20060629134419.pdfI J
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425)7 71-0220
DATE: December 29, 2005
TO: Tony Shapiro
FAX: 425-778-3032
FROM: Ann Bullis, Assistant Building Official
RE: . Plan Check #: 05-423
Project: Remax Office Building
Project Address: 21920 76aAve W
Below are combined comments from the City's plan review consultant and myself Please provide
written responses to each comment as to how it has been addressed (suppo A with code sections
where applicable), a -ad where changes can be found on the plans. Please submit revised
plans/documents to Theresa Umbaugh, Permit Coordinator.
The picnic table shown on Sheet Al. 1 must still be accessible. Please clarify the plan and
provide detail to show that the table will accommodate wheelchair seating for clear floor space,
table height, knee and toe clearance, etc. per ICC/ANS1 Al 17.1 section 902. 1. The table shown
on the plan appears to have fixed seats. Please also coordinate with the landscape plan. 113C
1103.1, 1108.2.9. (previous item 4d)
Revise detail 13/Al.2 to show that the maximum slope of the accessible parking stalls and
access aisle cannot exceed 1:48 slope (2%). Revise civil and site plans accordingly to meet this
requirement.
Revise the maximum height of the retaining wall on detail 7/Al.2 to match the actual height of
4'-6" shown on the site plan based on top and bottom wall elevations now shown.
Coordinate detail call out for retaining wall at Grid line 3.7 Sheet Al. 1 to 7/Al.2 (plan shows
17/A1.2). This also occurs on the north retaining wall. (previous item 3)
Coordinate detail call out for direct burial base at Grid line 3 Sheet Al. 1 to 17/Al.2 (plan shows
7/Al.2). (previous item 3)
Please revise door schedule as follows to coordinate door ratings: (previous item 11)
a) Doors 104B and 104C are unrated exterior doors (schedule shows them as 60 minute rated,
I but glazing % shown on door type would not permit, nor are they required to be rated).
b) Door 109B is an unrated exterior door.
c) Door 202 is not required to be rated since you are now using IBC 1019.1 exception 9 for the
north stair enclosure.
d) Door 109C must be 60 minute rated to match other doors in this south stair enclosure
(schedule shows as 20 minute rated).
1 -hour wall assembly E/A7.1 does not match the listed and tested assembly requirements of UL-
U465. UL assemblies are proprietary, therefore the materials used must match the specific
manufacturer's products noted in the listed assembly. The wall assembly must extend to the
underside of the roof decking (IBC 706.4).where it is used as a fire barrier (occupancy
separation between B and S2). Please revise and list all requirements of the assembly so it is
constructed properly in the field. Also, please note, detail F/A7.1 is not required to be rated
since this is.a Type VB building and not close to a property line -- this is also true for the first
floor south and east walls. (previous item 9)
I -hour elevator and mechanical shaft wall assembly D/A7.1 references GA-WP 1240, however
the detail does not match the listed assembly and is incomplete. For example the required
gypsum veneer plaster is not noted on each side of the wall; the required fastener type, size and
spacing is not noted; and joints must be staggered. (previous item 9)
Provide a detail (or copy of assembly from directory) of the 1 -hour rated floor -ceiling assembly
UL D502 on the plans and cross reference to 7/A4.1
JKClearly show on 17/A4.1 where the 1-hour occupancy separation (B to S2 vertical and
horizontal) starts and stops so there is no confusion during construction/inspection.
XfThe glazing in the I -hour fire barrier next to door 104A must be a I -hour listed and tested
./-)glazing as . sembly (with label - see IBC. 715.2) or must be removed.
ep- rovide all listed and tested assembly requirements on I -hour rated column detail 10/8.1 per UL
X528 so it is constructed/inspected properly in the field. In reviewing the requirements of the
assembly, it appears that design "B" would be required to achieve the minimum 1 -hour rating
,based on the 8x steel column sizes shown on the structural plans. Also, please clearly show that
the 1 -hour column protection extends through the I -hour floor -ceiling assembly to the beam
including the beam to column connection (see IIBC 714.2.2)
13 your response to previous Item 10, you state that WR Grace Flame Spray 3 000 will be used at
G�
the joint created between the top of the concrete wall and the fluted decking. I was unable to
find this product or UL joint system in the directory or on-line. Please submit a copy of the UL
listed and tested 1-hourjoint assembly and specs for the product for review. Please also clearly
show on all details where this will be used. (previous item 10)
1411n your response to previous Item 18 you did not include that the 1 -hour fire barrier wall must be
carried to the underside of the decking as well as the elevator and stair shafts (also see item 6
above). Please revise plans to clearly show.
stair run is still missing from the plans. Please provide. (previous item 22)
�<Since door hardware has not yet been chosen for this project, please list specific door hardware
as a deferred submittal so that exiting and accessibility can be verified. (previous item 26)
-(97) Still waiting for Special Inspection and Testing Agreements for both the geotechnical engineer
and structural special inspector. This must be submitted and approved prior to permit issuance.
(previous item 28).
18) rovide a symbol legend for Sheet A6.1 to show the required illuminated exit signs and
emergency light fixtures, and include method of power backup
Please show where 8/A7.1 applies on the plans and provide the specific requirements of the
listed and tested assembly so it is constructed/inspected properly in the field.
Please provide specific listed and tested fire stopping assemblies to be use, or add to deferred
submittals list on the coversheet. (IBC 712)
See attached structural comments from the City's Structural Consultant
Paue 2 of 2
:1
M E M 0 R A N D U M
Project: ReMax Office Bldg Resubmit
To: Theresa Umbaugh
COMPANY: City of Edmonds
FROM: Brian Moll
SUBJECT: Structural Review comments
COMMENTS:
PROJECT NO., 2005F
DATE: 15 December 2005
TOTAL PAGES: 11 04.
Counterresponse to response on original review comments:
Item No. 6: This comment is still applicable to the mat foundation under the concrete shear walls.
This would increase the required size of the foundations.as a result of the reduced dead load
.6D +.7E ...... note also the additional uplift component in E which includes -0.2 SDs D, which would
further reduce the dead load component assisting in sliding and overturning calculations.
Item No. 18: Provide General structural notes for the Light gage framing
Item No. 24: The type of lateral resisting system is irrelevant. Any compression member needs to
be positively braced in both principal directions. You have columns that are braced in one principal
direction and not the other. I have actually drawn in locations,on the submitted dwgs, where an out
of plane strut should be. Provide calculations and detailing for your existing system, or add
members to positively brace these columns in the direction which is presently unbraced.
New Comments:
a. Have you reviewed the seismic uplift component, as required by code, on the horizontal
cantilevers in your design?
b. There are extremely long cantilevers on this project, However; I see no bracing of the bottom
flange of the cantilevers. These flanges will be in compression for the entire length of the
cantilever, plus into the backspan. EOR review & brace bottom flange as required.
c. This building diaphragm cantilevers significantly from its stair core lateral resisting system. It
cantilevers around 29'to one side and 38'to the other side. In addition the diaphragm at the
spine at the 2 nd floor has numerous holes due to the stairs,the elevator, mech/elec chases.
What diaphragm calculation has been made to determine diaphragm shears, chord forces?
What is the diaphragm deflection at the end of the horizontal cantilevers? Does this impact the
columns which need to be designed to accommodate any P-delta effects resulting from the
diaphragm deflection. It would seem that the cantilevered diaphragm would add a type of whip
action component to the shear walls —which the code does not seem to address. Fortunately
this is only a 2 story building. EOR to review and respond.
d. I believe the worst case redundancy factor applies to the entire building , in both �directions, not
just one direction, please review
COPY:
WJA DESIGN COLLABORATIVE 1736 FOURTH AVE. —E� SUITE A SEATTLE, WA 98134 T 206.254.2570 F 206.254.2571
WJADC.00M
M E M 0 R A N D U M
Project: ReMax Office Bldg Resubmit
To: Theresa Umbaugh
COMPANY: City of Edmonds
FROM: Brian Moll
SUBJECT: Structural Review comments
COMMENTS:
PROJECT NO. : 2005F
DATE: 15 December 2005
TOTAL PAGES: *
New Comments cont':
e. Detail 16/A9.1 appears to be for wood construction- update for structural steel & light gage.
f. Provide notes for the repair of hot dip galvanized exposed struct steel damaged during
construction.
g. The submitted Sheet S5.4 is obviously missing some key details 2/S5.4, 3/S5.4, 4/s5.4. I also
believe you are going to need more than 2 details to depict all the different conditions and sizes of
beams coming into the concrete shear walls.
h. what is the connection of the steel beams into the web of the column @ Gridline (1,C.2) for the
floor and roof condition.
1. There appears to be a wl 6x26 running right thru the elevator shaft
1. the opng for the stair in the floor framing plan is not quite correct. Part of the stair ... the upper
landing, is at floor level & needs framing. t
k. it would seem you would want to provide some type of embed at the 1 s and second floor level, at
the location, for the later connection of some clip angle provided. by others for the elevator
guiderail. The elevator supplier may not be involved until after the concrete is set up, and then it is
too late. The EOR is responsible for having a substructure in place which will accept what the
elevator mfr requires for connecting the guide rail.
1. details 2/S5.3,3/S5.3,5/S5.3 : if the braces occur at the same locations as the wide flange beams
carried by the spandrel beam, then why not bring the brace to the carried beam bottom flange,
rather than cut the flange to run the brace to the web. EOR to review, however; it is your call.
rn. Detail 9/S5.2 : what is the connection of the wl 0x1 2 to the concrete wall at the same location?
n. Where is detail 6/S5.4 showing elevator cap framing?
o. detail 1 1/S5.3 callout on sheet S2.2 is obscured.
p. Is there any purlin overhang at the high roof at GL's 5 or E. Provide struct detail
q. Gen Struct Notes: rebar to be welded should be A706 Grade 60, in fact make sure all info from
calc sheet 1.003 is on the drawings.
r. some of the beam deflections in the computer printouts appeared high, have these been
reviewed, including the deflection of the cantilever ends. Particularly where they may be visually
unappealing ... coord with architect.
s, The floor dead load does not seem to account for a future floor covering. Also it is standard to
add more concrete weight, which will occur as concrete is added to level the concrete as the
beams deflect under the concrete weight. Typically this is minimally 3 psf. , also what is the weight
of the steel framing in psf that was used for the seismic cales? Is this bldg sprinklered?
t. were orthogonal effects taken into account in the design of the shear wall corners?
COPY:
WJA DESIGN COLLABORATIVE 1736 FouRTH AVE. S., SurrE A SEATTLE, WA 98134 T 206.254,2570 F 206.254.2571
WJADO.COM