20061122093049.pdfof� City of Edmonds
o
,,,< ;;r,tp PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
- BUILDING DIVISION
est. s9° (425) 771-0220
DATE: November 22, 2006
TO: Joe Gurnee
jjgumee@comcast.net
FROM: Jenny Readwin, Plans Exa ine
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) ok
2) ok
3) ok
4) ok
5) ole
6) ok
7) ole
8) ok
9) ok
10) ok
11) ok
12) SEE ATTACHED 5TH SET OF COMMENTS FROM STR UCTURAL CONSULTANT. SEE
ATTACHED 4TH 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 Sox 523
Olalla, WA 98359
hoAeter@centurytel.net
360 874 0562
Fax 360 874 0591
To: JoAnne Zulauf
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Gurnee Residence
18210 Homeview Dr
Edmonds, WA 98020
Plan Review #2006-0575
Fifth Comment letter
g 02 ur e
Lower Floor
1134
Main Floor
1763
peer Floor
334
Total
323)1
Garage
814
Total
4045
Main Floor Deck
321
Roof Deck
135
Grand total
4501
EECE # EDM 06-64
[EDM 06-101 (5)
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 5
EDM 06.64
[EDM 06-10] (5)
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. This still has not been addressed.
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
General
1. Submit design analysis for the foundations section shown on sheet 5. This does
match analysis submitted. Also provide analysis for the connection at the top ol.'the
retaining wall to .resist the design. forces. IBC .1806
2. 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
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. This still has not been
addressed. The diaphragm is required to design according to the lowest R factor as
required per code. Resubmit complete new lateral analysis as required per code.
Sheet 5 of 9 Foundations
3. 4. 6. 5. Please provide analysis and detail for the 9' high foundation wall. Detail
should be added for the requirement for this wall. The detail on sheet 9 will not
Page 3 of 5
EDM 06-64
[EDM 06-10] (5)
2006-0575
workfor 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 appropriately.
4. 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 3-1/2 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. This still has not been
addressed appropriately. Resubmit analysis as required per code.
Sheet 6 of 9 Main Floor Framing
5. New analysis required the shear wall to be 3 feet wide but the drawings do not
reflect this. Modify drawings or analysis accordingly..ln additions the straps
required per analysis is different on the drawings then specified in the analysis.
Which is correct?
6. 7. 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 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. This still has
not been addressed appropriately. Submit design analysis for the moment frame in
compliance with TBC 2205.2.2
7. EOR please submit dosing analysis for the 318" Dia X 4" bolts at 4' OIC to drag
the force into the moment frame as required per IBC 1.620.4.4 and IBC 1605.4
8, 11, 13. 11. 11. Please provide a detail for the connection of BM B 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 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. Submit analysis for the weld specified to transfer the required design
force.
Page 4 of 5
EDM 06-64
[EDM 06-101 (5)
2006-0575
9. 13. 16. 14. 14. Please clarify where the detail is for the note stating ,4x6x]14 steel
tube frame per detail". 9%ere 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) 5/8" bolt to transfer the required forces. The base plate appears not to be
able to transfer the forces. Submit analysis to justify. Base plate design. isnot
correct for seismic resisting elements. The analysis used was per AISC page 3-106
but all forces are required to be addresses. All that was check was the vertical
forces on the base plate. This .is for columns that are only used for vertical forces
only. Since lateral loads are used the base plate must be checked per chapter 22 of
the .IBC. The analysis has not dealt with this as required per code. Submit analysis
to justify a'/_h plate per A1SC 341. part 1. section 8.5
10. 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. This still has not been addressed clearly on the drawings.
Provide details at these locations to show bow this will be connected.
11. Please add all required dimension for the beam to post connections. All that is
noted is the '/4" plate but where are the bolts located. What is the size of the plate?
All that is specified .is the thickness but more information is required to be added to
the drawings in order to check connections.
1.2. 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 6-314X24 but the drawings do not
reflect this. Modify drawings to show this beam. This still has not been addressed
clearly on the drawings..
13. 16. 19.18. 18, Provide analysis for 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. This still was not addressed. Provide detail on the drawings at the mid
span of the glu-lam beam. The analysis used a 4 foot span. A 24V4 continuous
beam will not have 2400 psi allowable as assumed in the analysis. Modify
Page 5 of 5
EDM 06-64
[EDM 06-10] (5)
2006-0575
drawings at this location to show two beams and the required support of these
beams.
1.4. 17. Provide detail for the connection of the 3-118X9 GLB and the 4X12 header
specified at the stairs. How are these beams being supported. Drawing still. need to
specify the required connections. Modify drawings accordingly.
15. 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 3/8" Plywood stated this can resist 380
PLF. This is not correct. Modify analysis per the current allowable shears as
specified in table 2306.3.1 Resubmit analysis for the correct seismic R value.
Sheet 7 of 9 Upper Floor Framing
16. 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. The drawings states
conventional framing but details are required to be added to show how these
members urill be supported. Add this to the dra%YV-ings as required per code.
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