20060628134441.pdfED
0
DATE: June 28, 2006
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
TO: Bruce Goodnight
Goodnight Brothers Construction
FAX: 206-517-4961
FROM: Ann Bullis, Assistant Building Official
RE: Plan Check: 06-096
Project: Two Apartment Buildings — 5 Units and 6 Units
Project Address: 7427 & 7429 210' Street SW;
During re -review of the above noted project, it was found that the following information,
corrections, or clarifications are needed. Please respond in writing to each of the comments below,
including where the changes can be found on the plans. Please resubmit 3 sets of revised plans to
Marie Harrison, Permit Coordinator,
Comments apply to both buildings as well as the overall site plans. Coordinate site plan changes
with civil and landscape plans.
1) Ok. I have spoken with the Fire Marshal on the garage sprinkler issue and an NFPA-13R
can be used at the garages since they are private garages. I have redlined this on the plans.
2) Ok
3) Ok
4) Ok
5) Ok
6) Ok. The entire deck (full length ofjoists must be ]-hour rated). I have redlined this for
clarification on theplans.
7) Ok
8) Ok. Theframingplans still showed openings in thefire rated walls but is shown correctly on
thefloorplans. This has been redlined on theplansfor clarification.
9) Ok
10) Ok. Detail P19 has been redlined to clarify that the eave must be 1-hour rated.
11) Ok
12) Ok
13) Ok
14) Ok — deferred submittal has been redlined on the coversheet.
15) Ok Redlines have been made to clarify this and other cross references tofire rated
assemblies.
16) Ok
17) Ok
18) Ok
19) Ok.
20) Ok.
21) Ok The clear width of stairway has been redlinedfor clarification.
22) Ok
23) Ok — mechanical deferred submittal.
24) Ok Detail has been clarified and cross referenced
25) Ok
26) Structural engineer to provide a Quality Assurance plan in accordance with IBC 1705.2. Still
need
27) General contractor must provide written acknowledgement of contractor responsibility in
accordance with IBC 1705.3 and reference the Quality Assurance plan. Still need
28) Ok
29) Ok
30) Ok
31) Ok — Theplumbingpermit will be included with the main permit sinceplumbing will he
contained within each individual dwelling unit.
See attached structural comments from the City's consultant.
Page 2 of 2
Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S.
PO Box 523
01alla, WA 98359
hoAeter@centurytel.net
2538574151
Fax 253 857 5759
To: Marie Harrison'
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Goodnight Building A and Building B
7427 & 7429 21 Oth Street SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Plan Review # 06-096 EECE EDM 06-13 (2)
Second Comment Letter
Buildina A (6 Unit)
Structure
Stated Area
S.F.
Basement
774
Main floor
3,197
Second floor
3,514
Total
7,485
Garage
2,757
Total
10,242
Deck
501
Sprinkled
10,743
Grand total
10,743
Building B (5 Unit)
Structure
Stated Area
S.F.
Basement
645
Main floor
2665
Second floor
2929
Total
6239
Garage
2300
Total
8539
Deck
418
Sp
8957 1
Grand total
8957
RECE"IED
J U N 12 2006
BUILDING DEPT.
The above referenced project is in the process of plan review for compliance with
Edmonds ordinances and applicable codes. The following comments,
Page 2 of 4
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.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
Tke scope of this review isfor the structural only 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.
Original comments will be written in italic if unable to confirm the items have been
addressed/conected on the drawings.
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
General
1. 3. The design analysis used states ha6(the base shear will go into the moment
firames and the other half resisted by the wood shear wall. Submit an analysis that
the wood shear wall will resist thisforce. The design analysis used an R factor of
6.5 not 3.5for ordinary steel momentframe. The code requires to use the least
value ofR in the design. If using R of3.5 then ha4rgoes to each side and this is
acceptable but not R of 6 5for the wood shear wall and R qf3.5for the moment
frame. The code requires you to use the least R value at that level JBC 1614-62.2,
The response states the other half goes into the concrete wall. This is fine with
flexible diaphragm but the R value for concrete bearing wall is 4.5 and the R value
for moment frame is 3.5. The R value used in the design of 6.5 is not correct for
this structure. The reason for the different R value in the code is based off testing
and different stiffness of vertical resisting elements. The stiffer elements will take
more of the lateral force then a less stiff element. Resubmit analysis with the
appropriate seismic R value at the appropriate level.
2. 5. This structure does notfall under the exceptionfor not having a quality
assurance plan, Please add a quality assurance plan stamped and sign by the
license design proftssional. IBC 1705 The response states not required for this
structure but per code it is. This building does not fall under the exceptions and a
quality assurance is required to be added to the documents. This is required to be
stamped by a licensed professional in the state of Washington. IBC 1705
Sheet 7 FRAMING PLANS:
Page 3 of 4
3. 13. Detail N Provide an analysisfor the attachment ofthe guard to the rim board
to resist the 200 pound requiredforce applied in any direction. Also specify the
required gage of the bolts on the drawings. IBC 1607.7. 1 Response states
calculations have been provided but I was unable to find this in the submitted
package. Please clarify where this information is located on the response. Also
what is the spacing of the vertical post? This typically would be determined form
the analysis and added to the drawings. Please supply this information and modify
accordingly
4. 14. Detail J- Provide an analysisfor this detail as shown. Response states this to be
a deferred submittal. The city will have to verify this as an acceptable response.
113C 1604.4
5. 15. Engineer oJ'Record (EOR), please provide positive connections oJ,the
cantileverjoist and PSL to the wideflange beam. Details only show the
attachment of the blocking. IBC 106 The drawings still have not been modified to
show a positive connection to the members in order to transfer the code required
forces. Please add this information to the drawing.
6. 17. Detail N7 and Detail K7. Please specify the required connection ofthe joist to
the top plate. A positive connection is required at this location. IBC 106 1. 1 Detail
K7 still does not specify the required connection. Please add this to the drawings
and resubmit.
7. 18. Provide an analysis and detailfor the doublejoist supporting the (3) stringers.
IBC 1604.4 1 was unable to find where this analysis was submitted in the response.
Please clarify on the response where this analysis is done,
8. 19. Provide a detailfor the required connection ofthe glu-lam beam to the post.
Nothing is specified at this time. IBC 106 LI I was unable to find where this was
called out on the drawings. The response states it to be done but it is not clear what
the required connections are at these locations.
Sheet 8 FRAMING PLANS:
9- 22. Detail K.- The diameter of 'the WHS is required to be specified Thisisrequired
to transfer the diaphragm shear and also this braces the compressionflanged of
the wideflange. Please add this information to the drawings. IBC 106 The
response states to use JB2210 hanger for the wide Range beam connection. Touse
JB connector per Simpson catalog 16d must be used. This will not work for this
connection. Please modify accordin ly.
9
Sheet S I DETAILS:
Page 4 of 4
10. 29. Detail 2:Submit an analysis tojustify this connection convidering omega times
the seismicforce. IBC 1605.4 The frame is required to be a moment frame in order
to transfer the lateral loads. The connection must be checked per AISC 341 per
IBC 2205.2.2. This has modified each code cycle since the Northridge earthquake.
The connection was required to analysis to resist 3Rw/8 then it was modified to
omega time the force. The connection is required to have an analysis submitted.
Please submit this analysis.
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,
elp
clarifications or additional corrections may be required subsequent to the Building
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