20060921162450.pdfo� Eno City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
8St 1093 (425) 771-0220
DATE: September 21, 2006
TO: Phil King
jjgurnee@comeast.net
Y
FROM: Jenny Readwin, Plans Exa m
RE: Plan Check # 06-050 (Permit Trax 2006-0575)
Project: Gurnee SFR
Project Address: 18210 Homeview Dr.
During review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information, corrections, or
clarifications are needed.
1) Per our Rockery/Retaining Wall handouts, comments from Ed Sibrel, Enpineerinp and my correction
we still need design calculations for the rockery regardless of height and we need calculations fo
proposed retaining wall. Retaining wall will need to be sent to peer review at owners cost so we will
not send it out until we pet the calculations. Please provide. 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
signed for 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) ok
3) ok
4) ok
5) ok
6) ok
7) ok
8) ok
9) ok
10) ok
11) ok
12) See third set of comments from structural consultant. 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
Olalla, WA 98359
hoytjeter@centurytel.net
253 857 4151
Fax 253 857 5759
To: JoAnne Zulauf
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, 98020
Re: Gurnee Residence
18210 Homeview Dr
Edmonds, 98020
FA
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Plan Review #2006-0575 EECE # EDM 06-10 (3)
Third Comment letter
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 is for 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. Second comments that were not addressed will be written in red. All items are
Lower Floor
1134
Main Floor
1763
Upper Floor
334
Total
3231
Garage
814
Total
4045
Main Floor Deck
321
Roof Deck
135
Grand 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 is for 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. Second comments that were not addressed will be written in red. All items are
Page 2 of 7
EDM 06-10 (3)
2006-0575
required to be clearly addressed and show where on the drawing these items have been
modified to meet the minimum code requirements.
The drawings have many discrepancy for both lateral and gravity requirements. Also the
engineers state on the drawings that he is only stamping for lateral loads only. Submit
stamped drawing for the gravity support of the members. TRC is for conventional framed
house and this house does not fall under conventional framing. A licensed design
professional shall stamp the drawings not only for lateral loads but also the gravity
requirements. Resubmit drawings modify accordingly.
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
General
1. Retaining walls over 4 feet are required to be designed by a licensed professional.
Submit analysis for the retaining walls.
2. The new analysis submitted used the UI3C and not the IBC. The URC is not the
adopted code. For example, page 12 of the analysis. Please modify analysis
accordingly. The new analysis submitted for the top plate splice required 9 16d
nails but the drawings do not reflect this. Please modify drawings so the
contractors know what is required to be built.
3. 1. Based off the site plan it appears there is going to be a concrete retaining wall
approximately 10 feet high. Please add the requirements for this condition to the
drawings. IBC 1806 This needs to be veriCied by the City ofEdinonds. The
response state maximum height is 4 feet. But it appears this will be exceeded. This
has to be verified by the city. Submit design analysis for the retaining wall shown.
None was submitted in the response or previous submittal. This is important to
assure all code required forces are resisted. IBC 1806
4. 2. Please add the shear wall requirement to the drawing for the mark SWI and
SW2. Sheet A is different then the analysis and different than sheet 5. Which one is
correct? This has not been addressed based off the drawings. This still has not
been addressed on the new drawings submitted.
5. 4. The drawings appear to being using a moment frame at the garage entrance.
The R value for ordinary moment frames is 3.5 not 6.5. Please resubmit lateral
analysis to account for different seismic resisting elements. TBC 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 ofFthe
different stiffn.esses 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. Now the new drawings state shear wall to use
Page 3 of 7
EDM 06-10 (3)
2006-0575
where the frame was required. This does not meet the code requirements.
Shearwall 3 will not transfer the required forces. Please add to the drawings the
requirements for the required forces to be resisted. It is not clear what is going too
built. Please modify drawings clearly in order to complete the review. There are
many discrepancy shown throughout the set. For example the drawings state
4x6xl/4 frame with shear walls. Based off the drawings there is no way to
determine what is going to be built. Submit analysis to justify how the walls will
meet the height to width requirements as required per code.
Sheet 5 of 9 Foundations
6. 5. Please provide analysis and detail for the 9' high foundation wall. Detail should
be added far the requirement for this wall. The detail on sheet 9 will not work for
the required design forces. Please submit this on the response how detail 9 will
work for 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.
7. 6. Single 3X member are required and not (2) 2X as stated in the notes. Please
modify accordingly. IBC table 2306.4.]footnote i. This has not been modified and
it is required to state single 3X member per the code.
8. 7. The shear walls do not meet the minimum 3-1/2 to I (wind) and 2 to I (seismic).
If footnote a is used then the seismic shear wall requirements may increase to 3-
1/2 to 1. Please modify and submit 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
9, 8. There is a post -it note on the drawings to add the moment frain. e detail but this
has not been added to the sheet. Please add this to the set as required to show
compliance with code. This still has not been addressed.
10. 9. 8. Please justify knee braces, X -Bracing , etc is not required at the deck framing.
How are the lateral loads being transfer for the deck? CC66 bracket is not
approved to transfer lateral loads per Simpson catalog. IBC 2304.9.6. This still
has not been addressed. The drawings still have not clearly addressed the lateral
load transfer for the deck.
11. 10. 9. Please provide detail at the deck where the Shearwall bears on the PT 2x10.
Details on the drawings have not dealt with this. The detail shows this to be
Page 4 of 7
EDM 06-10 (3)
2006-0575
continuous at the Shearwall. Please provide detail for 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 2x10 are called out The 2x10s 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 2x10 @16"
OIC 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. Submit
analysis for the required support of the deck framing.
12. 11. 10. Please provide detail for the connection BMA to BM C IBC 2304.9.6
Response states `see detail' that is added to the drawings_ The detail states HIT
hanger. This hanger is not approved to be used with a glu-Lain beam per the
Simpson catalog. Please specify a hanger that may be used to support the glu-lan-x
beam and be used with a wide flange beam. This still has not been addressed.
1.3..1.1. 11. Please provide a detail for the connection of BMB to BM C. IBC 2304.9.6
The response states `see detail' that is added to the drawings. The detail state HIT
hanger. This hanger is not approved to be used with a ghi-lam beam per the
Simpson catalog. Please specify a hanger that may be used to support the glu-lam
beam. and be used with a wide flange beam. All that was done is erased the hanger.
More information is required to be added to the drawings to complete the load
path.
14. 12. 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 W8x21. 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. This still has not been addressed.
15..13. 13. Please add to the drawing the requirement for the joist drag strut. The
joist manufacture typical only design for the dead plus live load and leave the
lateral up to the design professional. Please either add to the drawing the
requirement for 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 inforrnation to the drawings. I was
unable to determine how this was addressed.
Page 5 of 7
EDM 06-10 (3)
2006-0575
16. 14. 14. Please clarify where the detail is for the note stating " 4x6x1 /4 steel tube
frame 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. This
still has not been addressed.
17..16. 16. It is not clear what is required for the header beam size. Please add this
information to the drawings. IBC 106.3.3. This still. has not been addressed on the
drawings. Please add this information to the drawings. This still has not been
addressed. All headers shall be clearly label on the drawings. For example the
header at the great room.
18. 17. 17. Provide analysis for the beam supporting the girder truss above. IBC
1604.4 This has not been addressed. Please submit this on response. This still was
not addressed.
19. 18. 18. Provide analysis for the beam that is supporting the (3) 1-314X 11-7/8
micro lam. IBC 2304.9.7. This has not been addressed. Please submit this on
response. This still was not addressed.
20. 19. 19. Please specify the required connection for the (3) 1-3/4X11-7/8 micro lam
to the supporting beam. IBC 2304.9.7. The response state HB 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. The drawings are still not clear what support
the vertical members. More information is required on the drawings.
21. 20. 20. Please provide analysis for the horizontal diaphragm.. IBC 1620.2.5 The
analysis submitted is per UBC and not IBC on page 1 l.. Submit an analysis per the
adopted code at this time. Submit analysis for the requirements of the horizontal
diaphragm This still has not been done per the international codes.
Sheet 7 of 9 Upper Floor Framing
22, 21. 22. Please specify the required connection of the typical 6x12 DF#2 beam to
the post. It is not clear what the required connection will be used for in this
project. IBC 2304.9.6. This still has not been addressed. This still has not been
done.
Sheet 8 of 9 Roof Framing
23. 23. 26. Please add the required connection of the 3-1/8X12 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
Page 6 of 7
EDM 06-10 (3)
2006-0575
but not the other side. It is important to clearly specify the required support of the
member to assure the required forces maybe trans:l:erred. Please clean up the
details on these sheets. One place there is one type of strap specified than another
on the plan. Also straps are only approved for tension and forces not out of plane
forces. A connection is required at the base to resist lateral translations. Modify
drawings in order to meet the code requirements.
24.24. 27. Shearwall at the door opening does not meet the minimum 2 to 1 ratio.
This may be increased to 3-112 to I if footnote,4 is met. Provide analysis to justify.
IBC table 2305.3.3. The response states p10 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. This still has not been addressed
appropriately. Modify drawings to show complete load path clearly.
Sheet 9 of 9 Building Sections
25. 25. 28. Please provide detail on the drawing for the connection of the guard rail to
resist the required 200 pound farce 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. This still has
not been addressed.
26. 26. 29. Please specify the spacing of the 4X4 post. 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 Igor 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. Drawing
now state post to be spaced at 8 foot on center. The top and bottom rail will not
resist the required force if this is the case. Submit analysis for the guard rail
requirements to justify the forces may be resisted.
27. 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 folio«ring note more than 50 percent of the required
floor area of a roorn or space is permitted to have a slop ceiling less than 7 feet in
height with no portion of the required floor area less than 5 :feet in height. Drawing
state 4 feet. 8305.1... This still has not been addressed appropriately. The state
building code does not allow 5 foot high habitable rooms.
Additional corrections may be required following receipt of corrections and
additional information as requested.
Page 7 of 7
EDM 06-10 (3)
2006-0575
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
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) 857-41.51 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
By:
Hoyt Jeter, P.E.
President