2.pdfReadwin, Jennifer
From: Readwin, Jennifer
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:�41 A
To: T snlovell@comcast.net'
Subject: Building Plan Review Cornmentq C(2nd Review) PC 5-571
20060216054613.p
df (131 KB)
Jenny Readwin
Plans Examiner
City of Edmonds
425-771-0220
1
OV ED
st. I
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: February 16, 2006 /_X/1.)
I —A
TO: Steve Lovell 01
Snlovell@comca8t.net
FROM: Jenny Readwin, Plans Exami*
RE: Plan Check # 05-571
Project: Addition
Project Address: 8312 Talbot Rd.
ok
0� - W
During re -review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information,
corrections, or clarifications are needed.
>o k
tj
_11 need. Response says new calcsprovided butI was unable to locate calculationsfor this
c nfiection. Provide calculations stamped and signed by the Engineer of record to justify
connection of floorjoist ledger to the foundation on detail A. This does not meet conventional
construction. Also clarify what bolts are to be used (i.e. J style bolts that will be hooked and tied
6 before the wall is poured or epoxy bolts). If they will be epoxy, special inspections are required.
3) till need. Response says letter provided but I could notfind on in ourfiles. Provide letter
�4
from Geotechnical Engineer of Record stating that he has reviewed the plans and that they are
&onsistent with his report recommendations.
4) till need. Response says see attached but a signed agreementform was not in theftle. Special
in
ir spections are required for the following. Complete the enclosed special inspection agreement
signed by the owner, the general contractor and the special inspector and submit to the City for
approval prior to issuance.
0 Soil cuts
• Foundation sub -grade verification
• Any retaining wall or rockery placement
• And fill placement
• Subsurface drainage installation
* Temporary and final erosion control measures
S) See attached structural comments from city consultant. Respond to each item in writing.
Please redline plans or submit two (2) sets of revised plans/documents (affected sheets only) with a
written response to each of the above items to a Permit Coordinator.
Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, PS
PO Box 523
01alla, WA 98359
hoytjeter@centurytel.net
253 857-4151
Fax 253 857-5759
To: JoAnne Zulauf
City of Edmonds
Edmonds Wa, 98020
Re: Lovell Residence
8312 Talbot Rd
Edmonds, WA 98020
Plan Review # 05-571
Second Comment letter
EECE # ED 05- 81 (2)
The above referenced project is in the process of plan review for compliance with
Edmonds ordinances and applicable codes. The following comments,
deficiencies/corrections must be addressed prior to completion of plans review and
subsequent issuance of permits.
Provide revised plans and calculations along with a written response to each of the items
listed below to facilitate a shorter back -check time. Any original comments (from the first
comment letter) are indicated in italics and their original numbering. New comments are
not italicized and are numbered with capital letters (A, B, C, etc.).
SCOPE OF REVIEW
The scope of this review is for the ordinance, structural, ventilation and indoor air
quality (VIAQQ, and energy requirements of this project.
All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittals provided. All
portions of this project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements,
conditions and concerns before permit approval.
2 of 4
ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS
Sheet 3 LOWER FLOOR:
5 e speci p
fy the door required into the crawl s ace. This is required to be
insulated. What is the size of this access? How is it insulated? Please add this
information to the drawings. R408.3
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
General
he shear wall schedule for the new drawings does not match the new analysis.
This needs to be modified and resubmitted.
"..R.�11�ase note that all the shear walls shall be Doug fir species. The capacity used in
the new analysis is for DF and not HF.
. I e design used Gypsum wall boardfor shear resistance. The Rfor Gypsum shear
all is 2 not 6.5. The walls have different stiffnesses and different materials therefore
the R value is not the same, Please modify design and drawing accordingly. This still
47 has not been address ed.
7 as unable tofind where the horizontal diaphragm nailing was specified. Please
add this to the drawings. Please clarify where the horizontal nailing is specified on the
drawings. On sheet 9 1 found the floor but was unable to determine from the drawings
N what the roof nailing requirements are. This needs to be clearly labeled on the
70Y drawings. Please clarify where this is located.
Sheet 4 MAIN FLOOR:
Sheet 6 MAIN FLOOR FRAMING:
--.C,.�e new design analysis has the shear wall call out exceeding the design capacity.
For example, SW3's capacity is only 490 PLF but the analysis shows forces
exceeded this limit. Not all shear walls were checked so please go through the
drawings and analysis and re-venify the call outs. This will be checked on the -
recheck. Engineer of Record (EOR), please modify the drawings accordingly.
Note, there are other locations in the analysis where the shear value is exceeded.
Please provide calculationsfor the existing header that is supporting the triple
."�- - �-- l!
joist. IBC 1604.4. The new analysis appears not to include the point load from the (3)-�
beams. Resubmit an analysis to account for the point load.
3 of4
,--2:r-Vease specify the required columns under the beams and girder and also the
required connection. IBC 2304.9.7 It appears the support of the beams are now labeled
but not the support of the girder truss. Typical joist manufacturers do not specify this
but leave that up to the EOR. Please add this infonnation to the drawings.
Sheet 7 UPPER FLOOR FRAMING:
ease specify the column size required for the beams. The lower floor does not
specify these. For example, the column to support the beam C. Also, a positive
connection is required to be shown or specified at these locations. There are other
locations so please check them. IBC 2304.9.7
E. What is the connection required beam mark D to the triple rafter? Nothing is
specified at this time. Please add this information to the drawings.
A
Sheet 9 BUILDING SECTIONS: .77
air Section: The detail states a LSSU 210. R%at is the post size it is attaching
'I— �-""
to? This is required to be specified. Please add this to the set, IBC 1061.1 The
connection to the post at the top is specified but not the base of the wood post. This is
required to be added to the drawings. Please add this.
_-,�Please provide calculation for the column in the garage. Theheightis-14' * NDS
3.7 Response has state the size has been up sized to 6X8 DF#2. An analysis is
required for this post. Please submit an analysis for this post.
ENERGY COMMENTS
Prescriptive method used:
No comment at this time.
V&IAQC COMMENTS
General:
OK
Additional corrections may be required following receipt of corrections and
additional information as requested.
Your plans are being reviewed concurrently with the Building Department, Fire
Department, Zoning Department and Public Works Engineering. Changes,
clarifications or additional corrections may be required subsequent to the Building
4 of 4
Department plan review when comments are received from the other concerned
departments.
Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please contact Hoyt Jeter at
(253) 857-4151 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
By:
Hoyt Jeter, P.E.
President