20061018145803.pdfof EDS City of Edmonds
0
y - PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
1890 (425) 771-0220
DATE: October 18, 2006
TO: Phil King
jjgurnee@comeast.net
FROM: Jenny Readwin, Plans Exami er
RE: Plan Check # 06-050 (Permit Trax 2006-0575)
Project: Gurnee SFR
Project Address: 18210 Homeview Dr.
During re -review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information., corrections, or
clarifications are needed.
1) FOURTH COMMENTS 10/18/06 Rockeries were changed to retaining walls max 4' high, Calculation
and detail provided still need to be stamped and signed by Engineer of Record. 7' retaining wall still
needs stamped and signed calculations and detail before we can send out for peer review. Please
provide. THIRD COMMENTS Per our Rockery/Retaining"_ Wall handouts, comments from Ed Sibrel,
En,-ineerinz and my correction we still need desizn calculations for the rockery reeardless of heieht
and we need calculations Lor 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 eet the calculations. Please Provide. SECOND
COMMENTS 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.
FIRST COMMENTS 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 ATTACHED e SET OF COMMENTS FROM STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT 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
hoytleter@centurytel.net
360 874 0562
Fax 360 874 0591
To: JoAnne Zulauf
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, 98020
Re: Gurnee Residence
18210 Homeview Dr
Edmonds, 98020
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Plan Review #2006-0575 EECE # EDM 06-10 (4)
Fourth Comment letter
Structure
Aren S,F,
Lower Floor
1134
Main Floor
1763
Upper Floor
334
Total
3.231
Garage
814
otaI
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 (4)
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. IRC 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. Analysis still has not been
submitted for the retaining wall. Submit analysis to justify. Analyses submitted
clearly show for the 4 foot wall the code required safety factor is exceeded. All
information on the drawings that is called out must meet the minimum code
requirement. Resubmit analysis to justify the retaining walls that are called out on
the drawings to be built.
.2. 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 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. 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. The design analysis
submitted clearly show the retaining wall will not meet the code required forces.
The sliding force shall not exceed 1.5 but the analysis clearly shows this exceeding.
Enercal program does not even match the wall specified on sheet B. All the
retaining wall that are specified on the drawings shall have analysis submitted to
justify the wall will support the required forces. If the certain wall height is not
going to be used then this should be crossed off the set. But the walls that are going
to be built must meet the minimum code requirements and analysis is required to
justify the will resist the required design loads.
3. 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. 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
Page 3 of 7
EDM 06-10 (4)
2006-0575
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
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 discrepancies shown throughout the set. For example the drawings state
4x6x1/4 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. Now the drawings are
stating to use again the moment frame. The horizontal diaphragm is required to be
design for the smallest seismic R value. Resubmit design analysis to address the
diaphragm requirements with an R of 3.5 not just the frame..
Sheet 5 of 9 Foundations
4. 6. 5. Please provide analysis and detailfor the 9' high foundation wall. Detail
should be added for the requirement far 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. This still has not been addressed approprietly.
5. 8. 7. The shear walls do not meet the minimum 3-112 to 1(wind) and 2 to 1
(seismic). If footnote a is used then the seismic shear wall requirements may
increase to 3-112 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
6. 9. 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. This still has not been addressed. The drawings are
confusing what is going to be built for the frame. One place it state 4x6x1/4 and
then also state 6x6 posts. The drawings should be clear on what is going to be
built. It should not be left up to the contractor.
7. Submit analysis for the moment frame in compliance with IBC 2205.2.2 Moment
frames are required to be analysis and detailed per the requirements of IBC
Page 4 of 7
EDM 06-10 (4)
2006-0575
2205.2.2. The drawings keep going back to a shear wall then to a moment frame.
Please submit design in compliance with the IBC 2205.2.2
8. 10. 9. 8. Please justify knee braces, X -Bracing, etc is not required at the deck
framing. How are the lateral loads being transfer far 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.
9. 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
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 2x105 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"
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. Submit
analysis for the required support of the deck framing. This still has not been clearly
addressed on the submitted documents.
10. 12. 11. 10. Please provide detail for the connection BMA to BM C. IBC 23 04.9.6
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-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. This still has not been addressed.
Please specify the size of the weld to use for the connections. Also special
inspection is required for field welding and should be noted on the drawings.
11. 13. 11, 11. Please provide a detail for the connection ofBMB to BM C. IBC
23049.6 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 glu-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. Please specify the size of the weld to use for the connections. Also
special inspection is required for field welding and should be noted on the
drawings
12. 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
Page 5 of 7
EDM 06-10 (4)
2006-0575
lateral up to the design professional. Please either add to the drawing the
requirement far 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. I was
unable to determine how this was addressed. OK
13. 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. Submit analysis for the base plate of 1/4
and (2) 518" bolt to transfer the required forces. The base plate appears not to be
able to transfer the forces. Submit analysis to justify.
14. 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. EOR of please provide detail at the intersection of 4x6
header and 4x12 header. Based off the drawing there does not appear to be enough
room at the intersection for multiple studs to support this member. A detail is
required to be added here to verify what will be built in the field. Alternative add
one continues 4x12.
15. 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. Responses state uses a GLB 6-3/4X24 but the drawings do not
reflect this. Modify drawings to show this beam.
16. 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.
17. Provide detail for the connection of the 3-11$X9 GLB and the 4X12 header
specified at the stairs. How are these beams being supported.
18. 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 11. 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. The
horizontal diaphragm analysis submitted exceeds the minimum code requirements.
For example page 13 state 318" Plywood stated this can resist 380 PLF. This is not
Page 6 of 7
EDM 06-10 (4)
2006-0575
correct. Modify analysis per the current allowable shears as specified in table
2306.3.1
Sheet 7 of 9 Upper Floor Framing
19. 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. This still has not been clearly added to the drawings.
Sheet 8 of 9 Roof Framing
20. 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 23049.7 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. 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 ofplane
forces. A connection is required at the base to resist lateral translations. Modify
drawings in order to meet the code requirements. EOR the allowable bending
stressed use for the two span glu-lam beam was 2200 psi. Since this is a two span
conditions and the glu-lam beam is 22FV4 the maximum bending stress 1850 and
not 2200 psi. Maximum bending moment will be at the support and not at mid
span. Note glu-lam beams are fabricated with 2x lams and it depends which
combination symbol determine how the beam will be built. See NDS table 5A to
assist in which allowable stresses to use for the design of the members..
21. 24. 24. 27. Shearwall at the door opening does not meet the minimum 2 to 1 ratio.
This may be increased to 3-1/2 to 1 iffootnote A 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. This still has
not been addressed appropriately. For example the drawings show the wall 9 feet
but the analysis state 8 feet.
Sheet 9 of 9 Building Sections
22.25. 25. 28. Please provide detail on the drawing for the connection of the guard
rail to resist the required 200 pound force 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
Page 7 of 7
EDM 06-10 (4)
2006-0575
not been addressed. Not the drawings state the post 8 foot on center. The infills
shall be design for 50 psf including the resist elements. This will control the design
when spacing the post at 8 foot O/C. Please see either IBC 1607.7 or IRC table
R301.5
23. 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 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. Drawing now state post to be spaced at 8 foot on center. Also the
details in the engineer analysis do not even match the drawings. The contractor
will be building the drawings based off what is specified on the drawings. 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. Drawings have
not been modified to 6' OIC as stated. Also analysis per IRC table R301 must be
performed to verify complete load path.
24.27.27. 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 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 with no portion of the required floor area less than 5 feet in height. Drawing
state 4 feet. R305.1... This still has not been addressed appropriately. The state
building code does not allow 5 foot high habitable rooms. This still has not been
addressed appropriately.
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
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