Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Correspondence 2006-1-3 -' ..~ .,\ , '. Ja./1. 1 :2006", 5:35PM 'M_-:r ~ itaiJA &.1 ;=/C,~ ,N 0,_ 0.07 O~,,_P '_' ..2...- , COHlllIlIllity ~l'.I'\'i(", 1):1, Buildin~: Sil{el~' ('1'['/ c')F SPI)l~i("c;r;:1 f\ (')I)L.'GON< -' .-J. ". I ",..i"\ Jl t........ -,L~-; . J'\.L. J :2:25 5,11 Sln'l~(. Sl'l'intiidd, ()f~ (J7-1Ti PII. 726'75(J Mountaingate Subd. Lot # 5~ . '-.' \ '.' ",'. .... "" .'....).. ".....1.,."., .~"/~~:.-:~,: ::~, '.~ .:. ::~ .;. 'j':, 'i..~ :';"~':l'~;'~ j~'f1\J~{~;:::.~1ti'~~~';~:;~d~'~~ ~.:;'/=~f~~~~~!~.~:~:.~: ~";~:~{~::~i~'f ..~j~:~~? .~::l~~:~;~~~l" . , ti2~Q~:",~,:\'i~,l;;:- 1f; ullL () (P Mountaingate S.ubdivision as Phases I & II Site Investigation Questionnaire foD:" Consulting Design Professionals SITE ADDRESS_G.o5 '? j2~'iJi;f~; .'1_4<11fi' ~: CITYJOB #. G; rY7 2elOS-=.o/~R/ Foundation reauirenlents - new structures on residential lots . ", -" ".,.............. --- -- _ n._ This form may be used as a verification to allow construction to continue on the job .. , siteuntH the stamped 'AFFIDA Y~T For Site Investigation Questionnaire' is submitted to the City. This form must be completed by a licensed design ,professional (engineer or architect) Or his/her authorized representative, and submittedto the building inspector prior to requesting City inspections or placing foundation concrete. It is important that all questions be answered completely for the foundation site to be approved for construction. Owner and/or Contractor Ap../>L..'rY~ f ~&C=-..v'(,.:'~;r, rt-'C. A., Datc(s) of the design professional's site evaluation? Il.--/'?Z.- L ~ /~Q r ( . B. Has the design professional reviewed a copy' of the geotechnical information that was prepared for the subdivision relating to this site? Yes-:tNo_ If not, please contact this office for a copy of the report. The design prc1essional, must be familiar with the geotechnical information before completing this form. C. In which Geotechnical Investigation area is this site located? (Level I sites are lots # 3~20, 4349 & 49-71) Level I ~ (Level II sites are lots #1-2,21-42 & 50-54) Level n ~ Note: Level II reQuires a site-sDecific geotechnical investigatiop:_&.}'~p'ort Were site conditions identified that would cha~ge the category? YES _ NO~ (For cnteIiil dekrmining t:atcgory, see theaccQmpanying dot:ument titled: Geotechnical Requiremenl..~ fo\: Individual Building Lot<; MOllnbtingate Subdivision - Phases 1 & 2) If "yes", explain (use the rever!le side of this sheet or an added sheet if necessary) '. 10f5 , , J a.n, 3: 2006 5:36PM · ,"~\.II!lldUIHl)" ',,''1,.1 ytres [) uild;:lg Sa.f~l):' CITY OF SPRINCf l1::LD; OREClUN 225 yl' srre-ct,Springfleld, OR 97477 Ph,726-3i59 No,0070 P, 3 MountaingaLl~: Subd. Lot # '.5 p Was a geotechnical engineer involved at the siteto verify that conditions are suitable for construction of the propospd building(s)? Yes ~ No -.: Name of geotechnical engineer, "t ,1 A f',;.IG-/~/z..IAJ(,......t:lJa. , , I I, D. What was the nature of the excavation arid lor fill? ~ ~A./I') K.Wn. tJ~ 1'4/) /4.-7 u.~ _ (SOIA TH-) (z-- tl~ L..~r. ~-r /{/J.-"""'.--f~ ,:t;:!.f',~1.-____ '2 I -h. r ( ILl 1#/6-f-l-r-_ .s;;,f..-S @ w~ ~(()P' ( ~",.1'f':f/L- 0't.-f')L 1:3~J'~L-T b':JjJ}-o c.-k - .:0-1 L (' AT rA-s"''I .f7/lF I' ""-o.x?c:l I L- ~vG/Z- 7.4N/I~n,./N ' Or?~r(!crf(!"J) ~/L-i~ ..vE-' 'lV lA..jJ(] /.j...::f[( tV' (/.4P c..-,1A...f::'It.rP:; WI"'~ C,(L,~. Wa~ existing non-structural fill or expansive soil encountered on tile 16t? r-/~. Yes No)( If "yes", what types, depths and locations, and how does it affect the huilding foundation? What measures were{ taken to remedy the soil condition (include type of engineered fill used to stabiliJ.:e Lhe soil)? A.pI f~ !1-<J X'~N,,_.<!!..:'-.2:f2_/ 2- I, c.{L-CA.ttf~ ('> . ~/l~C-/~ '. t+-j(l-f' /:1~C=71..._"ctzV S'<-1: ~ ~4-I?~- ~1~6-~/E~_ /1.-{ IL PC) i'/t'!5' 0 J',../ '- t,..L~_"_"_._",,,__._.. . , Is the site as prepared adequate E1 ,inadequate 0 10 maintain constant moisture content in the sub grade? Note: Verification of moisture stuhilizution in the sub grade is p requirement/in' site preparation, and must be afll.rrned before construction can continue, If inadequate, what meaSLlres are to be taken to provide constant moisti.Lre content in tile sub grade? Is the site, as prepared, adequate lZl inadequate 0 to sUPPOli the proposed structure? An affirmative anSl'ver is requisite to proceeding with construction If inadequate, what additional work is needed to pl'ovide adequate foundation support? Eo - Did the design professional witness placement and compaction of the engineered fill, or is there a special inspection report forthcoming fl'om a aualified agency? 1 witnessed Placement I:Rl Svecial lnsn/comnactinn N':nor! RIl " U'YVf? 4-C-';-r Qr..; ;IF-r( I r (:U"i...- 'T"5Z 4-re (r 4i1f1i.-c (-tij-l;i. 20f5 J an, 3. J~~'~JLl"~; ~,~.p,~C(;S (Y Ii [ding SLCtdy CITY OF SPRI\1CrFleLD. OREGON 225 5t:' Stre-cl, Springfield, OH.n477 Ph,726-3759 No. 0070 P. 4 Mountaingate Subd. Lot # ':3 ~ F. The design professional intends to use the following method for installation of perforated perimeter footing drains:, , The desi'gn on the attached drawing provided by the design professional. . . . 0 The method shown on the original construction dravvings... .. ,".""... 0 The typical 'FOWldation Drain' drawing attached to permit,. ................. B1 Perforated perimeter drains are not required..........".".................. 0 Comments: Note: City inspeclors will in'<'pect installed drains prior to cover upon requ'est '"' Call: 726-3769 to schedule in,\pection. G. Low-point crawl space drains are required to prevent the build-up of excess moistm'e inside the foundations during (and after) construction. This drain may be installed after foundation placement orllv with the exnress oermission of the desi~!n nrofessional. a. The design professional has determined the following: The crawl space drain is required when the foundation is installed,~.., 0 The lmtl-point drain can be installed afierfoundaJion placement without a significant moisture build-up problem within the foundation... .......... 0 (The low~point drain may be installed at the _r~ !t:1'ar-' stage ofc:onstruction) , pOsl & beam,pammg, rOOJiFlg, elt:, h, 'Has the design professional observed and approved the installation ofrhe , required low point drai!]?.. .'. on......... .., n. ,..... ..... Yes" No if "yes", vJlhere is the low point drain located under the building and where does it terminate at lhistime? (Must be an approved location, i.e. street gutter, .I'lorm seWeI^, sump pump and discharge line to the street, ere.) __"__ , The design professional must determine whether the approved permit drawings, have adequate foundation steel. Is any additional found.ation steel required thatis not shown on the foundation dnlwings for the building? Yes No 1,.' If "yes ", describe additional steel required (or provide drawing), - -, " ------, 3of5 Jan, 3. 2006'1l 5,:36PMces[ slli.ldingSafery CITY OF SPRLNGJ- lELD, OREGON 225 51b SlrceL. Sprin,l;;field, OR 97477 Ph,726<1759 N.o, 0070 Mountaingate Subd. Lot # p, 5 f' The individual doing the observations and providing direction for the excavation and site, preparation work On the property must sign the fi)llowing statement. Tlte Uflden'igned design professional (or authorized employee) attests that he/she observed required moisture stability procedures Oil this site, and that such procedures were accomplished before any cl1angesoccurred in tlte moisture content of the sub- , grade under and around the building (where expansive soil!" were en co utltered). lite ulldersignedfurther attests that the sub-grade, (IS prepared, is adequate to support the building proposedfor this site. Additional comments: (Note): A copyofthis ..eport shall be kept on site with the approved plans at all tim es. This report shall be followed by an affidavitj ~igned and starnped by the design professional under whose auspices this report was completed, affirming the information herein. The signed/stamped affidavit together with a copy of this report shall be sllbl1ljtted to this office prior to requesting framing inspection for the building.. Sjgllature~,~ _ Name,tz/r_'7...-L ,~/J4~X_J2T Tit1e~~/~ Company Ie- A- ~ c:;- /YFF'(l.../J-lG-- 1:PJc:.. Phone 681--..~~ . Lkcnsee 14.( c~ ~~0J:J,r 'j?p- L1cense#.--!1 +7+ lexPires_..~'2/?;/ob i The geotechnical repOli for the Mountaingate Subdivision Phases I & II makes recommendations for placement of building constmction on each site. The report also recommends that site preparation during wet weather conditions be avoided unless special measures are taken to mitigate soft soil conditions and moisture collecting in or around the foundation areas during and after the constnlCtion process. Positive site drainage must be provided. 40f5 Ja,l1, 3. 2006 5:37PM No, 0070, p, 6 Clll111lhll1lly Sl!f\'I\:l'S Diy, Building S;;k\y CITY or SPRINGFTELf} OREGON , ~.25 5"1 S!i'l'L'I, Srrin:!fi"i(!, oR 'Y7-177 Ph, T26~7:)') Mountaingate Subd. Lot # '7 G I., I h I 11"1 [.:'.. ;;;C';,::' . .:.:~:.... ~.: ~:;;!::,:~:'!;>.;'.;' ::,' ,', _c::'"'"':"";:f;i}'Jtl;it:- Site Address ~t1 ,"3 //3(/~AILt !..;1J. AFFIDAVIT For Site Investigation Questionnaire Foundation Sub-Grade Approval for Residential Building Site in Mountaingate Subdivision Phases 1 &2 The undersigned hereby affimls that the excavation, structural fill aod moisture stabilization methods for the building site at the address shown above were observed by me or an authorized employee of my finn and that the following is tlUe: L The geotechnical infoffi1ation for the subdivision, specific to this site, was utilized as part of the detem1ination for foundation preparation and drainage requirements. 2. The foundation sub-grade is capable of supporting a minimum of 1500 psf, and is adequate to support the building proposed for this site. 3. The moisture content of the excavation was adequately maintained during the site preparation process and the site i~ adequately graded and drained for discharge to an approved location in order to maintain stable moisture content throughout the construction process and thereafter. 4. The accompanying report titled "Site Investigation Questionnaire for Consulting Design Professionals" containing field observations and instructions made on (date) for this building site was completed either by me or by ~m authorized representative under my supervision. To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in that repOlt is complete and accurate. Name of Licensed Professional (print) Jan, 3, 2006 5:37PM No.0070 p, 7 engineering K & A Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 23624, Eugene, OR 97402 521 Market St., SuIte B, Eugene, OR 97402 " (541) 684-9399 Voice (541) 684-9358 FAX December 28, 2005 Ansfow & DeGeneault 1953 Garden Avenue . Eugene, OR 97403 Project: 174.05 Subject: Springfield building permit COM2005-01681 6053 Fernhil! Loop Lot 56 :.:. Mountaingate Subdivision Inspection of Foundation Fill . . At your request, we have inspected the in-place density of granular fills place on the subject foundation pad. The fill consists of approximately 4 to 1 O-inches of %.inch minus dense-graded crushed aggregate. According to our field-testing' we have determined that the average dry density equals or exceeds 95% of the maximum as determined by ASTM 0698. We recommend approval of the fouodation fill, as constructed, by the building official. Thank you forthe opportunity to be of service. Please call us if you have questions or need further assistance. Respectfully, ~RE~~. Michael Remboldt, P.E. Principle, K & A Engineering, Inc. 1 Soil or aggregate density according to ADTM D2922 and water content according to ASTM 03017 Ja.n, 3. 2006 5:37PM No, 0070 p, 8 Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregates In-Place ASTM D2922 and 03017 ProJect: 174,05 site Address: 6053 Fernhlll Loop Permit No: COM2005-01681 Date: 12/28/2005 Density Test Type 1: DT-6" & DT.8" Operator: CCD Material Type: 3/4" minus dense graded crushed aggregate - Springfield Quarry Maximum Dry Denstiy, pef 141.0 Standardization and Reference Cheek !l Density (Standard Deviations) (S.D.) 0.99 . !l Moisture, (S.D:) 0.23 Moist Dry Density, Density, Water Compaction, Test No. pef . pef Content, % % Remarks 1 150.5 143.1 5.2 101.5% 2 149.3 141.6 5.4 100.4% 3 147.31 140.1 5.2 99.4% 4 143.61 135.5 6.0 96,1% 5 .124.81 135.0 5.1 95.7%1 6 151.61 143.2 5.8 101.6% I I j I I I I Average: Std. Dev.: I I 99.1% 2,60% , Direct Transmission (OT) (specify depth, in.) or Air Gap Backscatter (AGB) (specifiy(T)ouchable or (U)ntouchable mode Test performed using Seaman Nuclear Corp model C.300, SN 21113 Client: Anslow De Geneau It Project: 174.05 K & A Engineering, Inc.