The URL can be used to link to this page

92-101509CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING PERMIT PERMIITr NO.: ` LD 2-2162 33530 First Way South BUILDING INSPECTION - 661-4140 ISSUED: 11/20/92 Federal Way, WA 98003 BY: FLF 661-4000 SITE ADDRESS: 30924 37TH PL SW PARCEL NO.: 058755-0540 r PROJECT DESCRIPTION: nsf, Lot coverage is 40.5 % per fau from Marcus Jenkins. db OWNER CONTRACTOR LENDER THU LE HORIZON BUILDING INC. 3319 SW 327TH PL 1627 EASTLAKE AVE E STE. #300 FEDERAL WAY WA SEATTLE WA 98102 952-8238 323-8090 972-5952 HORIZBI1328T BLD?:X MEC?:X PLM?:X FLR--EXIST--PROP--- DWELLING UNITS: 1 COMP PLAN ......... :LDR? FEES: TYPE OF WORK:NEW USE:RES 1ST.: 0: 1358:9f STORIES........: 3 REQUIRED PARKING..: 2 SPRINKLERS? ...... :4 PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT.* $ 600.00 CENSUS CATEGORY ..... :101 2ND.: 0: 2090:sf HEIGHT.....: 0.00 ft HAZARD CLASS...:? PUB WORKS -PLAN CHECK $ 35.00 OCCUPANCY GROUP---------- 3RD.: 0: 1390:sf VALUATION---------- REQUIRED SETBACKS------- FIRE FLOW....: 0 gpm FINAL PLAN CHECK...* $ 343.48 :R3 :? :? :? OTHR: 0: O:sf EXIST..$: 0 FRONT.........: 20.00 ft BUILDING PERMIT....* $ 1451.50 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION----- BSMT: 0: O:sf PROP ... $: 331119 SIDE..........: 5.00 ft WATER SERVICE..:TAC SBCC SURCHARGE.....* $ 4.50 :5N :? :? 0 DECK: 0: 360:sf REAR..........: 5.000t SEWER SERVICE..:FED NEC APPLIANCE FEES.* $ 36.50 OCCUPANT LOAD------------ GAR.: 0: 788:sf RECEIVED.:09/14/92 PLUMBING PERMIT/SPK* $ 115.00 0: 0: 0: 0: TOTL: 0: 5986:sf IMPERV SURFACE: 0 sf WATER CLOSETS......: 5 SENSITIVE AREAS?.:N URINALS........: 0 TOTAL FEES $ 2585.98 FUEL TYPES.:GAS ? FANS..........: 0 BOILERS/COMPRESSORS GAS PIPING.: 100 ft HOOD..........: 0 0-3 HP......: 0 BATH TUBS..........: 3 DRINKING FOUNT.: 0 FURN000K..: 2 DUCT WORK.....: 0 3-15 HP.....: 0 SHOWERS ............: 1 SUMPS..........: 0 GAS NWT....: 2 WOOD STOVES...: 0 15-30 HP....: 0 LAVATORIES.........: 7 VAC BREAKERS...: 0 CONV BURNER: 0 FURN>100K..... : 0 30-50 HP....: 0 SINKS ..............: 4 DRAINS.........: 1 BBQ........: 0 MISC..........: 0 5+ HP.......: 0 DISH WASHERS.......: 1 LAWN SPRINKLERS: 0 GAS DRYER..: 0 AIR HANDLING UNITS FUEL TANKS--------- ELEC WTR HEATERS...: 0 OTHER FIXTURES.: 0 RANGE......: 0 <=10,000 CFM: 0 ABOVE GROUND: 0 LAUN WSHR OUTLTS... : 1 GAS LOGS...: 0 > 10,000 CFM: 0 UNDERGROUND.: 0 ALL PERMITS EXPIRE 180 DAYS AFTER ISSUANCE IF NO WORK IS STARTED. RESIDENTIAL AND GRADING PERMITS EXPIRE ONE YEAR AFTER DATE OF ISSUANCE. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY ME IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND THE APPLICABLE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET. OWNER OR AGENT "`� DATE bld_pant 10/23/92 0 Ir it /Y --p CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION — Please Print — BOX 1 TENANT NAME: W_�`h � v OWNER 1) Lg 9 SITE LOCATIO L OWNER'S ADDRESS t'' L+ CITY E PERKWAY PHONE992--1U319 DESCRIBE JOB LL- THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY: SINGL ARRIED PARTNERSHIP CORPORATION BOX 2 CONTRACTOR'S NAME 37;_ W A W&r 0H C6 CONTRACTOR'S REG.#TgF>- E C, 1137D Card MUST be presented CONTRACTOR'S ADDRESS 10620 "A MAWSM CITY I s�L AIIAG PHONE(241—17-3rI EXPIRATION DATE —OR— I HAVE READ CHAPTER 18.27.010 RELATING TO DEFINITIONS OF GENERAL CONTRACTORS AND SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS AND CHAPTER 18.27.110 WHICH PROHIBITS ISSUING PERMITS WITHOUT PROOF OF REGISTRATION. BOX 3 CONTACT PERSON L' D iZ'J° �iPHONE� BOX 4 SEWER DISTRICT L. WATER DISTRICT CZ" OF TAC,014A BOX 5 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST J® Q EXISTING BUILDING VALUATION BOX 6 PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER 11AROMW O LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT Sq j3AqUTGW CO S; (If necessary, please submit a separate page with the legal description.) K.C. Plat Recording # __"300(02.f6 BOX 7 BUILDING SQUARE FOO�TAgE: (Existing/Proposed) 1ST 3RD FLOOR i Q �_ BASEMENT____J_ FLOOR S o>- GARAGEIS$ J -S, ,. BOX 8 1< SINGLE FAMILY >< NEW CONSTRUCTION ( ) MULTIFAMILY (NO. OF UNITS = ) ( ) EXISTING STRUCTURE ( ) COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL TOTAL AREA OF PROPERTY fRdtZ SQ FT BOX 9 PLUMBING FIXTURES (including rough -ins) MECHANICAL APPLIANCES — BASIC FEE $ NO. WATERCLOSETS GAS-PMG, FEET.__.'.'.1.0_a. $ BATHTUBS NO.—FURNACE, ELEC.—GA X $ _SHOWERS GAS HOT WATER HEATER $ LAVATORIES CONVERSION BURNER $ SINKS BOILER, Si BTU $ _DISHWASHERS AIR HANDLG UNITS $ ELECTRIC HOT WATER HEATER HEAT PUMPS, SIZE $ _I I AUNDRY WASHER OUTLET UNIT HEATERS $ URINALS AIR COOLING UNITS, SIZE $ DRINKING FOUNTAINS COMMERCIAL HOOD $ SUMPS, SPRINKLER VACUUM BREAKERS OTHER $ DRAINS $ OTHER $ _273—TOTAL FIXTURES $ TOTAL MECHANICAL FEE $ 1 CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY ME IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY,KNOWL1=DGE AND FURTHER THAT I AM AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER OF THE ABOVE PREMISES TO PERFORM THE WORK FOR WHICH PERMIT APPUbAtION IS MADE. IFURTHER AGREE TOSAVE HARMLESS THE CITY OFFEDERAL WAY ASTOANY CLAIM (INCLUDING COSTS, EXPENSE$ APD!ATTMEYS' FEES INCURRED IN INVESTIGATION AND DEFENSE OF SUCH CLAIM), WHICH MAY BE MADE BY ANY PERSON, INCLUDING THE,'1%81GNED, AND FILED AGAINST THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, BUT ONLY WHERE SUCH CLAIM ARISES OUT OF THE RELIANCE OFTW SITY,`I Ilr fl( tN I:TS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, UPON THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO THE CITY AS A PART OF TH1S'APPLI6jkTI6N., �A ANP -008 3/90 OF USE ONLY (PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW LINE) ` ZONE SETBACKS: FRONT SIDE REAR HEIGHT LIMIT PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL REMARKS: k SEPA: EXEMPT NOT EXEMPT FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL DATE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT APPROVAL DATE REMARKS: TYPE OF JOB: NEW RESIDENCE RES. ADD/ALT NEW INDUSTRIAL IND. ADD/ALT NEW COMMERCIAL COMM. ADD/ALT NEW MULTIFAMILY (UNITS ) MULTIFAMILY ADD/ALT TENANT IMP. OTHER OCCUPANCY TYPE OF.CONSTRUCTION STORES BUILDING SQ. FT. @ _ BUILDING SQ. FT. @ _ BUILDING SQ. FT. @ _ BUILDING SQ. FT. @ _ BUILDING SQ. FT. @ _ BUILDING SQ. FT. @ _ TOTAL SQ. FT. TOTAL VALUATION BUILDING DEPARTMENT REM-AAKS:- SEP 141992 i tw*bEffAL WAY RECEIVED ASSIGNED ADDRESS: Amount PARTIAL PLAN CHECK FEE RECEIVED Date Receipt # BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL BY DATE PERMIT FEE PLAN CHECK FEE PLUMBING FEE MECHANICAL FEE TOTAL BLDG. FEES PART P/C FEE SEPA REVIEW S.B.C.C. FEE OTHER FEES AMOUNT DUE ACCEPTED FOR FILING �J Earth Geolechnical Engineering and Geology J July 17, 19115 ESM, Inc. 451 SW lUth, Suite 106 Renton, Washington 91JU55 Attention: Robert Scholes E-2661 Gentlemen: We are pleasedto so iherewith wirour rt ti tled "Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering StudyDumas Day view Wash ton". This Estates, SW Dash Point Road, King County, 9 report presents the results of our field exploration, laboratory tests, and engineeir; our��prvposal lladatfed June 17, 19US.purpose arid scope of our study was outlined Our preliminary study tmediuml dense Stotdense at f�soilsground a surface relatively generally underlain by g y supported on shallow depth. The proposed buildings may be supefine conventional spread footings bearing oEill undisturbed visual observations sand to Eine sandy silt or on compacted conditions disclosed no evidence of deep seated of site slope slope instability, consequently in our opinivrl this will reduce the required slope setback. Tire following sections of this report describe our study .end contain recommendations regarding rthwork considerations, a foundation design criteria, eind site drainage. This report has been prepared (or specific .3PPlicati011ton this project in accordance with generally accepted g theirr engineering practices for the excal clusive use of ESM, Inc. and expressed yr implied, is representatives. No other warranty, irety, be includedmade. We recommend that this report, in its rrnt in tfie project contract documents for tfle information of the contractor. tow V= PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECIENED "�` I L` y 5t� t 4*921own At the time our stud was performed, tf�e site cation Plan, Plate 2. schematically on the Test Pit Lo00 X bjw)m DIVE N W 11 ESM, Inc. July 17, 1985 E-2661 Page 2 Based on our discussions with your we understand that it is planned to subdivide tyle parcel into sixty six (66) lots with road access from both SW Dash Point Road and 36th Avenue SWr King County, Washington. Tile majority of the lots are intended for a single-family residence development with a few interspersed attached common wall townhouses. 4 If any of the above design criteria change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, it is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. provide a general review of the final design. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site comprising approximately twenty seven (27) acres is located in roughly the 360U block of SW Dash Point Road, King County, Washington. SW Dash Point Road forms the north boundary, undeveloped wooded ravines with streams lie 'east and west of the parcel, and a single-family residence development exists to the south. The predominate site topographic feature is a north -south trending ridge sloping gently to the north and sloping steeply to the east and at the southwest property margin. The maximum topographic relief is on the order of two Hundred ten (210) feet from the south central portion of the site to the northeast property corner. The ravine slopes on the east and west property margins are generally steep and range to 60 percent in grade. The remainder of the site is generally on the order of 15 percent. Vegetation consists of moderate second growth forest including both coniferous and deciduous trees with sparse to moderate undergrowth, chiefly salal and brambles on the slopes and site margins.* Subsurface The site was explored by excavating nine test pits at the locations shown on Plate 2. Please refer to the test pit logs, Plates 4 through 11r for a detailed description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of the field exploration methods and laboratory testing program is included in this report following the Discussion and Recommendations section. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. The subsurface soils encountered sands overlain in localized areas by a dense heterogeneous mixture Generally, the test pits disclosed a sand with a six to eight inch fores t 0 were primarily silts and fine a thin veneer of c al till of sand silt a loose silty very fine ttotf Mn duff cover and LSER ,*11992y OF FEBUL WAY Ed in rwb6r.. Earih ConsullanLs. Inc. ,. i 0 ESM, Inc. July 17, 1985 E-2661 Page 3 medium dense silty sand with the silt content varying as low as 10 to 15 percent by dry weight and existing occasional fine bedding. However, Test Pits TP -4 and TP -6 through TP -9 showed a fine sand and gravel content at the surface becoming dense to very dense within five 'feet of the existing surface. These soils are glacially consolidated till -like soils and extend to a maximum depth of ten feet for a maximum thickness of severe feet. All test pits terminated in medium dense to dense granular non-coliesive soils ranging from silty sand to fine sandy silt. Groundwater No groundwater was observed while excavating. however, some seepage may be expected in more permeable soil layers, especially during wet weather. Any seepage level fluctuations may be influenced depending on the amount of rainfall, surface. runoff, and other factors. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General t The preliminary site study was performed by observing existing conditions as evident on the surface and as explored by a series of widely spaced test pits. The purpose of the study is to provide soils information prior to platting of the site pertinent to foundation bearing characteristics, site earthwork considerations and slope stability. The following paragraphs describe our findings and recommendations in detail. however, in general, the near surface soils have sufficient bearing capacity for the intended level of development, the slopes greater than 40 percent appear stable, and earthwork although constrained by dry weather scheduling, should be accomplishable as proposed. �.'W Slope Stability and Structure Siting The site slopes were observed by a visual reconnaissance of the site as the steepness of the slopes precluded equipment access for subsurface investigation. No evidence of deep seated slope instability was seen on any of the steep ravine slopes. Some surface creep and erosion due to seasonal runoff and enhanced by soils exposed due to fallen trees, were seen predominately along the eastern slope. Minor road cuts, likely associated with logging activity in the past, were observed at t , corner of the site. rlmftto Earth Consultants. Inc. SEP 14 1992 OW OF FEMRAL WAY BLMDW Dan. 0 0 E-2661 ESM, Inc. Page 4 July 17, 1985 For planning purposes, it is our opinion that the main residence structures be sited on the lots no closer than twenty five (25) feet to the top of 40 percent slopes. however, non-structural elements of tlwentesifivee � 25 )cl,as foot decksand dwpthout atios may be placed within theY adversely impacting either slopes or planned structures. We recommend that the slopes over 40 percent be left in their natural and undisturbed state. No earthwork, including placcement nt so imp of ortfills should be allowed on these slopes. I gl alsurfa es be that drainage collected from roofs and pave tightlined to offsite collection facilities �n douropinion, storm runoff be allowed to flow onto the slopes. slopes are highly susceptible to erosion if disturbed or if surface runoff is increased. Foundations The proposed structures may be supported on conventional conti- nuous and spread footings bearing on the medium dense sandy silt or silty sand soil underlying the topsoil two to three feet below the existing ground surfacere r on structural soll belowfill theedfoobing competent native soils. may bg required depending on final site grades. Footings founded on competent native soils two to three feet below the ground surface may be designed for an allowable soil bearing capacity Of Footings two thousand (2000) pounds per square foot (PSC). bearing on structural fill may also be designed for a bearing pressure of two thousand (2000) psf. For preliminary planning purposes, some settlement of foundations should be anticipated but nchis epected will be limited to less th t, Orta addiltion�t footinyof whicldrains xshould to occur during const be provided for all residences. Site Earthwork Considerations on-site soils at the time of our exploration were generally near the optimum moisture content and may be used as structural fill provided the grading operations are conducted during dry weather. However, the on-site soils have a significant amount of fines. Thus, compaction and grading will be difficult If ileEorgo" moisture increases above the optimum moisture content. unless the moisture content can be reduced, it may be necessary to use imported granular soil as structural fill duringwet weather her periods. The moisture content can be reduced by weather or by using lime or cement stabilization. Ideally, structural fill to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular material with a maximum size of three inches and " '�' than 5 percent fines passing -the niO • so �l sieve. • be Nu u NO - weather, any compactible non-organic SEP structural fill. FGMRAL WAY awl" CWT Earth Consultants. Inc. ESM, Inc. E-2661 July 17, 1985 Page 5 The building and pavement areas should he stripped and cleared of all slabs, trees, surface vegetation, all organic matter and any other deleterious material. It is anticipated that a stripping depth of six to twelve (12). inches will be required. Stripped materials should be removed from the site or stockpiled for later use in landscaping, if desired. The stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under f'uild- inge, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any other load bearing areas. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LADORATORY TESTING Our field exploration was performed on June 24 and 25, 1985. The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating nine test pits to a maximum depth of seventeen (17) feet below the existing surface at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. The locations of the test pits were approximately determined by taping from surveyed property corners. Elevations of test pits were approximately determined by extrapolation frorn site preliminary plat by ESM, Inc. dated June 13, 1985. 'Tile locations and elevations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the dggree implied by the method used. The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engi- neering geologist from our firm who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative bulk soil samples and observed pertinent site features. Soils were classified visually in the field according to the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate 3, Legend. The consistency of the soil was estimated based on the effort required to excavate the soil, the stability of the trench walls and other factors. Logs of the individual test pits are presented on Plates 4 through 11, Test Pit Logs. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and test of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types. In actuality, the transition may be gradual. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and test- ing. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests such as sieve analyses on representative samples. Moisture determina- tions were performed on all samples. Results of moisture d ations, together with classifications, are shown on the tes Dp OV" logs included in this report. Tile results of five sieve aiSffPsPq j are illustrated on Plates 12 and 13, Grain Size Analyses. OWY W, RIS_�RAL MY Mfi=48 0M. Earth Consultants. Inc. E-2661 ESM, Inc. Page 6 July 17, 1985 ,• LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and eTlgineering analyses. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test pits. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations may riot become evident until construction. If variations then appear, Earth Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to reevaluate the reconunendations of this report prior to proceeding with the construction. Additional Services It is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. he allowed a general review of the project design to provide specific earthwork and foundation recommendations once preliminary plans have been made. In addition, we will continue to be available for construction during the course of this project. I The following plates are attached and complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Test Pit Location Plan Plate 3 Legend Plates A through 11 Test Pit Logs Plates 12 and 13 Grain Size Analyses •'��`��, Respectfully submitted, Flive •,i �' 1P� At 11, EARTII CONSULTANTS , INC. i i y �� c� t i �� Y1 • � 1 i r �,��Ea�a James R. Finley, Jr., P. E. 1"Q,r ti •tSTEA •.• L% ; Chief Engineer EQP SB/JRF/tm '��fbKAl E: •`..�...- SEP 14 1992 OM OF FRAC. WW GWLDM DER r. _.s1. f`.... .h.nte Inr 0 0'. -- n �gR�NE •o�j I e I i • fOMMENOEME, NT BA Ir 0*" EarthConsultatlts I11c GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEE"ING d GEOLOGY " "M ! i • t Vicinity MtP' 14 1992 Dumas Bay . WAY King County, Ptoj. No. 2GG1 Ditto June '85 Plete I S . I I SITE 1 � I s ....1+►1 � a y • N M+./ r w n �. ,I .arw.wwy tM IMI DASH PO ,,r• � ♦♦111 M 41. 1I �-}(`'.A q r.. � -- n �gR�NE •o�j I e I i • fOMMENOEME, NT BA Ir 0*" EarthConsultatlts I11c GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEE"ING d GEOLOGY " "M ! i • t Vicinity MtP' 14 1992 Dumas Bay . WAY King County, Ptoj. No. 2GG1 Ditto June '85 Plete I gro \uo G 0o roo Ip o �0 TP.4 b •A Approximate Scale —��- 0 50 100 150 300ft. LEGEND IWTP-7 Apptoxirnate Test Pit Location Reference I Preliminary Plat By ESM Dated 6/13/t35 (Preliminary) Earth Consultants 1111C. OEOTECIMICAL E mmunma a GEOLOGY Test Pit LOC6014 DumsBay n Prol. No. 2661 I Date July 85 I Plete 2 loo soil humus And Gull Layer Mighty Variable Consloutnis Fill The Gi3Cu33ton In The Trott OI Thi. NePgrl Is pjpceSlxry the Allacl Ddr lOpsi3land.ip 01 the Nalure OI loop Malenal Presented In Notes: Dual syrnbols are used to indicate borderline soil esessillcalion. Upper case letter syrnbols designate sarnple classifications based upon lab- oratory testing: ower Case letter syrnbols designate classilicaiions not verified by laboratory testing. I 2' O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER TT ,T,q" I,D. RING SAMPLER OR 11 SHELBY TUUE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED + SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED Q WATER LEVEL (DATE) iWATER OBSERVATION WELL Earth ' Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING a GEOLOGY C TORVANE READING. Lal qu PENETROMETER READING. tsi W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight pel DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT percent PI PLASTIC INDEX LEGEND Pro). No. 2661 I Dete July 105 IP) SEP 14 -17 ,. ml GRAPH LITTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL I I I I I I I I I I► QL I Organic Sills And 0tpatnt Silly Clays of Low Plall.c.ly r Mote Than 50% Malcnal 5,111 liquid Loral Smaller Than And Greater Than 50 No 200 Sieve Clays Site ��: %a GWS well -Graded Gravels. Gravel. Sand Na tint+ Highly Organic Sod] Grevet PT pl :: .-gw Mixtures. Lime Or And Clean Gravel] or no Imes). , ,..•.•........• •�: •: GP Pootly•Oraded Gravels. Go Gravelly 1611le • w W • • �= gp Of r- Band Mixtures. Lillit Or na r nfi Cget+! $Oilb GrainedSilty GM ornv�lf . Gruver• Sand- Sott+ M ore than 50♦ Collis gravels With gm St11 Mixlurrs Fraction Fines laoolecleble GC Clayey Otavels. Gravel• Sand* Fltlamed On amount of lines 1 Clay Mixtures No 4 Save gC • •••••••••. SW Wtlt•Otaded Sands. Oravl!lly Sand . or . • . • a SW Sands. Little Or too Fines And Clean Sand Ilittle or no tines) • •• • ^0 r SP poatly•Otadrd Sands. Gr.rveny Mate Than Sandy Sods r Sp Sand]. Lti I1P Or Na find 50% Material Larger Than Mot! Than : SM Silly Sands. Sand • Sill Mixture+ No 400 Silva50% Coarse Sandi With sm Silt Fraction Passing No 4 Fines Isoorectable amount of Imtsl i SC i Clayey Sands. Sand • Clay Mt■lutef $itr! "� Sc Inorganic Stns 6 very Fine Sands. nock Flout.Sdty• ML S nit Clayey Still wi Slighl PtasriCdy loo soil humus And Gull Layer Mighty Variable Consloutnis Fill The Gi3Cu33ton In The Trott OI Thi. NePgrl Is pjpceSlxry the Allacl Ddr lOpsi3land.ip 01 the Nalure OI loop Malenal Presented In Notes: Dual syrnbols are used to indicate borderline soil esessillcalion. Upper case letter syrnbols designate sarnple classifications based upon lab- oratory testing: ower Case letter syrnbols designate classilicaiions not verified by laboratory testing. I 2' O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER TT ,T,q" I,D. RING SAMPLER OR 11 SHELBY TUUE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED + SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED Q WATER LEVEL (DATE) iWATER OBSERVATION WELL Earth ' Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING a GEOLOGY C TORVANE READING. Lal qu PENETROMETER READING. tsi W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight pel DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT percent PI PLASTIC INDEX LEGEND Pro). No. 2661 I Dete July 105 IP) SEP 14 -17 ,. ml Clayey one a s. Font Sdif ltqutd Limit. grained And Less Than 50 CL "Cl Inorpanit Clays OI Low to Mlydwrn PlashCtly GravellyGays. Sandi Clar]. 5itly Clays. lean Soils clays I I I I I I I I I I► QL I Organic Sills And 0tpatnt Silly Clays of Low Plall.c.ly r Mote Than 50% Malcnal 5,111 liquid Loral Smaller Than And Greater Than 50 No 200 Sieve Clays Site I I I I I ��M11 CH CIT QII l Inorganic Sills. Micaceous Ot OiaO+CFine Sand Or Shcy Soils Inmgm-c Clays Ol 11.9h Plasticity. Tat Crays Organic Clays OI Mledtum To lltgh PIa3Ficdy, organic Sills Highly Organic Sod] .s. „ i �. � - PT pl Peel. rlumus Sv+anirr Soils Will, lligh Organic Contents loo soil humus And Gull Layer Mighty Variable Consloutnis Fill The Gi3Cu33ton In The Trott OI Thi. NePgrl Is pjpceSlxry the Allacl Ddr lOpsi3land.ip 01 the Nalure OI loop Malenal Presented In Notes: Dual syrnbols are used to indicate borderline soil esessillcalion. Upper case letter syrnbols designate sarnple classifications based upon lab- oratory testing: ower Case letter syrnbols designate classilicaiions not verified by laboratory testing. I 2' O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER TT ,T,q" I,D. RING SAMPLER OR 11 SHELBY TUUE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED + SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED Q WATER LEVEL (DATE) iWATER OBSERVATION WELL Earth ' Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING a GEOLOGY C TORVANE READING. Lal qu PENETROMETER READING. tsi W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight pel DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT percent PI PLASTIC INDEX LEGEND Pro). No. 2661 I Dete July 105 IP) SEP 14 -17 ,. Depth (ft.) 0 6 10 16 K0 • 0 TEST PIT NO. �- Loyd By Rn DM 6-25-85 USCS Soll Description Nev. 240± W M Consultants lee. -GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING A GEOLOGY 0 TEST PIT LOGS�� DUMAS DAY VI E14 ESTACcT 1 y 9g92 KING COUNTY, WASHINCr7 Prod. No. 2661 1 Date July '85 light brown silty very fine to fine SAND with roots sm to 1.5', dry to moist, loose 6 :;P tan fine SAND with less than 15% silt, moist, uM medium dense to dense, scatterr!d Eine to cvyrne g gravels at less than 5% 7 :.: becomes increasingly moist grade!-, to: SII ;: sm light gray silty very fieri to fine SAND, moist, medium dense to dense 17 .Test pit terminated at 17' below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. Consultants lee. -GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING A GEOLOGY 0 TEST PIT LOGS�� DUMAS DAY VI E14 ESTACcT 1 y 9g92 KING COUNTY, WASHINCr7 Prod. No. 2661 1 Date July '85 TEST PIT NO. Loyd By -SA_ Drrtr -?S-AS Elev.Z20+ Depth w (ft.) USCS Soil Description 0 ,....., 11 5 10 15 brown silty fine SAND, dry to moist, lonsr boulder encountered at 3' grades to: tan orange mottled very silty fine SAND with SM less than 5` gravels, moist, medium densr. becomes medium dense to dense at 7' becomes gray and dense with decreasing silt content at 10' 11 12 G Test pit terminated at 15.5' below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. EItrth s Consultants hw., •GROTECHNICAL [NGIN[[IIINC A GCOLOGY 0 TEST PIT LOGS v " DUFUIS BAY VIEW ESTATESEP 14 999: KING COUNTY, WASIIIII(�TQI.f_FEWL Prol. No.26( Dets .luly '05 pints 5 Loyd By SB Des 6-25-85— Depth (ft.) USCS 0 — 5 10 is K01 TEST PIT NO. -3- Soil DeicriMlon Elev. 165' W M Earth Consultants bw.. ,42KOTXCHNICAL ENGINEERING A GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS DUMAS SAY VIEW ESTATE KING COUNTY, WASIMIG39P 4 199!4 Prol. No. 2661 Dots I u I y'—Le!!5; Plata 6 ---- I - if F sm light brown silty very fine to fine SAND, with isolated cobbles, gravel, moist, loose 14 7 grades to: :1. Sm tin silty fine smw, moist, medium dens:: UI grades to: sp gray Mip SAM) with less than 15% silt, moist, 4• T T N, sm medium dense Test pit terminated al 15' below existing grade. flu groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. Earth Consultants bw.. ,42KOTXCHNICAL ENGINEERING A GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS DUMAS SAY VIEW ESTATE KING COUNTY, WASIMIG39P 4 199!4 Prol. No. 2661 Dots I u I y'—Le!!5; Plata 6 ---- I - V— 41 • TEST PIT NO. � Logged By SR Dit*7,-75-R5 Depth (ft.) USCS Soil Description 0 j; II I ml light tan gravelly SILT with fine sand, dry to j! ? moist, medium dense to deme I�� I Itun/light gray with slightly orange mottling, sm silty SAND, moist, medium dense to dense 10 — Jjjjjf j I becomes gray with increasing fines, thin bedding 14 r 13 i grades to: ml light gray very fine sandy SILT, moist, medium 25 �i dense Test pit terminated at 17' below existing grade. 110 groundwater • seepage encountered during excavation. FAarth I ,i ' Comultants Inc.. •G[OT[CNNICAL CNGINtt111NO A OtOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS �i DUMAS BAY VIEW ESTATES KING COUNTY, WAS111UGHP 14 1992 Prod. No. 2661 1 Dots July 195 141 3 H Logged By .rsa Dew- 6-25-85 Depth Ift.) USCS 0 6 10 16 To TEST PIT NO. � Soil Description Elev. 158' W M Earth Consultants lim -690TCCNNICAI CNaINCCRINO A CCOLOOY TEST PIT LOGS ' 4 1992 DUMAS BAY VIEW CS S KING COUNTY, W 169' RAL% Prod. No.2661 Date duly In I Plate 9 jbrown silty fine, SAND with organics, dry to moist sm with isolated cobbles/gravel, loose 12 SP tan silty very fine to fine SAND, moist, medium 7 SM dense • 10 ? becomes dense to very dense, grayish at 8' with less than 15% silt Y Test pit terminated at 16' below existing grade.. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. Earth Consultants lim -690TCCNNICAI CNaINCCRINO A CCOLOOY TEST PIT LOGS ' 4 1992 DUMAS BAY VIEW CS S KING COUNTY, W 169' RAL% Prod. No.2661 Date duly In I Plate 9 Loyd By SB Dau 6-25-05 t1 Depth if t.) USCS 0 ,... 5 10 15 TEST PIT NO. _S2_ Soil Description Elev. 02'_ W 1%) brown silty fine SAND, with abundant, roots, {}{; Ii Earth,( � 1 Comultants UK* 'GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING A GEOLOGY 2 TEST PIT LO C E W DUMAS BAY VIEW ES A S KING COUNTY, WASI1 A 4 9992 w' -A "i- W7- D ; pt. Pro]. No. 2661 Date July ' am organics, dry to moist, loose 14 12 i t tan/light gray silty very fine SAND with less than 16 I...I; am 27t gravel, moist, medium dense (PILL -like) !:' f, . becomes dense. to very dense at 5' .I.; 0 Sp tan very fine to finr. SAND with less than 15% silt �i am moist, medium dense to dense I;y{ --am becomes light gray with increased silt at 13' Test pit terminated at 14' below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. Ii Earth,( � 1 Comultants UK* 'GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING A GEOLOGY 2 TEST PIT LO C E W DUMAS BAY VIEW ES A S KING COUNTY, WASI1 A 4 9992 w' -A "i- W7- D ; pt. Pro]. No. 2661 Date July ' TEST PIT N O r Logged eYSY__._ Daft 6-25-85 Depth (K.1 USCS Soil Description 0— fSM light brown silty very fine SAND, moist, loose `I�.III becomes tan, medium dense to dense, at 3' 5 .:• _ _ _ 8 sp grades to: sm tan very fine to fine SAND with less than 15♦ silt, 10 moist, dense grades tot ::.•;• sp gray fine to medium SAND with trace silt, moist, dense 16 Test pit terminated at 14' below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. i :'til I ! consultants Inc. ____....._�. --,*Prrwsurn a rrret_edY TEST PIT LOGS . "!"a"' . " DUMAS DAY VIEW ESTAT e� 14 9 KING COUNTY, WASIIiNGT �t G MMM orni "n- 'JAA1 I Dots July '85 I Plato 10 Loyd By SB Dn" 6-25-B5 Depth (h.) USCS . 0 6 10 16 0 10 16 TEST PIT NO. Soil Description Lo9rd By SSB Date 6-25-85 TEST PIT NO. _�... Elev. 230 I ml Light tan fine sandy SILT, moist, medium dense 9 i 17 I an slightly orange mottled very fine sandy SILT ill �I I Becomes dense with less than 10% gravel 'I ml oith less than 10% gravels, moist, medium dense 10 I' 16 I I sp Becomes dense! with 30% gravels, isolated cobblas , sm sp ,ray fine SAND with less than 15% silt, moist, dense 9 sm 3ecomus gray, dense at 9' 6 Test pit terminated at 12' below existing gr.Ide. No groundwater seepage enccunttlred during excavation. Test pit terminated at 12' below exulting grade. No groundwater seepage•encountered during excavation. Lo9rd By SSB Date 6-25-85 TEST PIT NO. _�... Elev. 230 Earth Consultants Inc. ft GEOTECHNICAL ENOINEERINO A GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS H N DUMAS BAY V I CI4 ESTAW 14 1992 KING COUNTY, WASIIING lia RAL Pro). No, 2661 Date July ' 8S eto 11 ml Light tan fine sandy SILT, moist, medium dense 9 ill �I I Becomes dense with less than 10% gravel 10 sp grayish fine SAND with less than 15% silt, moist, sm nedium dense to dense 3ecomus gray, dense at 9' 6 Test pit terminated at 12' below existing gr.Ide. No groundwater seepage enccunttlred during excavation. Earth Consultants Inc. ft GEOTECHNICAL ENOINEERINO A GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS H N DUMAS BAY V I CI4 ESTAW 14 1992 KING COUNTY, WASIIING lia RAL Pro). No, 2661 Date July ' 8S eto 11 0. � ld c; 0 ONYS f;T?S Y:S 0,17 Z -d1 ---------- n v TT ONYS kZTTS hS 0' Z �w■aa b a■wa PTTs t;z .r. 011Y5 papp,z5 ITsood Y:S-25 10' b T-dS � �_ ll I �;*� lualuo0 N011dlV:)S30 =sn I l 111 H1d30 I ON ltd I"I J0 6uuo8 A3)t alru:sow �MEN Won al S3NH oNrS MM 13nv tlo 53-19800 �a�ia�=moi•■■■��sa��w 3NWyinI03W 3StfVD:) 3NId 3Stl DOS c 0 0 0 0 o SY313W1ll1Lti NI SZIS NIVUD - r 0i L i Oi m r N W A m :. N V i o+ m N V a m m 0 wr O u a m m o 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 001.MM IMMEN t■/■ MINE OS �>s�w■■/�IMME t c; 0 N m WW Nt 32l NIVtl`J S!,Ik2VNV U313WDUCIAH u D9 1L i - Z DL U W O8 a D6 Dot nN S301NI Ni DMIN3d0 40 32! VNV BASIS �w■aa a■wa �_ �� MEN Won al MM t� �a�ia�=moi•■■■��sa��w ��w.■a,ar_■a��a�� IMMEN �>s�w■■/�IMME �tltltsst: �t>•mw■oa�. _ MMMl- mm■// IMMI■� ■■��a■■■,M ME MUMIN M/NIMEME o� ■so��■u�at�awas �� ■ wst:�!• ��>• N MEMOS sMKMIMMO IMMIUMMOno �i his MEMEN In ME MIAMMJE- NMI Son . ■ IMEN s MMMMU� atw■■/��aw�aa. t RNMENUMMtau M. ■ EN mar■■■ IN _t•s�n�� MEN i��n� i>ts�■a��a�� w.■■,��w>,��aaa aa��t■■at�ta�aw>•w>•�a�wa�>'a�aw � ��ts��t!=� a��=tet-. IMEMIM MMl- In MEN MEN ts IMMENEEM noon=5=1•■■■t�'�si•� �i�>•■//tl��!•�t�ll1 /��ll�Os�ll��lltl� ��wo■,■wlr�aw,at>aa■r� �w�arz:�s��wa■�w v��a■■/■��t:tltl��tlMENtlt~s�tl�■�el�tl�a��tt!� �l•■�l!■/■t�ts��tlt�ls�■tom. �■�Iltr■11��1ltstt<t!� ��st..■■,��al��.a�.a��i�I, MMaIMRIMMIMI ■�m>•�aw■■■i�a��w�aa�■r�>•■�I>t■�� Ono ama� �mmm muatwwmommom � Oa■�w■■■��_��ts��t•a�te _ _ welmets�■��, N m WW Nt 32l NIVtl`J S!,Ik2VNV U313WDUCIAH u D9 1L i - Z DL U W O8 a D6 Dot nN S301NI Ni DMIN3d0 40 32! VNV BASIS C,TY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING P PERMIT NO.: BLD92-2162 3:3530 First Way South BUILDING INSPECTION - 661-4140 ISSUED: 11/20/92 Feeler?I Way, WA 98003 BY: FLF 6*31-4*& SITE ADDRESS: 30924 37TH PL SWT PARCEL NO.: 0587550540 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: nsf, L®t coverage is 40.5 % per fax fr®m Marcus Jenkins. db OWNER THU LE 3319 SW 327TH PL FEDERAL WAY WA BLD?:X MEC?:X PLM?:X TYPE OF WOF.K:NEW USEAES CENSUS CATEGORY ..... :101 OCCUPANCY GROUP ---------- :R3 :? :? :? TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION ----- :5N :? :? :? OCCUPANT LOAD ------------ . 0: 0: 0: 0: FUEL TYPES.:GAS ? GAS PIPING.: 100 ft FURN<100K..: 2 GAS HWT.... : 2 CONV BURNER: 0 BBQ........: 0 GAS DRYER..: 0 RANGE......: 0 Gag -LOGS ... : 0 FLR--EXIST--PROP--- 1ST.: 0: 1358:sf 2ND.: 0: 2090:sf 3RD.: 0: 1390:sf OTHR: 0: O mf BSMT: 0: O mf DECK: 0: 360:sf GAR.: 0: 788:sf TOTL: 0: 5986:sf FANS..........: 0 HOOD. ..... 0 DUCT WORK.....: 0 WOOD STOVES...: 0 FURN>100K..... : 0 MISC..........: 0 AIR HANDLING UNITS <a10,000 CFM: 0 > 10,000 CFM: 0 CONTRACTOR LENDER HORIZON BUILDING INC. 1627 EASTLAKE AVE E STE. #300 SEATTLE WA 98102 323-8090 972-5952 HORIZ91132ST DWELLING UNITS: 1 STORIES........: 3 HEIGHT.....: 0.00 ft VALUATION ---------- EXIST..$: 0 PROP ... $: 331119 RECEIVED.:09/14/92 BOILERS/COMPRESSORS 0-3 HP......: 0 3-15 HP.....: 0 15-30 HP....: 0 30-50 HP....: 0 5+ HP.......: 0 FUEL TANKS --------- ABOVE GROUND: 0 UNDERGROUND.: 0. COMP PLAN ......... :LDR? REQUIRED PARKING..: 2 SPRINKLERS?......:? HAZARD CLASS...:? REQUIRED SETBACKS------- FIRE FLOW....: 0 FRONT.........: 20.00 ft SIDE..........: 5.00 ft WATER SERVICE..:TAC REAR..........:. 5.000t SEWER SERVICE..:FED IMPERV SURFACE: WATER CLOSETS......: BATHTUBS..........: SHOWERS............: LAVATORIES.........: SINKS..............: DISH WASHERS.......: ELEC WTR HEATERS...: LAUN WSHR OUTLTS... : 0 sf SENSITIVE AREAS?.:N 5 URINALS........: 0 3 DRINKING FOUNT.: 0 1 SUMPS..........: 0 7 VAC BREAKERS...: 0 4 DRAINS.........: 1 1 LAWN SPRINKLERS: 0 0 OTHER FIXTURES.: 0 1 FEES: PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT.* PUB WORKS -PLAN CHECK gpm FINAL PLAN CHECK...* BUILDING PERMIT....* SBCC SURCHARGE.....* NEC APPLIANCE FEES.* PLUMBING PERMIT/SPK* TOTAL FEES 0 $ 600.00 $ 35.00 S 343.48 S 1451.50 $ 4.50 $ 36.50 S 115.00 $ 2585.98 ALL PERMITS EXPIRE 180 DAYS AFTER ISSUANCE IF NO WORK IS STARTED. RESIDENTIAL AND GRADING PERMITS EXPIRE ONE YEAR AFTER DATE OF ISSUANCE. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY ME IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND THE APPLICABLE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET. OWNER. OR AGENT bld_pm 10/23/92 r DATE ZQl ( z SET BACKS AND FOOTINGS DATE BY -49? BY -49 _ O.K TO POUR FOUNDATION WALLS DATE %`�7-9 BY AM PLUMBING GROUNDWORK DATE -27-114-7-t? B _ PLUMBING ROUGH IN DATE 5tY9-?:S BY _ WATER LINE O.K. GAS PIPING O.K. /'P MECHANICAL INSPECTION DATE c — BY O.K. TO ENCLOSE FRAMING DATES;;�547 BY E INSULATION DATE 6 BY WALL BOARD AND FIR d/LL�� d%tY/Y2 g7,_W,WALL DATE IW9 2-"�'3BY FINAL O.K. TO OCCUPY DATEqr-30'7qV3 BY DCD PSD FD slzT gy c c s�xolrvlm,wx-7->L � n alr sar s / j (705 ' d lwvrs* eaw eporzOle 14 OuT Oe O Fda f ap42 1AfS'7•'��e �7iv�✓ d� S�Ci t%��PIe 27A-93 5,egoNSyG lfGN iv`/- loll_ Swc-" S e IGC. A10 -r ro—oPC &?"re., OWLIr�-r P