90-100075D
O
Cn
w
T
--I
-u T
<
O
fn rr
(n
co
U)
N
D z
-1
0 0 T
T n
r=
m
D D m
D
r0r
n C D D
r
=
.,zx <
O
-1
D
C
Z
C
X
m
Z Z
Z
C
OC
m
n
m m D
r
x z
y
r2.
cn �
-T
m
C
W
m
m
n 3
,-
m
X
-
z
M
(�
M M D
Co
D m C) 1
D
O
m
C
31
w
n
C
o C
O
D
mT
{
m
m
m
n
n m m
O
z
=
Fn
m
m
�
Z
G)
OC
m
3
c
m
m
m
Z M m
m
m
G)
r T m
m
m
m
Ocf)
z T
z
z A
zD
N
= m
m
m m m
m
m
C4
Z M
O M
m
0
Z
N�
m
Z
N
O
o
O
U1
r "1
^'
0
N'
'Zi
Z
CO Z
O
N
L=1
O c
0
K
o
NZ
m
I�
�A,
D
N
C
DC
�<
Z
-1
a
O
c
m
n
N
0
h+ D
+
P
P
D
0 Z
z
Z
0
Z
v
0
20
N
r1
ZM
G)
=°
O
Oc
O
Z
'
X
No
z
ti :E=
D
°
D
D
rOdD
O
Ci
Z
m
Z
m
Co M
�
D
S1
m
CA
m
�y
0
m
Z
"� �
T
czn
>
W
ym
m
Z
0Dcn
z
-1
0
Z
v
0 Z
m
O
H
L
O
C
m
X
G�
r�
tsj
••
Z
D
r
m
M y
N
H
W
r
cn W
n
D .
O
a
r 0
z
D
Z
p
O
O
O
D
m
-<m
o O
m
m W
n
m
=i
z
m
m
m
0
D
T
O
m
0
:
n
d
U1 7r LzJ
N
m
D
m 1
o
D
m
Z
Z
0
n
U)
�_
O
�
•
p
m
z D
cn
X)
G)
0
r,
m
z
c
P
m
O
Z O
"'
111 CCsj�
H
x
c
m
D
cn
MO
�O O
m
r
z=
D
:13
Z
'O
m
D
r
N id
M 70
m
D
T
O
O C+7 "Zi
Umi
Z
I
0
Z
z
H
d H
-n;
cn
n
c
n
a
o
N
0
NO
Z
H
z
3
-+
c)
2
Z H
D
:Em
m
r
D
3 �0
CO CO
m
rr'
'�
°o 0
` k
IN
m
z
m
v
�
m
U)
D
m
o
O
mm
m m
of u)
D
c�i
C)
m
nl
v
mm
m
m
m
o
m
z
{7
C1 O
D
m
D
z
D
m
W ul
T
Z
z
m
m
},
r
-<
m
0
C
z
=1
O
O
n
7 N
J
V
n
m
r
V�
D
C!1
D
.
W
D
v
p
N
M
�
m
D
H
n
71
03
O
m
co
z
OT
Gm—)
v
m
�j z L�
z
M
O
D
m
z
m
w
r
U)
T
v=
=O
0
cn
O
C
3
w
m
Z
v
_
P
m
co
r
CA
z �r
n
A
z
m
m
m
Ln
c)
~ m
�
0
LM Ln
m
W
Ch
O ll1
O
m
10
�o
0
00
0
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY�1
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION ��qr
— Please Print —
BOX 1 OWNEH_L—L 6v- JOB LOCATION l illjz�
OWNER'S ADDRESS 33 " CITY �T'Ac � �� _PHONEE
DESCRIBE JOB- T —` r Qc9
THE PROPERTY IS OWNED Y: SINGLE/M RRIED PARTNERSHIP CORPORATION
BOX 2 CONTRACTOR'S NAME - CONTRACTOR'S REG. # N
Card MUST be presented
CONTRACTOR'S ADDRESS r _-_ CITY -siC PHONE��
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 0 S- PHONE SGS 42�
BOX 4 SEWER DISTRICT AC WATER DISTRICT WA,
BOX 5 ESTIMATED PROJECT 60ST EXISTING BUILDING VALUATION
BOX 6 PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT NUMBERUa--
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Yc 7
(If necessary, please submit a separate page with the legal description.)
BOX 7 BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE: (Existing/Proposed) 1ST FLOOR /_c±4__5 2ND FLOOR 1 I C?
OFFICE USE ONLY (PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE)
ZONE- SETBACKS: FRONT -2-0 SIZE---_- REAR__ _. ?.
PLANNING DEPAf TMEN APPROVAL _L [ 3 z G 7a_
REMARKS:
SEPA: EXEMPT NOT EXEMPT
FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
REMARKS:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT APPROVAL_
REMARKS:
HEIGHT LIMIT 30 r
R.l
DATE Y - 2+ Q' O
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. ROOF OTHER
OCCUPANCY, 10 -TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION _ L/ STORES
L.t'�►�` BUILDING SQ. FT, 1�6 @ L,o�. ❑o
Gov- BUILDING SQ. FT. il @ 7 - to = 6 Sr F O
BUILDING SQ. FT. @
BUILDING SQ. FT. @ _
BUILDING SO. FT. @
BUILDING SQ. FT. @
TOTAL SQ. FT. TOTAL VALUATION U
EBUILDING PERMIT NO. _ PLR HECK FEE REC'D RECEIPT NO.
PERMIT FEE Z 3f : 0 G PLAN CHECK FEE — ��—` c�Q PLUMBING FEE — — ��- MECH. FEE. L
TOTAL FEES f u � O SBCC SURCHARGE _ ENERGY SURCHARGE -0' AMOUNT DUE Yy _
BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL ----------------------------- DATE 3' z- Cie
REMARKS:
ASSIGNED ADDRESS: 3 I Z7 ��- S,
RECEIVED
ACCEPTED FOR FILING
�
-n -C)
c
r
'n
�
�
�
r
�
�
z
0
m
m
m
E
�1
MEL
�
_C
�
�
A Z
c Z
cn Ccm
0
O
z
£
%
/
f
$)
G
R
2
®9
$
co ®
$
G
$
/)
q
§MM
2
§ /
k
/
>
®
m
z
°
E
+
§
4
4
>
�
>
?
£
_
\
\
2
§)
&
§
\
K
5
2
I
E M
z=
n=
M_;
>
o
g
>
/-
o
m=_
§
A
g
F
b%
I
74
M-
m)
m
a
m
a
M
z
z=
0
m
o
e$=
o
z
=
o
r
9
m
G
n
z
Q
o$
M¥
m«
=
m
m
§
a
o
n
m
z
=
m
m
Cl)r
o
o»
*
_%
d=
=
m a
c
m�<»
m
9
>-n
m
_®
=
z-
a>
z
z=
7
i
?
m
m
m
m
°
]
m
z§
2°
m
o
m
m
m
«
k
k)
�
§
Pm
m
z
k
(
m
§
°
�
K
�>
�
)
Cl)
§
k
k
0
-n
m
>
\
§
\
§
-
}
§
>
\ \
§
--I
2
§
2
k
(
§
} (
(
q
z
m
a m
3
P
Cl)
n
M
g
® _
@
z
Co
3
m
R
m
\
m
i
®
°
m
®
§
>
§
G
°
m
m
/
§
k
V5
k
(
r
\
=
>
>
2
z
)
i
§
2
3
§ \
<
m
\
§
$
m
ƒ
®A
§ °
q
\
®
§
(
}
§
>
+
\
®
J
k
§§/
k
k
d
§
R
k
}
m
2
\
m
}
\
§
_
_
'D
$
m
m
»
%
2
E
>
\
Z
m
»
>.
j
§
/
C)
C)
m
c
?
4
v
z
I
z
§
>
\
\
k
m
>2
6
c
r
'
>
g
=
m
k
j
k
k
>
%
I
`
®
f
=
m
m
§
2
>
\
§
)
m
]
\
k
m =
a
>
m
)
q
>
2
m
(z
>
o
a
=
a
R
®
z
=
£
m
g
>
> f
�
k
%
\
co
k
7
r
G
m
w
»
§
o
m
§
4
\
m
§
\
m
z
-n
o
rn
>
=
z
=
i
c
/
»
J
e
T
§
m
§�
=
c=
K
2
m
2
o
2
p
co
2
2
i
z
m
m
g]
a
m
r
z
q
o
<
r
k
§
s
§
-n -C)
c
r
'n
�
�
�
r
�
�
z
0
m
m
m
E
�1
MEL
�
_C
�
�
A Z
c Z
cn Ccm
0
O
z
SET BACKS AND FOOTINGS
DATE. �tL BY /73 _ _
OX TO POUR FOUNDATION WALLS
DATE y�. 7�y� - pp
BY _ �9_ _
_
PLUMBING GROUNDWORK
DATE --_ _ _ BY
PLUMBING ROUGH IN
DATE _ S! !._ BY _� ._
WATER LINE O.K.
GAS PIPING O.K. S _ `� ��
_.� ... ---
�.
MECHANICAL INSPECTION
-9`
DATE _.� _. —_. - BY J(� _
O.K, TO ENCLOSE FRAMING
DATE 6BY IS
INSULATION
DATE>:'
�__BY
WALL BOARD AND FIRE WALL
DATE // "� /
S2_' — — — BY
FINAL O.K. TO OCCUPY
DATE %51 �� BY �
DCD PSD
FD
u/Z uN/e /Uz/r/1
-- - k - Pa
-dl '+i- rev. �.
/u
oyclS',ffrC %?-<'s:s
'/ /--S�l ./i ,� ;Jl[ � J'/ !/
l.J)/i i2 Gc: S%Z• moi.
�V
Whitacre Engineers, Inc. ZN2
Consulting Engineering & Land Planning
April 13, 1990
728 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 100
P.O. BOX 5677 ■ TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98405-0677 • (206) 272-5144
RECE/vED
APR 17 1990
Pichette Construction CI HU[F FeOERAL WRY
7901 49th Avenue East G DEpT.
Tacoma, Washington 98443
Attention: Pat Pichette
Reference: Foundation Inspection at
35121 11th Place S.W.
Federal Way, Washington
Dear Mr. Pichette:
As requested, at 9:15 A.M. on April 13, 1990, I inspected the
spread footings on Lots 122, 123, 124, 125 and 127 in the
Madronna Meadows addition at the above address. The inspection
was requested in response to the City of Federal Way's concern
relative to the honey combing of the spread footings.
The spread footings were designed to be 18 inches wide and 8
inches deep with a stem 18 inches high and 8 inches thick.
The spread footings had been poured on the above lots and vary
in thickness from 8 inches thick to 12 inches thick. The extra
concrete thickness is to compensate for any variance in the
ground surface. All of the footings bear on undisturbed natural
soil and not on structural fill. The concern arose when the
forms were removed, some honey combing in the concrete appeared.
The question of structural integrity was asked.
I have reviewed the foundations, the loads that will be applied
from the structure, and performed soil bearing calculations.
I am satisfied the foundations will carry all the intended load
both present and future. In fact,"theoretically," in the
situation at this site a spread footing would not be required
(I do not recommend this) .
In conclusion, it is my professional opinion the footings as I
reported are satisfactory to proceed with further work without
any corrective measures.
Pichette Construction
Page 2
April 13, 1990
Please call if you have any questions.
WET/ed
cc: City of Federal Way
Matt Bodhaine
FAX # 839-2496
Very truly yours,
WHITACRE ENGINEERS, I
Wesley E. Taft, P.E.
President,- •%,-
!SiE���• ��� �