09-0043 #2 White addition.pdf
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: 1/15/10
TO: Henry Byam
Lloyd J. White
P.O. Box 5003
Lynnwood, WA 98046
RE: Plan Check: BLD20090043
Project: Addition/Remodel
Project Address: 17808 Talbot Road
During review of the re-submitted plans for the above noted project, it was found that the following
information, clarifications or changes are needed. Please provide written responses as to where the
changes can be found on the plans, and submit revised plans/documents to a Permit Coordinator.
The second number in parenthesis, following the item number listed, refers to the original plan
review comments dated 2/5/09.
1.(2) The geotechnical engineer of record is required to approve the structural engineering for
compliance with the geotechnical report. A letter from the geotech with signature and stamp
stating that the plans and structural engineering is in compliance with the geotechnical
documents. It appears that the geo requirements for a minimum 12 free draining rock under the
SOG with a 10 mil vapor barrier and the two foot embedment of footings into undisturbed soil
may be missing.
2.(3) Complete the attached special inspection agreements; one for the geotech and one for the
firm doing the epoxy embed inspections.
3.(4) Detail A/S2 is not to scale and does not have dimensions, so it appears not to jive with the
section D/02S1 with the ceiling height of the garage of 101 (rough). The concrete stem wall,
garage door header, and top and bottom plates (if applicable) and mudsill all need to be taken
into account. The SW may actually need to be a SW24-9 or 8 in order to accommodate the
correct heights. Provide a scaled detail that is accurate and shows the load transfer of the garage
headers to the foundation, as well as the required attachments of the SW strong wall to the
foundation and to the header or top plates.
4. (6) The engineering calculation pages L16 and L17 that were resubmitted on 1/11/10 were
revised on 2/13/09, prior to the plan revisions stamped and signed by the EOR on 1/6/10. The
plans have been substantially revised, so the engineering calculations, plans and details need to
match. Include beam calculations for the 4x12 garage overhead door headers. Address potential
surcharge to existing foundation.
5.(9) Hinge point still of concern. The calculations provided on page L7b are for 22 PLF for
uplift. Overturning is from the inside is the potential problem. Guard requirements are for 200
pounds at any point along the top of the rail, and 50 PSF at the infill areas. If the A34 clips at
24 o.c. are installed to the bottom plate as in detail D/02S2 and there is a 200 lb load applied at
the top pushing out, then the bottom plate will stay in place, and the stud nailing will be the
main resisting force. With a 3-36 moment arm it does not appear to be able to resist the
forces. In other words, wont it want to tip over if a big fellow has too much to drink, trips, and
slams into the wall? Isnt the guard requirement more restrictive than wind or seismic in this
case?
6.(10) Revised detail does not show required flashing to protect the insulation. It also shows 8 of
concrete on the exterior of the slab, which appears to be just a hatching typo.
7.(13) Page 45 has joist and beams calculations, but the column and footing loads are not
addressed. Show footing requirements on foundation plan and post and beam connections.
Provide lateral requirements, if any, and calculations.
8.(18) Not all windows that are required to be safety glazed are yet identified, for example the
window adjacent to the man door in the garage (less than 24 away).
9.(20) Roof drains will require overflow scuppers at each location. The roof slopes one way ¼ to
the edge or the building, but no slope is shown to the drains. The crickets need to be identified
on the roof plan with both slope and method of construction. If it is to be built into the truss
system, provide a set of the engineered truss drawings. If it is be an overframing include a
framing plan for that portion as well as identify the method of ventilation. If it is to be built up
ridged insulation (similar to commercial jobs) identify this on the plans with a note.
10.(23) Because there is not a minimum average of 12 above the attic insulation, indicate a ceiling
vapor retarder per WSEC.
Pat Lawler
patrick.lawler@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Plans Examiner
425 771 0220 x1703
Page 2 of 2