Information based on query as of Sunday, July 7, 2024.
Permit Information
Permit NumberBLD97-02131
StatusExpired
Name THORNTON SCOTT J & DENICE B
Site Address 2919 W CANAL ST
Project NameTHORNTON APARTMENTS
Customer Number 
ePlanReviewNo
Description
To construct a new 4379sf two story 4plex apartment building on property per approved plans and attachments. (First Floor=2097)(Second Floor=2282). CU-4-97. PLAN CHECK #474-97. ACHD#98-0073. PRP
Contact Information
See Activities list for contact information
Show All Activities
DescriptionReceivedRequestedCompletedAM/PMDispositionAssigned To 
INSP-Final Inspection6/25/19986/25/19986/25/1998APART
DetailsRick Jackson
fire lanes needed - temp c/o approved
INSP - Final6/24/19986/24/19986/25/1998PPART
DetailsJim Storey
06/24/98 301 - temp w/c/n
INSP - Final6/17/19986/18/19986/19/1998PPART
DetailsRuss Owen
06/18/98 407 - Final - courtesy inspection - Denice - call 1st ###-####
INSP-Final Inspection6/17/19986/18/19986/18/1998AFAIL
DetailsRick Jackson
Denice - ###-#### fire lane and bad smoke detector in unit #4
INSP - Final6/10/19986/10/19986/10/1998 PEND
RETAINING WALL EVALUATION by Jim Rogers Developer has cut into the toe of an existing slope and constructed a wall composed of manufactured blocks. I don't know if the intent was to build an actual retaining wall or if this is to function as a decorative wall. Although the wall is about 4 - 5 feet in vertical height; because of the slope above the property and what appears to be other utilities (sewer line??) buried in the slope, it should be designed as a retaining wall. Because the back of the homes are very close to the wall, around 10 feet or so, failure of the wall and slope could cause extensive damage. Suggestions are: 1. An engineering analysis of the slope from the toe of the wall to the top of the canal above the property should be made to determine slope stability. This would include a Unified Soil Classification of the soil, moisture content and other soil engineering properties. 2. If the analysis indicates a Factor of Safety (FOS) less than 1.5, an engineered retaining wall will probably be necessary. I do no believe the existing wall is sufficient to support the slope for the following reasons. A. The foundation of the wall is constructed of material that appears to be road base and although it may supply adequate support for the vertical load of the wall, it supplies no lateral support in which to resist the driving forces of the slope above the wall. In addition, as ground saturation below and above the wall occurs because of landscape irrigation, vertical settlement and distoration of the wall will take place. B. It looks as if frictional forces are the only thing which ties the wall into the gravel foundation, which is above the grass line. If the gravel erodes from under the wall, settlement and failure of the wall may occur. It appears some erosion of the gravel is already occuring. The above is based on a visual examination of the wall. I would have a few questions concerning how the wall was constucted. 1. Is each lift of blocks tied into the back fill with a geo-grid? If so, how far back into the fill does the grid extend? 2. What was the compacted density of the soil behind the wall? 3. What was the compacted density of the gravel foundation which supports the wall, how thick is it, is the bottom layer of the retaining wall blocks tied into the gravel foundation, and if so, what was used? Is the gravel foundation supported and seperated from the sub-grade on a geotextile? Was the sub-grade compacted and to what density? 4. Was an analysis of the wall made to determine if it supplied sufficient resisting forces greater than the slope driving force? Last - The geotextile under the gravel mulch above the wall only provides a slip plane for the mulch to move down slope on. This is already occuring. The gravel mulch will be a constant maintance problem to the owners.
INSP - Final6/3/19986/4/19986/4/1998PFAIL
DetailsJim Storey
06/04/98 301 - Denise ###-#### C/N SAME AS BLD972160
INSP - Framing/Rough-in2/23/19982/23/19982/23/1998 PASS
DetailsJim Storey
/ / 301 - FRAM-OK FRAMING
INSP - Energy code compliance2/20/19982/20/19982/23/1998PPASS
DetailsJim Storey
02/20/98 301 - thornton ###-#### INSL-OK INSULATION-ENERGY CODE
INSP - Final2/20/19982/20/19982/23/1998PNH
DetailsJim Storey
02/20/98 301 - wrong insp requisted framing is what should have been req insp. c/n are complet and framing is approved.
INSP - Framing/Rough-in2/18/19982/19/19982/19/1998APASS
DetailsJim Storey
02/19/98 301 - 02/18/98 301 - AL ###-####
INSP - Footings12/30/199712/30/199712/31/1997PPASS
DetailsJim Storey
12/30/97 301 - READY AT 4:00 FDN -OK FOUNDATION ì
INSP - Footings12/23/199712/23/199712/23/1997PPASS
DetailsJim Storey
12/23/97 301 - FDN -OK FOUNDATION