest slopes on the site drop to 331st Way near the intersection with Hoyt Road along a road cut in the southwest portion of the site. This slope has an inclination of 65 percent. Elsewhere across the site, natural slopes range up to 45 percent. The site is transected by two large swales that converge in the central -western portion of the site. The swale bottoms are dry at present and show no sign of transporting water in the recent past. No surface water was noted on the site at the time of our study on the site. Some sisal was noted along the western boundary of the site in the Hoyt Road cut, which may indicate wet soil conditions during the wetter periods. At present, however, no seepages or wet areas were present. Project No. T-793-1 V nn XT r% I 0 ` Mr. Sadru Sayani September 13, 1989 Subsurface 0 Soil conditions across the site appear quite consistent. The U.S. Soil Construction Service has mapped the area as Alderwood sandy loam with Indianola sandy loam in the northern portion. These units are described as being derived from the Vashon recessional outwash. Data from backhoe test pits confirmed the existence of these soils. The site is underlain by silty fine sand, sand and gravelly sand. Typically, six inches of forest duff and topsoil overlies reddish tan silty sand with roots. At depths of one to three feet, the sand becomes less silty and may be cemented. Gravelly beds are interlayered in the sand. In the area of Lots 6, 7 and 8, a large filled area was encountered. The fill material consists of silty sand and sand overlying old topsoil. The fill ranged up to 12 feet in depth where observed in our test pits. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered on the site. However, progressively more moist soils were encountered in the westernmost test pits. During wet periods, seepage may occur in shallow excavations in the western portions of the site. Swale bottoms may also have shallow groundwater during wet periods. Slope Stability The slopes on the site appear stable at present. The steepest slopes on the site, with inclinations of 45 to 65 percent are underlain by relatively free draining sands. These slopes should remain in a stable condition as long as surface runoff is not allowed to infiltrate soils at the top or on the face of the slopes. Precautions should be taken to protect bare slopes from erosion. No water should be allowed to flow over steep slopes on the site. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on our study, it is our opinion that the plat of High Point Park III may be developed as planned, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project design and construction. We should be provided with grading plans for review when they become available. Across the majority of the site, we expect that moderate cuts and fills will be required to achieve final grades. Some cuts of up to 25 feet are planned along the proposed road alignment. Foundations for the residences may be placed on the competent native soils or on compacted structural fill. In areas of existing fill, foundations should be extended through the fill to firm native soils. Roadways may also be built on the native soils or on compacted structural fill after vegetation and topsoil has been stripped. Project No. T-793-1 Page No. 4 9 Mr. Sadru Sayani September 13, 1989 • Structures should be set back at least 25 feet from the tops of steep slopes on the site. A 15 foot setback should be used for structures at the toes of steep slopes. Structures on Lots 10, 14 and 15, should be set back at least 50 feet from the top of the steep road cut. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. It is intended for specific application to this project and for the exclusive use of Qualico Homes and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The following sections of this report present more detailed recommendations for the various geotechnical engineering aspects of this project. These recommendations should be incorporated into the project design and construction. Foundations Residences to be constructed on the proposed lots may be supported on continuous and/or isolated spread footings bearing on the competent native soils present below the topsoil layer, or on compacted structural fill. The near surface soils below the topsoil are loose. Hence, depending on the depth of the excavation required to reach design footing grade, the native soils may need to be recompacted in place. Footings should extend to a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish grade. For buildings constructed in the existing fill areas(Lots 6,7,8), the foundations should extenri thrn�gh the fill and rHanic soils to firm native soils.Altdmatively, trenches dug to native soils may be filled with rock spalls or lean -mix concrete to desired footing grad_ a and the foundations constructed on them. Continuous and individual spread footings may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot. A minimum width of 12 inches should be used for continuous footings. Individual spread footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches. A one-third increase in the above bearing pressures may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. All footings should be provided with steel reinforcement in accordance with structural requirements. Foundations placed on sloping lots should have their downhill footings keyed at least 2 feet into native soils or maintain a minimum distance of 10 feet from the face of the slopes. Any structural fill or fills used for foundation or roadway support should be keyed into the slope as recommended in the Site Preparation section of this report. Settlements We anticipate that the total settlements for the residences supported on the competent native soils or on adequately compacted structural fill will be less than one-half inch. Long- term differential settlement of residences should be less than one-quarter inch. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction. Project No. T-793-1 Pa oP Nn S Mr. Sadru Sayani September 13, 1989 Slab -On -Grade Concrete floor slabs, if used, may be constructed as slabs on grade supported either on the competent native soils or on structural fill. For slabs in old fill areas, we recommend removing at least three feet of the fill material and replacing it with structural fill placed in accordance with the recommendations given in the Site Preparation and Grading Section of this report. In these areas, slabs should t d from the perimeter footings since some differential settlements may occurs_ We recommend that four inches of a free -draining gravel such as 1/4 to 3/8 inch pea gravel be placed below the slab to act as a capillary break. In addition, a plastic membrane with a thickness of ten to twelve mils should be placed above the gravel to act as a vapor barrier for additional moisture protection. Setbacks Structures planned for sloping lots should be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the top of slopes with inclinations of 40 percent or greater. Structures should also not be placed within 15 feet of the toe of steep slopes. A special condition exists adjacent to Lots 10, 14 and 15, where an overly steep road cut is present. Structures planned for these lots should be set back at least 50 feet from the top of the cut slope. Site Drainage Surface gradients on the individual lots should be created to direct runoff away from the residences and toward suitable discharge facilities. Individual lots should be further graded to avoid depressions where perched water conditions may develop during periods of heavy rain. Once detailed grading plans have been prepared, we would be pleased to review them and provide our input for additional drainage requirements, if needed. Perimeter foundation drains should be installed and tightlined away from the residences. Roof gutter drains should be separately tightlined away from the residences. All drains should be discharged into the storm drain system. We do not recommend discharging any amount of water over the steep slopes on the site. Site Preparation and Grading The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of vegetation and topsoil. The stripped topsoils may be used as berms or in non-structural areas. Following stripping, any loose areas noted should be over excavated and replaced with structural fill or crushed rock to a depth that will provide a stable base. Proiect No. T-793-1 0 Mr. Sadru Sayani September 13, 1989 • Structural fill should be placed in shallow lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557 (Modified Proctor). Some on-site soils are high in fines content making them difficult to compact during rainy weather or when placed over existing wet conditions. Import fills, if needed for use in wet weather construction, should be predominantly granular with a maximum size of three inches and no more than five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Sloping areas should be benched and keyed prior to placing structural fill. The structural fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts. A schematic diagram of fill placement on slopes is shown in Figure 12. Pavement Areas Roadways may be constructed on the recompacted native soils after stripping the areas of vegetation and topsoil, or on compacted structural fill depending on the depth of cuts or fills required to reach design grades. Where structural fill is placed, the upper twelve inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). Below the top foot, a compactive effort of 90 percent is adequate. All subgrade areas should be in a stable, non -yielding condition prior to paving. If wet areas are encountered during road grading operations, interceptor drains should be installed along the uphill side of the road. If construction occurs during the wet season, wet conditions may be encountered in the swale areas along the alignment. We will be pleased to present our recommendations regarding the interceptor trench installation once final grading plans have been prepared. Utilities Where utility lines are to be excavated and installed in all bedding and backfill be placed in accordance placement and compaction should be in accordance earlier in this report under site preparation and grading, Additional Services the roadways, we recommend that with APWA Specifications. Fill with the recommendations given It is recommended that we be provided the opportunity for a general review of the final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and construction. The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test pits excavated on the site. The nature and extent of variations in the test pits may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, we should be allowed to reevaluate the recommendations presented in this report prior to proceeding with the construction. Project No. T-793-1 0 Mr. Sadru Sayani September 13, 1989 0 It is also recommended that we be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. provide the following services during construction: 1. Examine all stripped subgrade areas and the proofrolling operations prior to the start of fill placement or earthwork. 2. Assess the need for subsurface drains where wet conditions are noted in work areas. 3. Examine all foundation and slab areas prior to forming and concrete placement to evaluate that adequate foundation support is available. 4. Perform field density testing of structural fills as needed during placement and observe the grading and earthwork operation. We request that a minimum of two working days' notice be given to schedule our services during construction. The following figures are included and complete this report: Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 through 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Vicinity Map Site Plan Soil Classification Chart Test Pit Logs Sieve Analyses Slope Fill Diagram We trust the information presented herein is adequate for your requirements. If you need ac Sincerely you: TERRA ASS Anil Butail, P President ^�� /r` •.fir` �-�`� or clarification, please call. Project No. T-793-1 • Thomas Brothers Maps, 1989. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants NTS HIGH POINT PARK Ill.. FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON _...---- ----� Date 8/89 Figure 1 Proj, No. 793-1 0 R6 II W o A w a r m N NO�nN n n m A O m m v r m m 0 m x w 1 A x O c w m w e AG II W o A w a r m N NO�nN n n m A O m m v r m m 0 m x w 1 A x O c w m w SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYWEM LETTER GRAPH MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION GRAVELS Clean GW :Q':: Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, Gravels o--� little or no fines. J O (D More than 50% of (less than GP Poorly -graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, m 5% fines). little or no fines. co a coarse fraction GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, ❑ F N is larger than Gravels non-plastic fines. W z a, '�with No. 4 sieve. fines. GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures. E (D plastic fines. C3 in SANDS Clean SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, 0 00 Sands little or no fines. SP Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, W c N (less than zMore than 50% of 5% fines). : little or no fines. SM% ` f Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, Q ° ° coarse fraction O ° ca is smaller than Sands non-plastic fines. _ SC V111 Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, U No. 4 sieve. with fines. plastic fines. SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silt or claye fine sands or clayey silts with U _ C/)o ' o Liquid limit is less than 50%. CL Inorganic clays of Ipw to. medium plasticity, �avelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean E N o GL ,'i'i'i'i'i� Organic silts and organic clays of low z 0 z i'�;1�i'�'�� plasticity. < COSILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous Nfine sandy or silty soils, elastic. Liquid limit is greater than 50%. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. z ° � 'n' OH "' i i i i i Organic clays of medium to high p!asticry, ,' �' ' ' ' organic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Al Peat and other highly organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS I 2" OUTER DIAMETER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER C TORVANE READING,-tsf 2.4" INNER DIAMETER RING SAMPLER q PENETROMETER READING, tsf OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight �{C SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED PCf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot Q WATER LEVEL (DATE) LL LIQUID LIMIT,percent WATER OBSERVATION WELL PI PLASTIC INDEX N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot TERRA HIGH POINT PARK III ASSOCIATES FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Pro). No. 793-1 Date 8/89 TFigure 3 Logged By ii Date 8-15-89 ... Depth (ft.) USCS if IE TEST PIT NO. TP -3. Soil Description Elev. 297 W (0/0) Logged By JJ Date 8-15-89 11 if TEST PIT NO. TP -4 Elev. 394 Brown silty SAND, minor mixed silt, trace SM Light brown silty gravelly SAND, dry, loose. organics, moist, loose to medium dense. (FILL) Tan gravelly SAND, some silt, occasional 3 ► 22 SM/SF cobble, dry to moist, medium dense. Old topsoil horizon at 7.5 to 8 feet. SP Tan SAND trace gravel, moist, medium dense. Test pit completed at 9 feet; Test pit completed at 11 feet; No seepage or caving. No seepage or caving Logged By JJ Date 8-15-89 11 if TEST PIT NO. TP -4 Elev. 394 TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS HIGH POINT PARK 111111 FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 793-11 Date 8/89 Figure 5 d-8" DUFF SM Light brown silty gravelly SAND, dry, loose. Tan gravelly SAND, some silt, occasional 3 ► SM/SF cobble, dry to moist, medium dense. 5 Test pit completed at 9 feet; No seepage or caving. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS HIGH POINT PARK 111111 FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 793-11 Date 8/89 Figure 5 Logged By JJ Date 8-15-89 Depth (ft.) USCS 0 1E TEST PIT NO. TP -5 Soil Description Elev. 397 W (%) 'fest pit completed at 14.5 feet; No seepaTE1PIT ST NO. TP -6 Logged By ii Date 8-15-89 0 1( 1: Elev. 362 :?RVSP -6" DUFF 0-4" DUFF SIvI Tan silty SAND, some gravel, roots to 18", Tan SAND with silt, cemented, damp, dense. SNI Gray clean SAND, sometimes fine, moist, medium dense. Test pit completed at 11 feet; No seepage or caving. dry to damp,loose to medium dense. .:- P/SM Grading to SAND with some silt, some gravel damp to moist, medium dense. 7 9 SNI Gray, silty, gravelly SAND, moist, dense, cemented. SP Gray, gravelly SAND, moist, medium dense to dense. 6 Grades to clean, damp. 'fest pit completed at 14.5 feet; No seepaTE1PIT ST NO. TP -6 Logged By ii Date 8-15-89 0 1( 1: Elev. 362 TERRA a.. ASSOCIATES. - a � Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS HIGH POINT PARK 111 FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 793-1I Date 8/89 1 Figure 6 :?RVSP -6" DUFF 5 8 SIvI Reddish brown silty SAND, dry,'loose, roots to 16". Tan SAND with silt, cemented, damp, dense. SP Gray clean SAND, sometimes fine, moist, medium dense. Test pit completed at 11 feet; No seepage or caving. TERRA a.. ASSOCIATES. - a � Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS HIGH POINT PARK 111 FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 793-1I Date 8/89 1 Figure 6 Logged By JJ Date R -15 -fig Depth (ft.) USCS 0 E U 1E TEST PIT NO. TP -7 Soil Description Elev. 388 W (%) Logged By JJ TEST PIT NO. TP -8 Date 8-15-89 11 1; Elev. 345 0 - " DUFF SM Reddish tan silty SAND dry, loose. Reddish tan, silty SAND, dry, loose. 11 --SP/SWan SAND with some silt, dry to damp, loose to SP Tan SAND, some silt, cemented, damp, medium dense. Cemented and gravelly at 9 feet. 8 SM/SP ray, gravelly, silty SAND, cemented, moist, dense. Test pit completed at 11.5 feet; 7 Test pit completed at 12 feet; No seepage or caving. Logged By JJ TEST PIT NO. TP -8 Date 8-15-89 11 1; Elev. 345 TERRA .'ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS HIGH POINT PARK III FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 793-1 Date 8/89 Figure 7 0-10" DUFF SM Reddish tan, silty SAND, dry, loose. --SP/SWan SAND with some silt, dry to damp, loose to medium dense. Cemented at 6 feet. Cemented and gravelly at 9 feet. 8 Test pit completed at 11.5 feet; No seepage or caving., TERRA .'ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS HIGH POINT PARK III FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 793-1 Date 8/89 Figure 7 i 0 Logged By JJ Date 8-15-89 Depth (ft.) USCS 0 I U 1! TEST PIT NO. TP -13 Soil Description Elev. 285 W N TERRA .- 91M ... ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS HIGH POINT PARK III FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 793-11 Date 8/89 1 Figure 10 i 0-8 DUFF SM Tan, silty, SAND, loose, dry. j. ::'.SNI/SP Tan, silty SAND and SAND with silt, medium dense. 16 SP Gray SAND and interbedded SILT, very moist to wet, dense. Test pit completed at 12 feet; No seepage or caving. TERRA .- 91M ... ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS HIGH POINT PARK III FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 793-11 Date 8/89 1 Figure 10 i site plan for; Lot 6 High Point 0111 lot size 21,076 sq ft structure size 2692 sq It (roof) driveway size 828 sq It total impervious sq ft = 3622.5 sq It walkway size 102.5 sq ft CITY CSF FEDERAL WAY ,UBLIC ORKS PA N 1 Y V DATE_ 330 Scale: lin = 20ft. Oin. SW 331st 325 Place 320 I 315 , 320 63' 65-0" 80 co 340 335 345 350 1 55' 0" C /(Ad pu.'( P 0 r c 36' 6" w c�— A C,TjQ v L K OKi 6' 0„ R A/C iJ CI€Anl o -� I 30' 0" /Se rr� d �a ecf��O N mater I N 74 58' 15" E 155' , 320 site plan for; Lot 6 High Point III lot size 21,076 sq ft structure size 2692 sq ft (roof) driveway size 828 sq ft total impervious sq ft = 3622.5 sq ft walkway size 102.5 sq ft 1.) 21" diameter fir - to be removed 2.) cluster of 6 alder trees ranging from 12" to 21" in diameter - to be removed 3.) 26" diameter fir - to be removed A p P� p� 6 335 P �i . A µ. CiTYQ= FEDERAL WAY ►UBLIC WORKS D PABTyIENT dY � `.?ATE ��2 �{/ o f 330 — Scale: 1 in = 20ft. Oin. 340 345 350 ® I • I SW 331 st 325 1 `° I Place Co C) I I 320 grading limits I 2 I o O I 55'0" 63' FL i 36- 6" 315 P o I r C h I Lowest Wal Elevatior W 333.9 ft L i L 65'0" Fin hed K CD FI or Elev tion Zo 34 It I 3 _ I� 6' 0" - CONCRETE DRIVEWAY 0 v N silt fence 30' 0" I ` /Sell o a�aectnc i N kkafe/ Ems— N 74 58' 15" E 155' \ site plan for; Lot 6 High Point P III lot size 21,076 sq ft structure size 2692 sq ft (roof) driveway size 828 sq ft total impervious sq ft = 3622.5 sq ft walkway size 102.5 sq ft 330 Scale: 1 in = 20ft. Oin. IN, IUCI,11/c Wafer i J