Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MIS99-00520 Cancelled Retaining Wall - MIS Permit / Conditions - 3/5/2000
MASON COUNTY IgVYUJ Mason County Bldg. III 426 W. Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584 M 1 SCE L._ L_^f4rE- C7Ut3 PE FA 1 -T FOR INSPi .;; :S CALL t MIS99--0520 PARCEL : 123305300071 PLAT :BEPLD DIV : BLK : LOT : 71 JOB ADDRESS : 630 NE LARSON BL.VD BELFAiR APPLICANT : SCOTT REEVES OWNER : SCOTT REEVES LEGAL : RFAROS COVE DIV 6 ALK: LOT: li PERMIT PROJECT DESCRIPTION : VOID 8,1 EXP{RATION RETENTION WALL o11 L f b B DATE PROJECT LOCATION : HWY 3 303 LEFT TO SAND HILL. RUSH, LARSON TO TOP OF HILL. . PROJECT NOTES : TYPE AMO'!NT BY DATE RECE i PT PLCK $ 89 .21 RAW 08/23/99 51327 STFE $ 4 .50 TMJ 09/07/99 51506 PLRS $ 38 .00 TMJ 09/07/99 51506 PRMT $ 137 .25 TMJ 09/07/99 5150E TOTAL - 337 .55. OWNER OR AGENT DATE MIS.PRMT, rev; 04101192 COMPLIANCE TO ATTACHED CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED CONCRETE MECHANICAL MOBILE HOME Footings-Setback date by Ribbons date by Gas Piping date b Foundation Walls date by Set Up date INSULATION date by BG/SLAB Insulation Floors Final date by date by date by FRAMING Walls FIRE DEPT. date by date by date by PLUMBING OTHER Groundwork Attic date by date by D.W.V. WALLBOARD NAILING date by date by Water Line FINAL INSPECTION date by date by I date by ` ayKim y46i0ey24J6 T(Zoytin-n�f �F7r2cDV-'--4uwr _._. - � Wi1� W 4I�'�j b��' Ytif�G,,t v+iY�a �a �'ti>r��-1�—'���i�^�'o�[Y1�S• �J�'`�--- --— MASON COUNTY Mason County Bldg. 111 426 W. Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584 PERM 11- Case No . : MIS99-0520 For : SCOTT REEVES Page ; I 1 ) Approved per dimensions and setbacks on submitted site-plan and specifications of the proje t engineer . 2 All upland areas disturbed or, newly created by construction activities shall be seeded, vegetated or given some other equivalent type of protection against erosion► . X 3 ) Proposed structure or any portion thereof greater than 30", in height from grade line , must maintain a minimum of 5 ' setback frorr► all property lines and easement I i nes and 10 ' frorr► a k i County and State Road right of ways . X 4 ) The engineer of record, John G . Bartram, is required to perform inspections of the wall construction to verify compliance to the engineered design specifications and submit to thi ,s, office , a letter of acknowledgment verifying construction has complied-, L-'-- ------------------------ -------- - ------------------------ FROM ProDesign PHONE NO. : 360 3771026 Sep. 03 1999 07:41RM P2 fir P.O. Box 699 Tracyton, Washington 98393-0699 a (360) 377-1026 September 2, 1999 Scott &Anita Reeves 630 Larson Blvd. Belfair, WA 98528 RE-, Lot 71, Larson Blvd Site Retaining Wall At your request I have reviewed the Consolidated Engineering letter of August 16, 1999 along with (3) 8-1/2 x 11 sketches consisting of a site plan, retaining wall plan, and retaining wall section. You had indicated that this design encroaches on both side property easements. After review of this report then discussions with Marty Reynolds of North Bay Land Development, who performed the excavation at the site, it is my opinion that the exposed near vertical face is a cemented hardpan. Cohesive and cemented Glacial Tills have sufficient engineering properties to be stable in a near vertical cut. There are a large number of natural as well as highway road cuts in such material with little deterioration over decades. We concur that it is prudent to install a toe wall at the base of this face due to the close proximity of the modular residence. This both improves stability as well as prevents softening of the toe from water saturation. Our analysis looked at the wall without the end wing walls and the keyway, substituting hard connections into the modular home concrete runners to increase the sliding resistance. Also the width of the concrete has been increased to extend from the existing bank to the footing. This new arrangement was designed for a 6 foot height and a 1:1 retained slope. The wall was found to have factors of safety for both overturning and sliding greater than 2. The indicated 8" concrete wall is 4 feet high located 4'-4" from the face of the residence. This wall should extend from easement line to easement line behind the residence. At the ends of the wall, close off the pea gravel fill with keystone blocks to prevent loss of gravel fill onto the easements. The absence of the returns does not reduce the structural performance of the wall, however it is expected the ends of the excavation past the wall will require periodic maintenance. The exposed face is probably hard enough to resist raveling, however as it weathers erosion rills would be expected to wash sediments down the face. If weather deterioration is noted, we recommend that modular garden blocks be used to face the cut with the void between the blocks and cut face filled with a fine pea gravel. It is fine to defer this work for a number of years until rills are noted. It is also very important to observe the cut periodically during the winter to ensure that water runoff down the face is minimized to the fullest extent possible_ Drainage here appears adequate but needs to be verified during the wet season. If you have questions, please feel free to call. Yours truly, BqRT gag wAsy��. John G. (Jay) Bartram S.E., P-E. �t encl. 1 sketch 8-112 x 11 & 2 page calculations EXPIRES 1115 `�" or I HESE PLANS ?VIUSF B ON THE JOB' SITE � /'II Auct- ilp", FOR IN-S(PL_CU10iJ. P.O. Box 699 G BART Tracyton, Washington 98393-0699 O`Z`�O' `uAsyti'Q? (360) 377-1026 September 2, 1999 Scott & Anita Reeves q 630 Larson Blvd. �6�� Belfair, WA 98528 1�lSAq-052a �" s NAL RE: Lot 71, Larson Blvd EXPIRES � � Site Retaining Wall At your request I have reviewed the Consolidated Engineering letter of August 16, 1999 along with (3) 8-1/2 x 11 sketches consisting of a site plan, retaining wall plan, and retaining wall section. You had indicated that this design encroaches on both side property easements. After review of this report then discussions with Marty Reynolds of North Bay Land Development, who performed the excavation at the site, it is my opinion that the exposed near vertical face is a cemented hardpan. Cohesive and cemented Glacial Tills have sufficient engineering properties to be stable in a near vertical cut. There are a large number of natural as well as highway road cuts in such material with little deterioration over decades. We concur that it is prudent to install a toe wall at the base of this face due `.o the close proximity of the modular residence. This both improves stability as well as prevents softening of the toe from water saturation. Our analysis looked at the wall without the end wing walls and the keyway, substituting hard connections into the modular home concrete runners to increase the sliding resistance. Also the width of the concrete has been increased to extend from the existing bank to the footing. This new arrangement was designed for a 6 foot height and a 1:1 retained slope. The wall was found to have factors of safety for both overturning and sliding greater than 2. The indicated 8" concrete wall is 4 feet high located 4'-4" from the face of the residence. This wall should extend from easement line to easement line behind the residence. At the ends of the wall, close off the pea gravel fill with keystone blocks to prevent loss of gravel fill onto the easements. The absence of the returns does not reduce the structural performance of the wall, however it is expected the ends of the excavation past the wall will require periodic maintenance. The exposed face is probably hard enough to resist raveling, however as it weathers erosion rills would be expected to wash sediments down the face. If weather deterioration is noted, we recommend that modular garden blocks be used to face the cut with the void between the blocks and cut face filled with a fine pea gravel. It is fine to defer this work for a number of years until rills are noted. It is also very important to observe the cut periodically during the winter to ensure that water runoff down the face is minimized to the fullest extent possible. Drainage here appears adequate but needs t LWy;gield X��Toh)Ntl season. If you have questions, please feel free to call. YoursWt 6yHINGTON STATE CODES of a�asI John G. (Jay) Bartram S.E., P.E. tt ti wy iz.i ;� encl. 1 sketch 8-1/2 x 11 & 2 page calculations °;. E1 APPROVED / lo '!'.SON BUILDING INSPECTOR i„r,"ES SUBJECT TO APPROVAL -- — DATE — ExPiRES �� -, CONSTRUCT WALL STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UBC97 & OBTAIN ALL PERMITS FROM MASON COUNTY. CONCRETE: 2" REBAR CLEAR FROM FORMED SURFACES, 3" CLEAR FROM EARTH 2,500 PSI CONCRETE 5% AIR ENTRAINED. REINFORCING GRADE 40 OR 60 AT -,; m ��% INSTALLERS OPTION, DESIGN SOIL PRESSURE 2,000 PSF. r, urns e O > fir, r D n m FUTURE MODULAR BLOCK FACING AT OWNER OPTION E o �s 2� w� v z `�, FILL CAVITY WITH 1/4" OR 3/8" PEA GRAVEL C 7 r n � r {�w `^ INSTALL IF FACE FOUND TO BE REVELLING, SEE REPORT SSI0NALG �J rG7 EXPIRES 5-17-2000 ' EXIST CUT FACE IN CEMENTED GLACIAL TILL MAY REMAIN EXPOSED AS SUFFICIENTLY CEMENTED TO BE STRUCTURALLY STABLE � 8" (2) #4 TOP FREE DRAINING cD, " GRAVEL FILL d NEW CONC STR BETW FOOTINGS 6"D x 12" WIDE, (2) #4 DOWELED 12" MIN LAP #4@ 16" O.C. VERT. INTO EA FOOTING. TYP ® 16' ON > 2" CLR #4® 18" O.C. HORZ. CENTER MAX x 2 ROWS. bto J 24" #4 HOOK BAR 4" PERF DRAIN N " p 24" @ 16 0 C 1x3 KEYWAY M co to °° < J24" #4 HOOK BAR (5) #4 CONT DRILL 5/8"0 x 6" & SET N b 16" @ 16" 0 C - WITH FASTENER EPDXY (p ALT HOOKS TO EA �, SIDE @ 8" CENTER '= D TOTAL C) Z Z VARIES 1 0" 1'-8" '- „ c� c� 8 A8" 6"x4 CONT 6"x8' CONT 6"x8' CONT m o n a 7'-O" VARIES FOOTING FOOTING FOOTING . o MODULAR HOME & FDN o� SECTION CUT BANK & TOE WALL #4 x 6'-8" ® 18" OC, EMBED 6" TO FOOT SCALE 3/8"=1'-O" 1 D c - Z (2) #4 TOP FREE DRAHNG GRAVEL SILL _= z m C � � 16" v- om1 n >> 7'z:' O.C. Vll �T m ? L MIN LAP r '1 2" C L R #4@ 18" O.C. HORZr' 124" #4 HOOK BAR ° 4" PERF DRAIN 24" @ 16" 0 C 1 x3 KEYWAY 24" #4 HOOK BAR (5) #4 CONT Qo ALT HOOKS TO EA 0 SIDE @ 8" CENTER _ 0" TOTAL _ ° VARIES -0" 1 '-8" 1 '-8" 2' -8" 6"x 4' 7'-0" VARIES F00 SECTION CUT BANK TOE WALL #4 x SCALE 3/8"= 1 ' -0" I-l1=SE PLAN /iUST B 0 l J I i-i LI-E J 0 B li i � li it h � 'L'.t, 11�...!N Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design RetainPro Professional5.0.7,8-Jul-99,(c) 1989-99 Criteria I Soil Data I LFooting Strengths & Dimensions Retained Height = 6.00 ft Allow Soil Bearing = 3,200.0 psf fc = 2,500 psi Fy = 40,000 psi Wall height above soil = 0.00 ft Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Min.As% = 0.0018 Heel Active Pressure = 30.0 psf/ft Toe Width = 3.33 ft Slope Behind Wall = 1.00:1 Toe Active Pressure = 30.0 psf/ft Heel Width = 1.67 Height of Soil over Toe = 0.00 in Passive Pressure = 2,000.0 psf/ft Total Footing Width = 5.00 Soil Density = 120.00 pcf Water height over heel = 0.0 ft Footing Thickness - 10.00 in FootingiiSoil Friction = 0.500 = Wind on Stem = 0.0 psf Soil height to ignore Key Width 12.00 in Key Depth = 0.00 in for passive pressure = 0.00 in Key Distance from Toe = 3.33 ft Cover @ Top = 2.00in Btm.= 3.00 in Design Summary Stem Construction Top Stem 2nd Total Bearing Load = 2,924 Ibs Design height ft= Stem OK Stem OK1.50 0.00 ...resultant ecc. = 8.88 in Wall Material Above"Ht" = Concrete Concrete Soil Pressure @ Toe = 65 psf OK Thickness = 8.00 8.00 Soil Pressure(P Heel = 1,106 psf OK Rebar Size = # 4 # 4 Allowable = 3,200 Rebar Spacing = 16.00 8.00 psf = Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable Rebar Placed at Edge Edge Design Data ACI Factored @ Toe = 62 psf f Design +Data fa/ = 0.281 0.339 ACI Factored @Heel = 1,061 psf Total Force @ Section Ibs= 516.4 918.0 Footing Shear @ = . psi OK Moment....Actual ft-#= 774.6 1,836.0 Footing Shear Heel el = 20.8 psi OK Moment.....Allowable ft-#= 2,759.4 5,412.6 Allowable = 85.0 psi Shear.....Actual psi= 6.9 12.2 Wall Stability Ratios Overturning = 4.95 OK Shear.....Allowable psi= 85.0 85.0 Sliding = 2.34 OK Bar Develop ABOVE Ht. in= 15.60 12.48 Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component Used) Bar Lap/Hook BELOW Ht. in= 15.60 6.00 Lateral Sliding Force 910.0 Ibs Wall Weight psf= 100.0 100.0 less 100%Passive Force= - 694.4 Ibs Rebar Depth 'd' in= 6.25 6.25 less 100%Friction Force = - 1,462.2lbs Masonry Data Added Force Req'd = 0.0 Ibs OK I'm psi= for 1.5: 1 Stability = 0.0 Ibs OK Fs psi=Solid Grouting = Footing Design Results Special Inspection = Modular Ratio'n' _ Toe Heel Short Term Factor = Factored Pressure = 62 1,061 psf Equiv.Solid Thick. _ Mu':Upward = 1,576 652 ft-# Masonry Block Type= Medium Weight Mu':Downward = 970 2,211 ft-# Concrete Data Mu: Design = 605 1,559 ft-# rc psi= 2,500.0 2,500.0 Actual 1-Way Shear = 5.93 20.77 psi Fy psi= 40,000.0 40,000.0 Allow 1-Way Shear = 85.00 85.00 psi Other Acceptable Sizes&Spacings Toe Reinforcing = None Spec'd Toe: Not req'd,Mu<S'Fr Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Heel: #4@ 15.00 in,#54�p 23.00 in,#6Q 32.75 in,#7@ 44.50 in,#8@ 4625 in,#9@ 4 Key Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key: Not req'd,Mu<S'Fr MUST MEET ALL CURREN) WASHINGTON STATE CORES + j ;E=S-= PL.IN'33 M:J:.-:)1 Lam,_ t;Mile ed Retaining Wall Design RetainPro Professional 5.0.7,8-Jul-99,(c)1969-99 Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments .....OVERTURNING.... .....RESISTING..... Force Distance Moment Force Distance Moment Item Ibs ft ft-# Ibs ft ft-# Heel Active Pressure = 920.4 2.61 2,403.3 Soil Over Heel = 720.0 4.50 3,237.6 Toe Active Pressure = -10.4 0.28 -2.9 Sloped Soil Over Heel = 60.0 4.66 279.8 Surcharge Over Toe = Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load = Adjacent Footing Load = Added Lateral Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = 0.00 Load g Stem Above Soil = Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe _ Stem Weight(s) = 6000 3.66 2,198.0 Total = 910.0 O.T.M. = 2,400.4 Earth Q Stem Transitions _ Reslsting/Overturning Ratio. = 4.95 Footing Weight = 6246 2.50 1,560.4 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure= 2,924.4 Ibs Key Weight = 3.83 Vert.Component = 919.8 5.00 4,595.8 Vertical component of active pressure used for soil pressure Total= 2,924.4 Ibs R.M.= 11,871.6 i MUST MEET ALL CURRENT WASHINGTON STATE COPE�, MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER Shelton,Washington 98584 DATE: August 24, 1999 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS TO: Randy Neff, Planner - DCD Dana Herron, Building Inspector - PAC FROM: Rich Geiger, Engineering Services Manager - PW SUBJ: REVIEW OF GIRD 99-0019, SCOTT REEVES I have reviewed the preliminary soils reconnaissance report and have visited this site. I recommend construction of the home's foundation be permitted, subject to the following condition: Currently, the cut slope is dry and appears stable. Should the cut slope show any signs of excessive sloughing or other distress or should an unusual weather or seismic event occur before the concrete toe wall is constructed, the contractor shall stop work immediately and contact the geo-technical engineer. I understand there is concern that this report does not meet County standards for a geotechnical report. However, the engineer has specified that a concrete toe wall shall be constructed. I do expect that acceptable calculations for such a wall will contain all the information required in a geotechnical report. I will need to review these calculations before I can recommend construction approval for the concrete toe wall and the house framing. If you have any questions, call me at extension 531. i RICHARD'J. G IG R,1 .E. WORK ORDER - PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. (A) Date: fdAyh (q Work Order PERMIT#: 9-b � Number: 70 Requested by: `-� Q Authorized by: Date: W 7 Type of Work: e� �� CHARGE TO: NAME -� AGENCY/COMPANY BILLING ADDRESS PHONE (B) Pub. Works Person in Charge: (C) Project Time Line: (from - to dates) TO Pro}ed Start date: Estimated Finish Date: Approbmate hours: ESTIMATED TOTAL$'S: L. _._.._. COST ESTIMATE(D) to Employee S Rate Hours $vblota Fringe TOTAL$ UNIT BALE TOTAL VS EQUIPMENT USED: MATERIAL USED: ... :. ......:.v....:w::.:::.:.v..v::Z..n,:..:.:}::i:::<i:.\wwnvi.Y..::.v.}:::[!.v:.:.:+:•:LL:m:::::;.t.4ii ::::::<::::ii':..:v:�?::::vii•iii: (F) Actual Cost = BARS: PROJ P DATE Employee WORKED Nrne S Rate Flours u I Frinae% TOTAL$ EQUIPMENT USED: Date Uni ate TOTAL$'S MATERIAL USED: TOTAL ALL (G) BILLED DATE INV x PAID DATE REC1 CK# ONSOLIUATED ENGINEERING - CIVIL - STRUCTURAL - SOILS - PLANNING - August 16, 1999 I/ Ms. Anita Reeves 630 Larson Blvd. Belfair, WA HAND CARRY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (To be added by Owners) RE: Preliminary Walk-over Soils Reconnaissance of Lot at Above Address Dear Ms. Reeves; The undersigned Geo-technical Engineer, along with Cindy Forbes, Geo-technician, visited the site of the lot described above on August 15 to evaluate the effect of, the recent excavation cut for your new house foundations. The upper portion of the lot is gently sloping but the cut face is nearly vertical (80° to the horizontal by readings on a "Wedge Smart Level".) The cut face is about 23 ft. in height by direct measurement. I noticed the soil exposed on the slope was a typical glacial till soil with most of the fractions classified as silt and medium sand with gravel inclusions. Photographs illustrating the soils types were taken for our file and record; Slopes and details such as vegetation were also photographed for our file. The nearly vertical cliff at the rear of the home site is a stable conglomerate soil of sand and silt with gravel inclusions. Another project I detUdgned and inspected the construction thereof in this v�cinity with a similar Geo-technical problem was stabilized by a concrete toe-wall. . This installation has been in place about 12 years and our re-inspection on August 15th proved this approach to assuring stability to be highly successful. THE MATERIAL IN THE NEARLY VERTICAL CUT AT THE REAR OF THE HOME SITE IS A FINE SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL INCLUSIONS UP TO 6 INCHES IN DIAMETER. IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION THIS MATERIAL IS A CEMENTED CONGLOMERATE AND WILL BE STABLE IN THIS NEARLY VERTICAL CUT. A short (about 8 ft. in ht. ) toe-wall for retention of slough should be designed and constructed shortly after the house foundations are placed. B. e o�c Yours truly, O Of wAsvy yq ~ 4i R.B. Boughan, P.E. -o Geo-technical & Soils/Foundation Engineer �OX 0OW913 FS 9Fors�� C?� ENCLS - as listed S ��fVAL E EXPIRES P.O. Box 2321 • Bremerton, WA 98310 - (360) 479-5598 - FAX (360) 792-0534 J C � 10'ensment { i 10 ea l 5'e r r 1 t f Lo f t 7,L) D Way o7lottw-d � sars dt..w t : ti 27 x-46 drain raid: ti Drwn Fie{d ti tr � t 10'easment s j -7 3 i. c --T / ' ZS �-=j LU o 3 7 O (2) #4 TOPLo � 8 0 ' FREE DRA}N NG ` GRAVEL FILL TE 12 MIN LAP 04 #4@ 16 O.C. UERT. 4@ a, 2" CLR 18 O.C. HORZ. 4" PERF DRAIN o J .2411 #4 HOOK BAR z 24 @ J 6" 0 C 1 x3 KEYWAY o " J24 #4 HOOK BAR (5) #4 CON T m I�" @ 16 0 C w ALT HOOKS TO EA 0 rQ SIDE @ 8" CENTER TOTAL. VAR I ES '-0 1 , 8" 1 ' -8" 2,_8" 6"x4' b ,> F00 m 7 —0 VAR ES m SECTION CUT BANK 8c TOE WALL #4 x 3 SCALE 3/8 1 '_0" i llrii /OL=�°ii/r►r P.O. Box 699 Tracyton, Washington 98393-0699 (360) 377-1026 September 6, 1999 Scoff &Anita Reeves 160 N€ Santa Maria Lane Belfair, WA 98528 RE: Retaining wall foundation at 630 Larson On this date I inspected the retaining wall foundation before concrete placement and found it to be ready for concrete placement except for: It is my understanding that this inspection is a substitute for the inspection by Mason County. if there are any questions, please feel free to call. Yours Truly, J. G. (Jay) Bartram, P.E. Structural Engineer / •�'��r'iy1 SDK' EXPIRES Z4JP D c _ Z ' g" (2) #4 TOP m O r FREE DRANNG , y GRAVELnFILL z mC ;o #4@ 16" O.C. V 0 �12 MIN LAP ; rJ z ' J.. ton 2" CLR #4@ 18 O.C. HORZr' .� 2411 #4 HOOK BAR 4" PERF DRAIN 24" @ 16 0 C 10 KEYWAY 12411 # OK BAR4 HOOK (5) #4 CONT 16" @ 16" 0 CQo ALT HOOKS TO EA SIDE @ 8" Y _ e o CENTER TOTAL VARIES '-0" 1 '-8" 1 '-8" 2' -8" L6xL IK 7'-0" VARIES F00 SECTION CUT BANK 8c TOE WALL #4 X SCALE 3/8"= 1 ' -0" P � iiY lfi �/`r f r8 " �r 4�a -i E S L= PLAN ''`:ri U S T BE UiV 1-i` JUB i i Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design RetainPro Professional5.0.7,8-Jul-99,(c) 1989-99 Criteria Soil Data LIFooting Strengths & Dimensions Retained Height = 6,00 ft Allow Soil Bearing = 3,200.0 psf fc = 2,500 psi Fy = 40,000 psi Wall height above soil = 0.00 ft Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Min.As% = 0.0018 SlopeBehind Wall 1.00:1 _ Heel Active Pressure = 30.0 psf/ft Toe Width = 3.33 ft Toe Active Pressure = 30.0 psf/ft _ Heel Width - _ 1.67 Height of Soil over Toe = 0.00 in Passive Pressure = 2,000.0 psf/ft Total Footing Width = 5.00 Soil Density = 120.00 pcf Water height over heel = 0.0 ft Footing Thickness = 10.00 in FootingliSoil Friction = 0.500 Wind on Stem = 0.0 psf Soil height to ignore Key Width = 12.00 in for passive pressure = 0.00 in Key Depth = 0.00 in Key Distance from Toe = 3.33 ft Cover g Top = 2.00 in Btm.= 3.00 in Design Summary I Top stem end Stem OK Stem OK Total Bearing Load = 2,924 Ibs Design height ft= 1.50 0.00 ...resultant ecc. = 8.88 in Wall Material Above"Ht" = Concrete Concrete Soil Pressure Q Toe 65 psf OK Thickness = 6.00 8.00 Rebar Size Soil Pressure @ Heel = 1,106 psf OK = # 4 # 4 Allowable = 3,x70 Rebar Spacing = 16.00 8.00 psf Rebar Placed at = Edge Edge Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable Design Data ACI Factored @ Toe = 62 psf fb/FB+fa/Fa = 0.281 0.339 ACI Factored @Heel = 1,061 psf Total Force @ Section Ibs= 516.4 918.0 Footing Shear @Toe = 0.8 psi OK Moment....Actual ft-#= 774.6 1,836.0 Footing Shear Heel = 85.0 psi OK Moment.....Allowable ft-#= 2,759.4 5,412.6 Allowable = 85.0 Psi Shear.....Actual psi= 6.9 12.2 Wall Stability Ratios Overturning = 4.95 OK Shear.....Allowable psi= 85.0 85.0 Sliding = 2.34 OK Bar Develop ABOVE Ht. in= 15.60 12.48 Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component Used) Bar Lap/Hook BELOW Ht. in= 15.60 6.00 Lateral Sliding Force = 910.0 lbs Wall Weight psf= 100.0 100.0 less 100%Passive Force= - 694.4 Ibs Rebar Depth 'd' in= 6.25 6.25 less 100%Friction Force = - 1,462.2lbs Masonry Data Added Force Req'd = 0.0 Ibs OK I'm psi= for 1.5:1 Stability = 0.0 Ibs OK Fs psi=Solid Grouting = Footing Design Results Special Inspection = Modular Ratio'n' _ Toe Heel Short Term Factor = Factored Pressure = 62 1,061 psf Equiv.Solid Thick. _ Mu':Upward = 1,576 652 ft-# Masonry Block Type= Medium Weight Mu':Downward = 970 2,211 ft-# Concrete Data Mu: Design = 605 1,559 ft-# fc psi= 2,500.0 2,500.0 Actual 1-Way Shear = 5.93 20.77 psi Fy psi= 40,000.0 40,000.0 Allow 1-Way Shear = 85.00 85.00 psi Other Acceptable Sizes&Spacings Toe Reinforcing = None Spec'd Toe: Not req'd,Mu<S'Fr Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Heel: #4@ 15.00 in,#5@ 23.00 in,#6@ 32.75 in,#70 44.50 in,#8@ 48.25 in,#9@ 4 Key Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key: Not req'd,Mu<S'Fr MUST MEET ALL CURREN) WASHINGTON STATE CODES i E MU:. I- Lam,_ jo bahtile a ed Retaining Wall Design RetainPro Professional 5.0.7.8-Jul-99,(c)1969-99 Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments .....OVERTURNING..... .....RESISTING..... Force Distance Moment Force Distance Moment Item Ibs ft ft-# Ibs it ft-# Heel Active Pressure = 920.4 2.61 2,403.3 Soil Over Heel = 720.0 4.50 3,237.6 Toe Active Pressure = -10.4 0.28 -2.9 Sloped Soil Over Heel = 60.0 4.66 279.8 Surcharge Over Toe = Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load = Adjacent Footing Load = Added Lateral Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = 0.00 Load @ Stem Above Soil = Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe = Stem Weight(s) 600.0 3.66 2,198.0 Total = 910.0 O.T.M. = 2,400.4 Earth @ Stem Transitions _ Resisting/Overturning Ratio- = 4.96 Footing Weight - 624.6 2.50 1,5M.4 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure= 2,924.4 Ibs Key Weight = 3.83 Vert.Component = 919.8 5.00 4,595.8 Vertical component of active pressure used for soil pressure Total= 2,924.4 ibs R M.= 11,871.6 l MUST MEET ALL CURRENT WASHINGTON STATE COPIES MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER Shelton,Washington 98584 DATE: August 31, 1999 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS TO: Tami Griffey, Building Inspector - PAC FROM: Rich Geiger, Engineering Services Manager - PW SUBJ: RETAINING WALL DESIGN REVIEW, B`E9GPR90W9, SCOTT REEVES, 630 NE LARSON BLVD I have reviewed this design and calculations. I recommend this permit be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The wall shall be constructed to the engineer's specifications and plan layout, to include the construction of the wingwalls. Deletion of the wingwalls will require the applicant to submit a revised set of plans and specifications, stamped by a licensed professional engineer. 2. The heel of the wall (point of the wall footing furthest from the home's foundation) shall be no closer than five feet (5') from the exterior wall of the home. No further excavation of the cut slope shall be allowed under this permit. 3. The wall will be backfilled with a free-draining material. The drainage pipe shown at the base of the wall shall daylight at both ends of the wall, and the outlet shall be sloped to ensure positive drainage. It is recommended that the backfill be "capped" to prevent rapid intrusion of rainfall. This may be done with 6"-8" of soil that will shed rain water, coupled with a drainage system (gutter, etc.) that will positively route this water off the backfill before it can infiltrate. If you have any questions, call me at extension 531. C � ICHA J. G I ER E. �� wl\L SUBMIT C'tiAPEtt,'URi l �ta UVVRK PRIOR '(O UST BE THESE THE Og SITE ON TION. F0R INSPEC 1 �� � � 1 E TAlti11►`1(� �1�. ro R, lll = ' D • a /e -VEY N 4 4 12" o, C. 3 1 a a 2�, c�R J > CY ,� P #4 ►2" O.C. d YER�Cp.L_ Lo _j W r %Lj (- L Q o 0 co - v _ p a O LP,, C v A. T P) A 3-- Co'� BEN J. S Q p WASyl T IS. Bo E CT`t O I`JWA 4 = 1 - 0 THESE PLANS MUST BE .pF3 044 4� q)� A00089133 ON THE JOB SITE .Sj AAE 11 F�'STS �U FOR INSPECTION. ON AL EXPIRES:6-04- I EXPIRES -�� J 6.12 Undercut Footing Retaining Wall--Concrete Stem-moil at Toe Side-Slope-2 to 1 TABLE 6.12 UNDERCUT FOOTING RETAINING WALLS - CONCRETE STEM - SOIL AT TOE SIDE SLOPE = 2 to 1 SURCHARGE - _- 0 Ibs./s . f t. 9 AXIAL- 0 Ibs. f/ t. #W t 2 lW . F = L/2 E _ Mr X e s a a � R Fr. Wb U SOIL PRESSURE DIAGR M A B C NMI o L Stem Height 3'- 0" 4'- 0" 51-0" 6'- 0" T- 0" 8'- 0" 91- 0" 101- 0" 11'- 0" 12' 0" F t. L ft. 1.833 2.333 2.833 3.333 4.000 4.500 5.167 5.667 6,333 7.000 Ft. T ft. 0.667 0.833 0.833 0.833 1.000 1.167 1.167 1.333 1.333 1.333 Undercut 0.667 0.833 0.833 0.833 1.000 1.167 1.167 1.333 1.333 1.333 Wt ft. 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 Wb ft. 0.667 0.833 0.833 0.833 1.000 1.167 1.167 1.333 1.333 1.333 A ft. 0.667 1.000 1.333 1.667 2.167 2.333 2.833 3.000 3.500 4.000 B ft. 0.667 0.833 0.833 0.833 1.000 1.167 1.167 1.333 1.333 1.333 C ft. 0.500 0.500 0.667 0.833 0.833 1.000 1.167 1.333 1.500 1.667 D ft. 0.667 0.833 0.833 0.833 1.000 1.167 1.167 1.333 1.333 1.333 W Ibs. 826 1311 1634 1971 2701 3518 4010 4994 5562 6143 F lbs. 289 502 732 1004 1376 1807 2222 2762 3270 3822 Mo ft.-Ibs. 353 809 1423 2287 3669 5520 7531 10433 13445 16988 Mr ft.-Ibs. 878 1841 3008 4502 7456 10854 14713 19943 25456 31717 O.T.R. 2.485 2.275 2.114 1.969 2.032 1.966 1.954 1.912 1.893 1.867 X ft. 0.635 0.787 0.970 1.124 1.402 1.516 1.791 1.904 2.160 2.398 e ft. 0.281 0.380 0.447 0.543 0.598 0.734 0.792 0.929 1.007 1.102 Me ft.-Ibs. 232 498 730 1070 1616 2581 3178 4640 5601 6771 S ft.3 0.560 0.907P /A1.3 Us8' 2.667 3.375 4.449 5.352 6.685 8.167 S.P.h p.s.f. 865-( fe45 (�12r1'1n ��, 1281 1546 1490 1748 1716 1707 S.Pa p.s.f, 36 iNs1 14 69 17 62 14 40 48 Y Friction 0.350 0.383 0.448 0.509 0.509 0.514 0.554 0.553 0.588 0.622 376 Undercut Footing Retaining Wall—Concrete Stem—Soil at Toe Sid"lope=2 to 1 6.12 a" g 1 -� 4 # 5Q18"o.c. K, -t 4 IT O 2- 4 0 8 I'd I I'-10' Soil slope = 2 to 1 Soil slope =2 to 1 E.F.P. = 43 p.c.f. E.F.P. =43 p.c.f. Section 6.12.3 Section 6.12.4 tj 2-#4 I6' Io' 2'-10, 4" Soil slope =2 to 1 Soil slope =2 to 1 E.F.P. =43 p.c.f. THESE PLANS MUST BE E.F.P. =43 p.c.f. Section 6.12.5 ON THE JOB SITE Section6.12.6 FOR INSPECTION. 377 rww+ar r we r��Sr r me ia,hrm tSIO �y Ym-jo H-L1 o N SUS N o� ON --tV !i g N7;D►-� S _ �do� �71�30 N 3lVoS 31Vo A9 o3H03Ho 8655-6Lb (09£) 31Vo A8O31v-inoivo OT£86 N019NIHSdM rN0lH3W3b8 TZ£Z Xo8 '0'd 30 ON133HS \� ON1833NION3 a31vallOSNO3 s 1� eor P r D a d ►! b• N 0- 4 12" o, C. 3 � a- 2'' GLR ,. a A 121, O.c. LL d d c V c f�-n G P.L- w D P D #5@ �z'' 0.0. Co,--T. Z X 4 �Ey �� . . 7- 44 Comer. F,a. GRA�G Ll:� CTY P _ � A 3 4 @ o„ i �. BOU�y sEuno�j A-A !��4✓� G�p�. O of WAsy G'_► `' L 'x'y'" ?� t 0008913 ON AL EXPIRES 8-31-99 DANA, TAMI CALLED: GO AHEAD AND JUST CONDITION HIS PERMIT FOR NO CONSTRUCTION WITHIN EASEMENT. CIRCLE BOTH SIDES - IN RED - SAYING "NO CONSTRUCTION WITHIN EASEMENTS" Phyl I �j , �,�� m���s l�B� z�'f� �s ���- ����� � �Gy�� %2Q � 1/�S' �C� l''�1Db�( liy� �� t RETAIt`.1�►.1G �h.�L Fog-, (' �{ a J Il —T i2" o.c O . d � c Ye Alkn l � a jp OL- v �- 0 • N, I 4L I 7- 4 CO, I F,a. GRA�c u -�i Z' CLR (TYP) p o E S SUBMIT CHANGES FOR APPROVAL I - 0 - -Q PRIOR TO PERFORMING WORK ( -BEN J. S WAS BO E w�,� �S E CT"t0 t�J Co y o THESE PLANS MUST BE 3 04A Q 0008913 ON THE JOB SITE sj sTER l NAL E� GIs rg C? FOR INSPECTION. ONAL EXPIRES.6-04-`l EXPIRES -p i 612 Undercut Footing Retaining Wall--Concrete Stem-Soil at Toe Side-Slope 2 to 1 TABLE 6.12 UNDERCUT FOOTING RETAINING WALLS - CONCRETE STEM - SOIL AT TOE SIDE SLOPE = 2 to 1 SURCHARGE =0 lbs./sq. f t. AXIAL=0 lbs./ft. Wt 1 2 A . I W ; 1 .-F- L/2 ;; Mr I X e fn o t a a vi N f- +r:• r FIT TFr. WbSOIL PRESSURE DIAGR M A B Mol L Stem Height 3'- 0" 4'- 0" 5'- 0" 6'-0" 7'- 0" 81- 0" 91-0" 101- 0" 1 V- 0" 12%0" Ft. L ft. 1.833 2.333 2.833 3.333 4.000 4.500 5.167 5.667 6.333 7.000 Ft. T ft. 0.667 0.833 0.833 0.833 1.000 1.167 1.167 1.333 1.333 1.333 Undercut 0.667 0.833 0.833 0.833 1.000 1.167 1.167 1.333 1.333 1.333 r Wt ft. 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 Wb ft. 0.667 0.833 0.833 0.833 1.000 1.167 1.167 1.333 1.333 1.333 A ft. 0.667 1.000 1.333 1.667 2.167 2.333 2.833 3.000 3.500 4.000 B ft. 0.667 0.833 0.833 0.833 1.000 1.167 1.167 1.333 1.333 1.333 C ft. 0.500 0.500 0.667 0.833 0.833 1.000 1.167 1.333 1.500 1.667 i I . D ft. 0.667 0.833 0.833 0.833 1.000 1.167 1.167 1.333 1.333 1.333 W lbs. 826 1311 1634 1971 2701 3518 4010 4994 5562 6143 F lbs. 289 502 732 1004 1376 1807 2222 2762 3270 3822 Mo ft.-lbs. 353 809 1423 2287 3669 5520 7531 10433 13445 16988 Mr ft.-Ibs. 878 1841 3008 4502 7456 10854 14713 19943 25456 31717 O.T.R. 2.485 2.275 2.114 1.969 2.032 1.966 1.954 1.912 1.893 1.867 I X ft. 0.635 0.787 0.970 1.124 1.402 1.516 1.791 1.904 2.160 2.398 i e ft. 0.281 0.380 0.447 0.543 0.598 0.734 0.792 0.929 1.007 1.102 i Me ft.-lbs. 232 498 730 1070 1616 2581 3178 4640 5601 6771 S ft.3 0.560 0.907 P1.3 `' 2.667 3.375 4.449 5.352 6.685 8.167 S.P.h p.s.f. 865-` �[JN (�1�2' �1��� 1281 1546 1490 1748 1716 1707 S.Pa p-s.f. 36 �Ns 1 14 69 17 Cun `+i 14 40 48 Ij ?PROVAL Friction 0.350 0.383 0.448 0.509 0.509 0.514 0.554N NI F 11 G ws* 0.622 I 1 r 376 / A � Undercut Footing Retaining Wall--Concrete Stem—Soil at Toe Side lope=2 to 1 6.12 a" g I-145Q18"o.c. m 4Q20"ox— LPIT2-t4 0 g IIO a a 6 12' Id' Soil slope =2 to 1 Soil slope=2 to 1 E.F.P. =43 p.c.f. E.F.P. =43 p.c.f. Section 6.12.3 Section 6.12.4 /=0 a" e' 1 i i� # de22'o.c. 4 Q 91o.c. v N y O - C =0 N" N' 2-i Q 1 16' lo' 8" W Ild 101, 2'- Soil slope=2 to 1 Soil slope=2 to 1 E.F.P. =43 p.c.f. THESE PLANS MUST BE E.F.P. =43 p.c.f. Section 6.12.5 ON THE JOB SITE sections.l2.s FOR INSPECTION. I SUBMIT CHANGES FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO PERFORMING WORK j I � 377 1 0'easment { I S � ea 6,yNv l LYy1 V yy% _ L, r 1 D way Z7 X-0 drain%W I Ikwn Fr_{d i ti ` t 1 O'easment I � 73 U -r C , OR r SugMiT ONANG�FuR�11 1G WORK pR�OR TO pER ML I ' Z S LU THESE PANS MUST BE �+ ON THE JOB 51 It =- FOR INSPECTION. w,Uri w:i-rLruv OCLVYV Incitla8 adjacent properties if on shoreline or within 100 feet of adjacent property line. adjacent property lined A, ?� M J ;. , (--adjacent property line jai ' i 7► �h. rr�P it W � a� � arc c r r ► • w__ �.n ► adjacent property line-� �Fad'acent ro R line v SAMPLE SITE PLAN adjat'�nt property {ine� 3io• E-adjacent property line i a 3e• SCfivf� .�I w�. 7� ,L C�Gk ; � � i ►sorwe i G AEI V \�1 � WOaas4 ► ` i raorm�a saps a —""it ► t j vAC-^k,T 'F GwMAI" so i .,� nwteae /irrtstuin.aw� so' F 40'- \ � ioo' -- io0. ► ��, \ adjacent property line- ; ~. \� E-adjacent propeiijline TOPOGRAPHY PROFILE(Show a side view of property. Show slopes, cuts and fills. If possible include height and the degree of slopes. See sample topography profile.) SAMPLE TOPOGRAPHY PROFILE dt sta..ca to rtaetaar'� r_ 04 MOP'S toe IV" 4� Oiatanaa ♦� a r T' 13•i �� Y� ' ��IGCy���►;r�' i JOB CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING 7 f. SHEET NO. � OF P.O. Box 2321 1_ BREMERTON, WASHINGTON 98310 CALCULATED BY �5 u DATE (360) 479-5598 CHECKED BY �'" � DATE SCALE �JA di_. ,In PAL T6T,At_ SU`:BMIT. CW-A GES FOR APPRdVAE �" PRIOR TTOPE�tFOR��1lN _ c RK l .. TH E 5 E p : NE; MUST BE cl FOR A kN r=A45em MUST MEET ALL CURPEN-A �G WASHINGTON STATE COL? ` ©F (S,G o 0<st/ RA.1_- NOTF-S J G. STR E N GT H TO 5! g. B0U, DO PS i 28 @ DAYS f w 2 . EIN ORGING OARS To 15e Fy A000"i$ s TOR E �fVA MASON Sul WING L TnN�PPROVAL HANG SU3E,,T EXPIRW Mrvw r1•MI�I•v+�M rPM•1 tM 1 IrMAr.� Page No. 1 CONDITIONS/CORRECTIONS FOR CASE NO.: MIS99-0520 SCOTT REEVES NE630 LARSON BLVD BELFAIR 09/01/99 1) Engineered Inspections The engineer of record, Rolla Boughan, is required to perform inspections of the wall construction to verify compliance to the engineered design specifications and submit to this office, a letter of acknowledgment verifying construction has complied. X 2) ALL CONSTRUCTION -- ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST MEET OR EXCEED ALL LOCAL CODES AND UBC REQUIREMENTS X 3) Changes to Approved Plans -- Changes to approved building plans that effect compliance to the the Uniform Building Code and/or Mason County Regulations must be approved by Mason County prior to constructionX 4) Sideyard Setback -- Proposed structure or any portion thereof greater than 30" in height from grade Line, must maintain a minimum of 5' setback from all property lines and easement lines and 10' from all County and State Road right of ways. X 5) PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST -- the correction list, along with the Energy Compliance Worksheet (when applicable) is part of the plans and must remain attached thereto. It is the responsibility of the applicant to make corrections indicated on the plans from the correction lists. Once the plans are marked APPROVED, they may not be changed or altered without authorization from the Building Official. The permit holder is reponsible to retain the complete approved set of plans on site for the duration of the project. Failure to comply will result in failure of required building inspections. Every permit shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permits is not commenced within 180 days from the date of issuance, or if the building or work authorized by such permits is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of 180 days. X Page No. 1 CONDITIONS/CORRECTIONS FOR CASE NO.: MIS99-0520 SCOTT REEVES NE630 LARSON BLVD BELFAIR 08/26/99 1) Engineered Inspections The engineer of record, Rolla Boughan, is required to perform inspections of the wall construction to verify compliance to the engineered design specifications and submit to this office, a letter of acknowledgment verifying construction has complied. X 2) ALL CONSTRUCTION -- ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST MEET OR EXCEED ALL LOCAL CODES AND UBC REQUIREMENTS X 3) Changes to Approved Plans -- Changes to approved building plans that effect compliance to the the Uniform Building Code and/or Mason County Regulations must be approved by Mason County prior to constructionX 4) Sideyard Setback -- Proposed structure or any portion thereof greater than 301, in height from grade line, must maintain a minimum of 5' setback from all property lines and easement lines and 10' from all County and State Road right of ways. X Page No. 1 CASE HISTORY FOR CASE NO.: MIS99-0520 SCOTT REEVES NE630 LARSON BLVD BELFAIR 08/26/99 Action Description Req/ Schd/ End/ Action Notes Disp By Update Upd Code Sent Done Done Date By ------- ------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------------------------------------- ---- --- -------- --- MISA010 Application received 08/20/99 / / 08/23/99 DONE KW O8/23/99 KW MISA011 WARNING!! SEE PARCEL FLAG / / / / / / 08/23/99 KW MISA110 HOLD / / 08/25/99 / / On hold for Variances to be recorded HOLD MMS 08/25/99 MMS MISB007 Plans Revisions Submitted / / / / 08/26/99 Anita Reeves came in with engineered TLG O8/26/99 TLG plans. Rich came down and accepted plans but will have to run some calcs and call Rolla for further info MISB110 Building Plan Review 08/23/99 / / / / PEND DH 08/26/99 TLG MISB127 Planning Pre-Review 08/25/99 / / / / HOLD MMS 08/25/99 MMS MISB128 Addressing 08/23/99 / / 08/25/99 DONE GMM 08/25/99 GMM MISB130 Planning Review 08/25/99 / / / / AHB 08/25/99 MMS MISB135 RLC Checklist Review / / / / / / 08/23/99 KW r M�5 20 PER^UT NO. ' MASON COUNTY 7' BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 3 426 W.Cedar/P.O.Box 186,Shelton,WA 98584 Shelton 360 427-9670 Belfair 360 275-4467 Elma 360 482-5269 Seattle 206 464-6968 APPLICANT INFORMkTION CONTRACTOR INFORMATION Owner S10;7 - �rSS Contractor Name Mailing Address (C,a Nf <'�OjAY2 iA Mailing Address City 8& State wA Zip Code !3$SZ City St e Zip Code Phone( Sop 27S-S",L/IS—Other Ph-L Ph.( ) ther Ph.( ) Lien/Title Holder Seo7T &jae4,>S Contractor Reg. #te r Address 60 o Expiration SEPTIC/WATER SYSTEM INFORMATIO ne t to New Septic____�- E;rsting Septic Connect to Sewer System Name of Sewer SysWfn Well Water System Name of Water System PARCEL INFORMATION-12 digit Tax Parcel No. /7 31J Fire Dist ict Legal Description ,> �f Site Address(Please include street name, street number and city) ..__ Directions to site IL g 3--fi 303 —1-0 r'�.,r.�}fi IJ �IZ,sh� ) On&? l-r s�.. -�, 4 9 14.,11. Will timber be cut and sold in parcel preparation? (Yes/No) Is your property within 200' of the following: Body of Water (Name) t 1-IR Saltwater Lake River/Creek Pond Wetland Seasonal Runoff Stream Slopes or Bluffs TYPE OF JOB New Add Alt Repair Other Use of Building Describe Work (3L T�nz-�, ,�, � ,&LL No. of Bedrooms No. of Bathrooms SQUARE FOOTAGE-1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor Loft Basement Deck Other sq. ft. Garage Attached Detached Carport Attached Detached MOBILE HOME INFORMATION-Make Model Model Year Length Width Serial No. No. of Bedrooms No. of Bathrooms Type of Heat Purchase Price $ Replacement Unit ?(Yes/No) Installer Name Certification No. NOTICE: THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL&VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS OR IF CONSTRUCTION WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER THE WORK IS COMMENCED. PROOF OF CONTINUATION OF WORK IS BY MEANS OF A PROGRESS INSPECTION. The owner or agent on owner's behalf,represents that the information provided is accurate and grants employees of Mason County access to the above described property and structures for review and inspection of this project. Acknowledgment of such is by signature below: OWNER AFFIDAVIT-1 certify that I am exempt from the requirements of the CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT-1 certify that I am currently registered as a Contractor Registration Law RCW 18.27 and am aware of the ordinance contractor in the State of Washington and that I am aware of the ordinance requirements for which this permit is issued and that all work will be done in requirements regulating the work for which this permit is issued and all work conformance erewith. o changes shall be made without first obtaining shall be done in conformance therewith. No changes shall be made without approval. first obtaining approval. X Date X Date FOR OFFJCIAL USE BEYOND THIS POINT Accepted by/ ljl'yj't Date Submittal Amount Due 4 Receipt No. DEPARTMENTAI»r' EVLEW APPROVED DEN{ 0 CONDITION CODES Building Department Occ Group Type Constr. of) I>, ,,o ff Planning Department Environmental Health Department Public Works Department I Fire Marshal Valuation FEES Building Permit Fee Site Inspection Plan Review Fee UFC Plan Review Fee Plumbing & Base Fee Public Works Review Fee Mechanical & Base Fee Other Wood/Gas/Pellet Stove Fee Other Violation Fee Pre-Paid at Submittal ( ) :::,.......>..:.r.•....;<:.:: .;;..:.;.:.. ,...,..:::•::•:::::..........:.........:...::::::::. TOTAL FEES :;:•:v�y,:{:jj;:G:;iY;}y{?:$i'i::i::i:L:;::i::•iii::{{•:;:•iY.:is4:?:i::i::Y:i::>:k:;:;;2::?: ::'>{i:;