20061025130428.pdfo� EDS City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
Pst. ago (425) 771-0220
DATE: October 25, 2006
TO: Randall J Munson
Randy. munson@comcast.net
FROM: Jenny Readwin, Plans Ex finer
RE: Plan Check # 2006-0924
Project: Falcon Ridge SFR
Project Address: 8012 240' St SW
During re -review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information,
corrections, or clarifications are needed. Please redline plans or submit two (2) sets of revised
plans/documents (affected sheets only) with a written response to each of the items below to a
Permit Coordinator.
1) Grades shown on the elevation views conflict with note please revise accordingly. Also,
habitable space is shown below grade (stairs/hall) so footing drains are required. Show
location of required footing drains on the foundation plan and add footing drain
requirements to the foundation sections. Specify on the elevation views the grade slope away
from the building. If minimum 6" within 10' is not possible or habitable or useable space is
below grade, foundation drainage is required. Provide footing drain detail on foundation sections
complying with R405.1 and show required drain locations on the foundation plan.
2) ok
3) See attached structural comments from city consultant. Respond to each item in writing.
Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S.
P4 Box 523
01alla, WA 98359
hoytjeter@r-enturytel.net
360 874 0562
Fax 360 874 0591
To: JoAnne Zulauf
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Michel SFR Date: October 25, 2006
Falcon Ridge 8012 240th Street S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Plan Review #2006 0924 EECE # EDM 06-42 (2)
Second 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.
Lower floor
697
First floor
1608
Second floor
1364
Total
3669
Garage
987
Total
4656
Peck ABG 30"
200
Grand total
4856
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.
Page 2 of 3
EECE#: EDM 06-42 (2)
Plan Check 2006-0924
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
Sheet A-7 FOUNDATION PLAN & DETAILS:
4. Provide calculations for the basement wall. Per a check of analysis the footing
is not large enough to resist the horizontal force from the sail pressure. The rigid
insulation can not be used to resist this force and the footing must be designed to
resist the horizontal forces with a safety factor of 1.5. IBC 1806 The design
analysis submitted show the allowable soil bearing pressure will be exceeded. It
has been crossed out and stated OK. Please modify the retaining wall so nothing is
overstressed. The building code is a minimum standard and does not allow any
part of the structural system to be overstressed. Modify basement wall so nothing is
over stressed.
2. New design analysis for the retaining wall requires 3#4 in the footing but the
drawings only specifies 2 #4. Please modify detail to match analysis or justify by
analysis 2 # 4 will resist the required forces.
3. New design analysis required the depth (distance from extreme compression fiber
to centroid of tension reinforcement) of the tension steel to be 6.5 but as detail the
d will be 5.75 inches (8-2 inch clear -#4/16). It is not conservative to have a smaller
D. ACI Chapter 2 definition and ACI 10.2
4. The new design analysis for the basement retaining wall assumes the slab will
resist the sliding force. Please note on the detail that the slab on grade must be
installed and reached is required design strength before any back filling behind the
wall is allowed.
Sheet A -S MAIN FLOOR FRAMING PLANS & DETAILS:
5. 9. The design analysis used a height for the overturning moment for SW 4 to be 8
feet. This is not correct based off the stairway. Please modify the analysis to
account for the height based off the opening in the floor. IBC 2305.3.4 Also, it
appears the length (width) of wall used was 8 feet but the wall scales to 6 feet.
Please add the required length of this wall on the drawings. IBC 2305.3.5
Response state see letter from Reed & Associates. There was not a letter in the
submitted package dealing with this issue. Please submit or modify accordingly.
6. 10. Please provide a detail on the drawings for the connection of the shear wall
SW4 to the double joist shown on this level. How are forces being transferred at
this location? Since the wall does not line up details must be added to transfer the
shear force and the overturning force must be detailed on the drawings. It appears
this has not been addressed in the submitted drawings. IBC 23 04.9.6 and IBC
2305.1.2 For some reason the double joist has been deleted. This is the collector
Page 3 of 3
EECE#: EDM 06-42 (2)
Plan Check 2006-0924
element. Why has this been deleted from the set? Please either add back to the set
or clarify why this has been deleted.
Sheet A-9 UPPER FLOOR/LOWER ROOF FRAMING PLAN:
7. 13. Please specify the required connections for the flush framing specified on the
drawings. I was unable to determine the required connections from the drawings.
IBC 2304.9.6 The beam to beam now has been specified but I was unable to find
where on the drawings the joist to beam is called out. For example the joist that are
required to connected to beam number 6. Since this is flush the joist must be hung
off this beam. Please add this information to the drawings.
8. 15. The shear wall width used for shear wall 5 appears to use the full diagonal
width when used to resist the lateral forces. The width must be used in the
direction of the force. Please modify or clarify how this accounted for in the
analysis. IBC 2305 There was not letter in the submitted package. The resulting
length is required to be used in the direction of the force.
Sheet A- 10 UPPER ROOF FRAMING PLAN & DETAILS:
9. 20. Engineer of Record (EOR), please provide calculations for the (2) 2x6 at one
end of the girder truss and (2) 2x6 at the other end. Submit an analysis at these
locations. There are other locations where one side specifies more studs than the
other. Based off the location ofpoint loads and uniform loads the force is not that
great and the (2) studs appear to not be able to support the vertical loads. The
height used for the design of the double post submitted was 8 feet but the wall
section is clear to show the height shall be 9 feet. Also lateral loads are required to
be evaluated for the exterior wall not just the vertically loads. Modify drawings
and analysis accordingly to support the design loads.
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 pian review when comments are received from the other concerned
departments.
Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please contact Hoyt Jeter at
(360) 874-0562 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
By:
Hoyt Jeter, P.E.
President