20060705104208.pdfCity of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: July 5, 2006
TO: Phil King
jjgumee@comeast.net
FROM: Jenny Readwin, Plans Examir*
RE: Plan Check # 06-050 (Permit Trax 2006-0575)
Project: Gurnee SFR
ProjectAddress: 1821OHomeviewDr.
During review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information, corrections, or
clarifications are needed.
1) Still need top and bottom wall elevations at 5'intervals. Walls cross several topo lines so one top and
bottom wall elevation will not be sufficient to cover the entire wall. Also still need structural
calculations and details stamped and signedfor proposed rockery and retaining walls. Provide top and
bottom wall elevations for all proposed retaining walls and/or rockeries at 5' intervals. Rockeries and
retaining walls of any height located in a critical area must be designed by a Washington State Licensed
,Professional Engineer (see enclosed rockery and retaining wall handouts). Provide stamped and signed
details and calculations for proposed rockery and retaining walls.
2) Stairs still not shown. Label covered porch on the site plan and show location of stairs.
3) Still need. No response given. It appears that there will be a site built shower. Provide construction
detail.
4) ok
5) ok
6) ok
7) ok
8) ok
9) ok
10) ok
11) Still need. Note on response said nofield welding. Note on plans but still needform for Geotechnical
special inspections. Special inspections 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. A separate form is required for each special inspector.
• Field welding
• Soil cuts
• Temporary Eco-Block shoring (if required)
• Foundation sub -grade verification
• Any retaining wall or rockery placement
• Placement of fill
• Subsurface drainage installation
0 Temporary and final erosion control
12) See additional comments attached. 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, P.S.
PO Box 523
01alla, WA 98359
hoytjeter@centurytel.net
2538574151 10
Fax 253 857 5759
To: JoAnne Zulauf
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, 98020
Re: Gurnee Residence
18210 Homeview Dr
Edmonds, 98020
June 27, 2006
Plan Review #2006-0575 EECE # EDM 06-10 (2)
Second Comment letter
Structure
Area S.F.
Lower Floor
1134
Main Floor
1763
gpper Floor
334
Total
3231
Garage
814
Total
4045
Main Floor Deck
321
P,00f Deck
135
IGrand total
4501
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.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
The scope of this review isfor the structural 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 italics if not addressed appropriately to confirm code
compliant.
Page 2 of 6
EDM 06-10 (2)
2006-0575
STRUCTURAL COMME NTS
Many items are written in pencil on the revised set. I assume this is not a response or
change to the drawings. All items must be in pen so it may not be erased or modified.
Please clarify what the complete set will be. I will attempt to do the back check based off
the submittal by the applicant but this will need to be verified before approval.
General
1. The new analysis submitted used the UBC and not the IBC. The UBC is not the
adopted code. For example, page 12 of the analysis. Please modify analysis
accordingly.
2. 1. Based off the site plan it appears there is going to be a concrete retaining wall
approximately I Ofeet high. Please add the requirementsfor this condition to the
drawings. IBC 1806 This needs to be verified by the City of Edmonds. The
response state maximum height is 4 feet. But it appears this will be exceeded. This
has to be verified by the city.
3. 2. Please add the shear wall requirement to the drawingfor the mark SW1 and
SW2. SheetA is different then the analysis and different than sheet 5. Which one is
correct? This has not been addressed based off the drawings.
4. 4. The drawings appear to being using a momentftame at the garage entrance.
The R valuefor ordinary momentframes is 3.5 not 6 5. Please resubmit lateral
analysis to accountfor different seismic resisting elements. IBC table 1617.6 2
IBC 1617.6 2.3 It is not correct to just increase the frame by the ratio. Also, the
diaphragm must be checked- The code has different R values based off the
different stiffnesses of the vertical resisting elements. The analysis is using a
flexible diaphragm so the smallest R must be used for the diaphragm analysis.
Resubmit analysis with an R of 3.5.
Sheet 5 of 9 Foundations
5- 5. Please provide analysis and detailfor the 9'highfoundation wall. Detail should
be addedfor the requirementfor this wall. The detail on sheet 9 will not workfor
the required designforces. Please submit this on the response how detail 9 will
workfor this wall or modify accordingly. IBC 1604.4 This has not been addressed
on the response. There are no details for how this is to be constructed on the
drawings. Also, the new analysis appears to assume a restrained top and the
connections are very important to be detailed to be able to transfer the required
forces. This should be added to the construction drawings, including an analysis.
Page 3 of 6
EDM 06-10 (2)
2006-0575
6. 6 Single 3X member are required and not (2) 2X as stated in the notes. Please
modify accordingly. IBC table 23 06 4. 1 footnote i. This has not been modified and
it is required to state single 3X member per the code.
7. 7. The shear walls do not meet the minimum 3-112 to I (wind) and 2 to I (seismic).
Iffootnote a is used then the seismic shear wall requirements may increase to 3-
112 to 1. Please modify andsubmit analysis accordingly. IBC table 2305.3.3. This
has not been addressed in the response. Resubmit an analysis to account for the
proper height to width requirements.
Sheet 6 of 9 Main Floor Framing
8. There is a post -it note on the drawings to add the moment frame detail but this has
not been added to the sheet. Please add this to the set as required to show
compliance with code.
9. 8. Pleasejustijy knee braces, X-Bracing, etc is not required at the deckframing.
How are the lateral loads being transferfor the deck? CC66 bracket is not
approved to transfer lateral loads per Simpson catalog. IBC 2304.9.6. This still
has not been addressed.
10. 9. Please provide detail at the deck where the Shearwall bears on the PT 2x] 0.
Details on the drawings have not dealt with this. The detail shows this to be
continuous at the Shearwall. Please provide detailfor this condition on the
drawings in order to complete the review. IBC 2304.9.6 A detail is required for the
shear wall where the PT 2x 10 are called out The 2x I Os have to bear on the shear
mark SW2 and there must be a load transfer at this location in order to transfer the
forces. I wrote this comment for this sheet so if you look at where the deck is at
you would see the shear walls called out. If there were grids on the sheet it would
be easier to point out the location. There is not a clear load path to transfer the
shear forces at these locations. If you look at this sheet you state PT 2x 10 @ 16"
O/C but there is not any detail to deal with how the loads are going to be
transferred at this location. This is required to be shown on the drawings.
11. 10. Pleaseprovide detailfor the connection BMA to BM C IBC 2304.9.6
Response states 'see detail' that is added to the drawings. The detail states MT
hanger. This hanger is not approved to be used with a glu-lam beam per the
Simpson catalog. Please specify a hanger that may be used to support the glu-lam
C,
beam and be used with a wide flange beam.
12. 11. Please provide a detailfor the connection ofBMB to BM C IBC 2304.9.6 The
response states 'see detail' that is added to the drawings. The detail state IUT
hanger. This hanger is not approved to be used with a glu-lam beam per the
Page 4 of 6
EDM 06-10 (2)
2006-0575
Simpson catalog. Please specify a hanger that may be used to support the glu-lam
beam and be used with a wide flange beam.
13. 12. The drawing states metal beam but does not give the size of the metal beam.
This is required to be added to the drawings. Please add this information in order
to check code compliance. IBC 106.3 The analysis submitted does not specify the
WWI. How was this determined? Submit an analysis for this member to be
used. Also, the detail added does not show how this wide flange will be connected
at the ends. This is required to be added to the drawings in order to complete the
review.
14. 13. Please add to the drawing the requirementfor thejoist drag strut. Thejoist
manufacture typical only designfor the deadplus live load and leave the lateral up
to the design professional. Please either add to the drawing the requirementfor
the drag struts or design a member including the connection at this location. IBC
2304.9.5 This has not been addressed at this time. The joist manufacturer does not
do a lateral analysis for the structure. This is required to be clearly labeled on the
drawings. Please add this information to the drawings.
15. 14. Please clarify where the detail isfor the note stating "4x6x]14 steel tubeftame
per detail ". Where is the detail? How are the members being connected? Please
add this information to the drawings. The response states 'see detail' but there is
not a detail on the drawings for this. There is a post -it note to add the detail but it
was not added to this sheet. Please add this detail to the drawings.
16. 16 It is not clear what is requiredfor the header beam size. Please add this
information to the drawings. IBC 1063.3. This still has not been addressed on the
drawings. Please add this information to the drawings.
17. 17. Provide analysisfor the beam supporting the girder truss above. IIB C 1604.4
This has not been addressed. Please submit this on response.
18. 18. Provide analysisfor the beam that is supporting the (3) 1-314X 11 - 718 micro
lam. IBC 2304.9.7. This has not been addressed. Please submit this on response.
19.19. Please specify the required connectionfor the (3) 1-314XI 1-718 micro lam to
the supporting beam. IBC 2304.9.7. The response state RB hanger. There are
many different HB hangers. The actual size is required to be added to the drawing
to assure the force will be transferred.
20. 20. Please provide analysisfor the horizontal diaphragm.. IBC 1620.2.5 The
analysis submitted is per URC and not 113C on page 11. Submit an analysis per the
adopted code at this time.
Page 5 of 6
EDM 06-10 (2)
2006-0575
Sheet 7 of 9 Upper Floor Framing
21. 22. Please specify the required connection of the typical 6x]2 DFA2 beam to the
post. It is not clear what the required connection will be usedfor in this project.
IBC 2304.9.6. This still has not been addressed.
22. Please specify the required connection ofthe PTpost at the covered deck. The
base of the column is required to resist lateral and uplift induced forces. This saff
has not been added to the drawings. See sheet 8 where the post is called out and'
the top connection is called out but not the base. IBC 2304.9.7
Sheet 8 of 9 Roof Framing
23. 26. Please add the required connection of the 3-118X]2 ridge beam to the
supporting post. It is not clear the size of the post required or the required
connection. IBC 2304.9.7 The revised drawings have this called out on one side
but not the other side. It is important to clearly specify the required support of the
member to assure the required forces may be transferred.
24.27. Shearwall at the door opening does not meet the minimum 2 to I ratio. This
may be increased to 3-112 to I iffootnote A is met. Provide analysis tojustify. IBC
table 2305.3.3. The response states pl 0 of the calculation. This is for the garage
panel not for the shear wall for the media room. This is required to be submitted to
show code compliance.
Sheet 9 of 9 Building Sections
25. 28- Please provide detail on the drawingfor the connection of the guard rail to
resist the required 200 poundforce applied in any direction. IBC 1607.7.1 The
response states 'see detail on this sheet'. Submit an analysis to justify this will
resist the required force of 200 pounds. Per a check of analysis this will not resist
the code required force. Submit engineering analysis to justify detail.
26. 29. Please specify the spacing of the 4X4 posL It is not clear on the drawing what
the spacing will be. Please add this to the drawing. IBC 106.3.3 Response states
'see detail on this sheet'. The code states for single family homes, hand rails and
guards shall be able to resist single concentrated loads of 200 pound applied in any
direction. Per a check of analysis this will not resist the code required force.
Submit engineering analysis to justify detail as shown on the drawings.
27. Habitable rooms shall have a height of not less than 7 feet, but the drawings state 4
feet for the media room and deck. This does not meet the code required heights.
Exception 3 state the following note more than 50 percent of the required floor
area of a room or space is permitted to have a slop ceiling less than 7 feet in height
Page 6 of 6
EDM 06-10 (2)
2006-0575
with no portion of the required floor area less than 5 feet in height. Drawing state 4
feet. R305.1
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. Chang",
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