20061220155248.pdfof �� City of Edmonds
Y PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
''UZ, BUILDING DIVISION
�St 1 g 9 (425) 771-0220
DATE: December 20, 2006
TO: Carl Clapp
carclp@aol.com
FROM: Jenny Readwin, Plans Exam'
RE: Plan Check # 2006-1092
Project: SFR
Project Address: 8413 192'd 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) 12/20/06 Living room window bumpout is still not shown on the site plan. On the site plan
show all bumpouts (fireplace, bay windows, etc.) Also, label covered porch on the site plan.
2) 12/20/06 Pier blocks do not meet conventional construction. Please revise to 12"x12"x12"
poured concrete footings or provide calculations from EOR to justify. Also, specify ledger lag
size and spacing. Minimum is 3/8"x 4'/"@ 3"o.c. without calculations from EOR. Not eon
plans or provide calculations. Show location of proposed deck on the plans and provide
framing plans. According to the location shown on the site plan there is not a door at this
location. Please clarify.
3) ok
4) ok
5) ok
6) ok
7) ok
8) ok
9) ok
10) -72/20/06 See attached additional comments. See attached structural comments from city
consultant. Respond to each item in writing.
Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S.
PO Box 523
Olalla, WA 98359
hoytjeter@centurytel.net
360 874 0562
Fax 360 874 0591
To: Theresa Umbaugh
121 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re; CC Construction
8413 192nd Street SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Plan Review # 2006-1092
Second Letter
Date: December 20, 2006
EECE # EDM 06-55 (2)
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.
Original comment will be written in italic if not addressed clearly on the drawines.
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.
Main floor
1614
1596
Second floor
1658
1899
Total
3272
3495
Garage
?
924
Grand total
4419
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.
Original comment will be written in italic if not addressed clearly on the drawines.
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 5
EECE EDM 06-55
2006-1092
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
General
2. EOR please submit design analysis for the glu-lam to account for the volume
factor. The analysis just calculates the section required (Sr) required with account
for the volume factor. Please resubmit analysis as required per NDS. NDS 5.3.6
Analysis for the glu-lam beams still has not dealt using the volume factor. Glu -lam
depth over 12" shall be modified using the volume factor. Submit analysis for the
glu-lam beams to account for the volume factor and not the depth factor as required
per code. Please clearly submit analysis for the glu-lam beams to account for the
volume factor as required per code.
Sheet 3 MAIN FLOOR PLAN:
2. Design analysis does not match the drawings specified. For example the new
analysis requires the beams in the garage to be larger then beams shown on this
sheet. The drawings are required to match and all discrepancy should be corrected
and resubmitted. Modify this sheet to match the requirements as shown on the
structural sheets or delete all the structural information.
8. Drawing appears not to show how, the joist and double joist in the garage is
connected to the supporting beams. Please clarify where this information's is
specified. The response state see answer to number 1. It still is not clear on the
drawings how these beam will be positively attached to the supporting structures.
Please modify drawings clearly to show the requirements to transfer the design
load forces.
4. .9. EOR please provide calculation for a continuous glu-lam beam. The maximum
bending stress will be in the top lam and the allowable stress is 1850 and not
2400psi. Alternative specify the glu-lam shall be 24F -V8. NDS table 5A (Note the
engineer package state to use 24F -V4) This still appears not to be addressed. IF
all the beams are simple span beams this should be specified this way on the
drawings. Glu -lam beams are manufactured members ant the top and bottom lams
have different allowable bending stress if 24F -V4. This is the typical Glu -lam
beams fabricated and used in Washington if not specifically stated. Please modify
drawings accordingly.
10. Please specify the required post including the required connections that
support the beams. For example the 5-1/8X9 at the living room. The drawings
appear not to specify the required connections or the support. Please clarify on
the drawing the required connections and support. This still has not been
addressed.
Page 3 of 5
EECE EDM 06-55
2006-1092
6. 11. EOR please specify the required connection of the 6X6 post column in the wall.
All columns must have are required to have a positive connections specified to
resist lateral displacement. IBC 23049.7 Response state this is standard
construction and the connections is not required to be specified. The code is very
specific that state all post shall be positively connected. Please add to the drawing
the required post to beam connections as required. IBC 2304.9.7
7. 12. EOR or AOR please submit analysis of the beams in the garage. The locations
of the columns are not specified so it is not clear the span in order to check
capacity. Submit analysis for the beams and clearly dimension the post locations.
Drawings do not match the new analysis submitted. Modify drawing to clearly
show what is required. It should not be left up to the contractor to have to decide
between 2 different beam sizes.
8. 14. Please specify the required for the continuous joist drag strut on the drawings.
What is the required nailing in order to transfer the design forces? The drawings
should clearly specify this. The drag strut nailing is required to be specified on the
drawings. This is the collector element that is transferring the horizontal shear
forces to the vertical resisting elements. This should be added to the drawings.
Sheet 5 ROOF FRAMING PLAN:
9. 15. EOR please specify the required support of the girder truss. This also should
include the connections. The truss manufactures typically does not specify this on
the drawings. Currently the drawings do not have anything specified. The response
no, is not an acceptable response. I called one truss manufacture in this area
(Western wood Structures) and they stated typically the engineer has this clearly
labeled on the drawings. They can do it but this need to be label as a deferred
submittal as required per IBC 106.3.4.2. This also must be approved by the
building official if elect to list this as a deferred submittal. The drawings are
required to show the required connections as required per code.
10. 16. EOR please submits calculations for the 3-118 X22-112 spanning 32 feet. The
response stating no is not an acceptable answer. Please modify accordingly
11. 19. EOR this sheet specifies different framing member to use then sheet FRI.
Please clarify what is required for the construction of this structure. The structural
information shown on this sheet should be clearly crossed out to assure what is
built in the field is what is required per analysis.
12. 20. EOR please specify the required connection of the dbl 2x12 to the glu-lam
beam. Nothing is specified at this time. This still has not been addressed. Please
modify drawings accordingly.
Page 4of5
EECE EDM 06-55
2006-1092
13. 21. EOR please specify the required post to support the DBL 2x12. This also
should include the required connections. This still has not been addressed on the
drawings.
Sheet FR1 HIGH ROOF FRAMING:
14. 22. EOR please specify the required connection of the beams to the post. Nothing
is specified at this time. This still has not been addressed.
15. 23. The drawings are not clear what supports the girder trusses. The drawings
should clearly specify the support and the required connections. Please modify
drawings in order to show the required connections. Truss manufacture typically
does not deal with this but only design the truss and leave the supporting member
to be specified by the design professional. The response that state emphatically no
is not an acceptable response. Typically this is specified on the drawings. If elect
to do this as a deferred submittal then should be labeled as such and get approval
from the building official.
16. 24. Based off the roof layout the code defines this as having plan irregularities.
The analysis has not dealt with this. Provide analysis for the L shape structure as
required per code. IBC 1620.4.1 The response that states this only occurs when
seismic controls are not correct. Both cases need to be checked. IBC 1620.4.1. In
additions in the response it is stated the overstress is acceptable. The code does not
allow any member to be overstressed. Modify drawings and analysis to show
nothing is over stressed.
Sheet FR2 LOW ROOF/2" FLOOR FRAMING:
17.26. Please specify the required 5-1/8X15 and 3-1/8X13 glu-lam beam. All that is
called out is the reactions. A positive connection should be specified on the
drawings not just the reactions. The response state the two glu-lath beams has been
specified. All that is specified on the drawings is for the glu-lam beam to rest on
the g 3-118. This is not a positive connection. Please add to the drawings the
required positive connection to the drawings as required per code.
Sheet FR3 FIRST FLOOR FRAMING:
18. 29. It is not clear based off the drawings where this is located. Please add grids or
another way to clarify the framing locations. The drawings are not clear in order
to check complete load path. Please modify drawing to match the architectural
drawings. Response state see sheet FR1. But this still does not show where this is.
Please modify drawings clearly to show where this applies.
Page 5 of 5
EECE EDM 06-55
2006-1092
19. 31. EOR please specify the required members that are specified as DBL. Also
specify the required connections. The response state the member has been changed
but the connections is required to be added to the drawings. Also drawing still do
not state that double means double joist. Please note this one the drawings.
20. 32. EOR please specify the required footing size. All that is noted is add post and
footing. This sheet foundation does not match sheet 2. For example at the fireplace
in the living room show different framing. Please modify the drawings clearly to
show what is required to be built here. Some items are shown and then some items
are not. It is not clear what will be built in the field. Modify the set to clearly show
what is required to be built in order to complete the review.
21. 33. EOR please specify the required post to use. All that is noted is add post. The
response state duplicated. The comment is not duplicated of 32. Please clearly add
to the drawing the required post to support the floor framing.
Sheet SL -2 SHEAR WALL CONNECTION DET.:
22, 37. Required roof diaphragm to shear wall connection: Please modify note that
states (2) 2x maybe substituted for a 3X member. The code specifically states
single 3x member shall be used. Also there is not a M2 detail as referenced. IBC
2305.3. 10 and table 2306.4.1 footnote i. This still has not been modified as per the
response. Please modify drawings as required.
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
(360) 874-0562 between 5:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
By:
Hoyt Jeter, P.E.
President