20070410153214.pdfCity of Edmonds
ri PLAN REVIEW_ COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
Fsr. a9° (425) 771-0220
DATE: April 10, 2007
TO: Dennis Walcker
PO BOX 996
Lynnwood, WA 98046
FROM: Jenny Readwin, Plans Ex ine
RE: Plan Check ## 2006-1198
Project: Walcker SFR
Project Address: 742 Daley St.
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) 4/10/07 Still need no response given. Revise site plan to say proposed residence. Currently all is
shown is proposed garage. Please clarify.
2) 4/10/07 Still need on the site plan. No response given. Also, rockery is now shown on the East
side of the driveway. Provide top and bottom wall elevations as well as stamped and signed
detail and calculation for proposed wall. Please note: rockeries are not permitted to support a
surcharge. Provide top and bottom wall elevations at 5' intervals for proposed retaining walls
on both sides of the driveway.
3) 4/10/07 Still need no response given Specify detail to be used for patio retaining wall including
a connection detail for the guardrail. Also, specify top and bottom wall elevations on the site
plan.
4) 4/10/07 Still need no response given Note on site plan if rockery shown on property to the
South is existing or proposed. If proposed separate permit will be required signed by that
property owner with calculations and details.
5) ok
6) 4/10/07 Still need no response given Grading plan shows existing retaining wall on the West
side of the house. Clarify if it will be removed in its entirety including portion on adjacent
property. Also show how this area will be re -graded or if a new retaining wall is proposed.
Modify side plan accordingly.
7) ok
8) 4/10/07 Still need no response given On the site plan note that handrails are required for 4 or
more stair risers and guardrails are required to protect falls greater than 30".
9) 4/10/07 Still need no response given On the site plan specify what is being used as the datum
point. Based on the topography please choose a point that will allow the Building inspector to
perform the height verification inspection.
10) 4/10/07 Still need on Sheet A3 in the laundry room. Show size and location of all source
specific exhaust fans (50 cfin minimum for bath/laundry and 100 cfin for kitchen stove).
11) 4/10/07 Still need no response given Please complete the enclosed Energy and Ventilation
Worksheet. Note on the plans which fan will act as the whole house fan and specify cfrn rating
as determined by enclosed form.
12) 4/10107 Still need no response given Provide crawlspace ventilation calculations and show size
and location of crawlspace vents on foundation plan.
13) 4/10107 Shoring must stay entirely on this parcel Please revise showring plan to clearly show
shoring wall does not cross over the property line. Provide shoring detail and a separate site
plan showing locations of the temporary shoring walls as noted in the Geotechnical Report.
Structural calculations and peer review will be required.
14) ok
15) 4/10107 Still need. Bold italicized special inspections were added during the last resubmittal
based on shoringplans. Special inspections are required for the following. Complete the
enclosed special inspection agreement signed by the owner, the general contractor and the
special inspector and submit to the City for approval prior to issuance.
• Soil cuts
• Temporary and Permanent Shoring including site monitoring
• Foundation Subgrade Verification
• Retaining wall/Rockery Placement
• Placement of Fill and Compaction
• Subsurface drainage installation
• Temp and Final Erosion Control
• General Site Monitoring during earthwork
• Field Welding
16) 4110107 See attached additional comments. See attached structural comments from city
consultant. Respond to each item in writing.
Page 2 of 2
......
Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S.
PO Box 523
Olalla, WA 98359
hoytjeter@centurytel.net
360 874 0562
Fax 360 874 0591
To: Marie Harrison
121 5th Avenue
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Walcker Residence Date: April 4, 2007
742 Daley Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Plan Review # 2006-1198 EECE # EDM 06-62 (2)
Second Letter
Structure
Area S.F.
Lower Floor
140
Main floor
1017
Second floor
1052
Total
2209
Garage
770
Total
2979
Deck
52
rand total
3031
t
gR
BULI)IN DEPT -
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 and the retaining
wall
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 7
EECE#: EDM 06-62 (2)
Walcker Residence
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
General
2.
3. 3. EOR please provide calculation for the slab to resist 7.5 kip force at the base as
noted in the Enercalc program. A narrative response was submitted but not an
analysis. Submit an analysis to justify the load path as required per code. The slab
is required to resist this force. Just stating the load path is not sufficient. Submit an
analysis to justify the forces will be resisted and modify accordingly.
4. 4. Please reference the location of each different wall type to use throughout this
structure. Sheet SI and S2 have many different cases for retaining wall to be built.
It is not clear where all the locations of these walls are to be used. This should not
be decided by the contractor but should be clearly referenced on the drawings.
This still has not been modified clearly. Sheet Al has details that do not occur on
the sheet. For example; there is not a detail 2 on sheet S-1. There is a detail A2 but
not a 2. The drawing should be clear in order to make sure the correct detail is used
at the correct location by the contractor and the inspector is able to cross reference
it during inspections.
5. EOR, when nail spacing is required to be spaced at 2" O/C the minimum size
member shall be a single 3X. The drawings state (2) 2x. The IBC 2006 has.
modified this when the spacing is this close and must be a single 3X. Modify
drawings to clearly state 3x and not double 2x studs. IBC 2306.3.1 footnote c.
Sheet A2 BASEMENT PLAN SHOWING 2ND FLOOR FRAMING:
6. 5. EOR please clearly specify the required connections for the post to the beams.
The response states see attached. The drawings still do not reflect the required post
to beam connections. This is required to be clearly specified on the drawings. For
example, the 3- 1/8X12 or the 5-1/8X16-1/2. The required connections are not
clear on the drawings in order to complete the review. Sheet Al one states `post to
beam connections "Simpson" or equal size as required'. But Simpson makes many
different types of hangers that may be used. There is no way to check the
connections if the specific hanger is not specified. More information is required to
be added to the drawings to complete the review.
Page 3 of 7
EECE#: EDM 06-62 (2)
Walcker Residence
7. 6. EOR please specify the required connection of the post that bears on the
supporting beam below. I was unable to determine the required connections for the
drawings. The response states `see attached'. The note that the post is inside of a
wall is not a positive connection as required per code. The base and the top must be
positively attached to prevent lateral translations. Provide a detail at these locations
to show the required connections of these members.
Sheet A4 2ND FLOOR SHOWING 3' FLOOR FRAMING:
8. 8. EOR please clearly specify the required connections for the post to the beams.
This also should include the double joist. This still has not been addressed. Please
specify the required connections of the all double joist connections to the
supporting members. This should include the cantilever beams, the connections to
the bearing walls, etc, Currently the complete load path to the foundations is not
clear on the submitted drawing.
9. EOR, please clarify the required support for the left hand side area with the cut
2/A8. Clarify these areas. There is a porch area at this location but the detail does
not reflect this.
Sheet A5 FLOOR PLAN 3"0 LEVEL:
10. 9. Please clarify on the drawing how the shear force from the roof framing is
transferred to the interior shear wall. Sheet A7 does not show how these walls are
framing to transfer this force. Please add detail and collector elements to transfer
the required lateral forces. IBC 1620.2.6 Details are still not clearly referenced to
the drawings to show a complete load path More information is required to be
added to show how the force from the roof will transfer to the vertical resisting
elements, i.e. shear wall. Not only is the blocking required but also the collector
element to transfer to this wall. Please add this information to the drawing to
complete the load path.
Sheet A7 ROOF FRAMING PLAN:
11. 10. EOR please provide analysis for the horizontal diaphragm nailing
requirements. It appears the nailing specified in note 2 will not support the
required horizontal diaphragm forces for an unblocked diaphragm. IBC 1620.2.5
and IBC 1620.4.3 The response states see note 6 of the shear wall schedule. Note 6
is for the connections of the trusses, rafter, etc. The analysis should be submitted to
show how the lateral forces are transferred though the diaphragm. IBC 1620.4.3
Sheet A8 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS:
12. 11. Detail 10: EOR please provide analysis far the deck guardrail including the
connections required. The detail does not match the analysis submitted. Modify the
Page 4 of 7
EECE#: EDM 06-62 (2)
Walcker Residence
detail on the drawings to match the required analysis. For example, the 2X fascia
must be removed.
13.12. Detail 12: EOR please sped the required stair angle bolted to floor beam to
resist the design forces. All that is noted is the following, "STAIR < BOLTED TO
FLOOR BEAMSIAfflSOY'. The detail now states Simpson A35 at each side but
the there are (3) stringers. The plan does not show these stringers are connected.
Please clarify on the drawing how these will be connected in order complete the
review.
Sheet A9 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS:
14. 13. Detail 5: Please clarify note "RAILING DETAIL SEE SHEET A ". It is not
clear the required connection required at this location. Also this connection should
resist the minimum code required forces of 200 pounds applied in any direction.
R301.5 See comment under sheet A8.
15. 14. Detail 7. Please clarify in the detail what the % diameter ledger bolts are
connecting to the main structure. All that is noted is building line. Without this
information there is no way to check the connection to support the minimum code
design loads. IBC 106.3.3 EOR, Please specify the require gage between the bolts
and also the required connections of the rim to the structure to transfer the forces.
Sheet S1 STRUCTURAL DETAILS:
16. EOR, submit an analysis for the slab to resist the reaction from the basement
retaining walls. An analysis has not been submitted. For detail A2 the force is 7.47
kips per foot of wall. Submit an analysis to justify the slab will resist this force.
17.16. Detail A2: Design analysis used a d for the top stem wall to be 3.69 inches.
With a 2" clear and center of reinforcement the d from the compression face of
concrete to center of tension steel shall be 3_ 18 and not 3.69. Please modify the
analysis or the drawings to resist the design force as required ACI chapter 10:
(d= distance from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of tension
reinforcement.) Also note the program output picture clearly states the center of
steel to the compression face to be 1-3/4 " but the drawings show 2 " clear. The
detail specifies the reinforcement still on the wrong face for the retaining wall. The
tension face will be on the earth face but as noted the steel will be placed on the
other face with a 1-3/4". The stud wall will not brace the top of the retaining wall.
See Enercalc calculation print out for placement of reinforcement steel. Modify the
drawings accordingly. This also is the case for detail Al. Please modify both
details to show the correct locations of the tension steel.
18. 17. Detail Al and A2: Please specify the required length of the #5 @ 10 " O/C
reinforcement at the top of the footing. The length is specified but not the required
location of the placement of the steel. Please add this information to the drawings.
Page 5 of 7
EECE#: EDM 06-62 (2)
Walcker Residence
19.18. EOR please provides analysis for detail A1. The submitted analysis does not
appear to have this wall designed. EOR, the new analysis has a reaction of 5.3 kips
to be resist by the slab. Submit an analysis to justify the slab can resist this force.
20. 19. Detail 4: EOR, provide an analysis for the A34 to resist the horizontal force
from the soil pressure as a restrained wall. The maximum force and A34 can resist
with a force applied perpendicular is 345 pounds. Therefore, (2) A34 can only
resist 690 pounds if the joists were spaced at 12" OIC. Also, the bolts spaced at 8"
OIC do not resist this force. Note per table I IE Z perpendicular to plane is 470
pounds per foot. So the maximum force that can be resisted is 705 pounds, but it is
clear in the analysis the required force the top of the wall is required to resist is 1.1
kips. Modify detail accordingly. NDS 11.3
21.20. Detail 4: When the joist run parallel to the wall the blocking at 24" O/C will
not resist the design force. Please modify accordingly. NDS table HE. The new
drawings do not match the analysis submitted. For example, A34 supports a
smaller force than the A35 required by analysis. Nothing appears to be modified as
per the analysis except the spacing of the anchor bolts. Also, see Simpson catalog
for the appropriate resisting force. Based off the reactions the connections will not
be resisted as detailed. Modify drawings to match analysis and verify the
connections will resist the forces as required.
22.21. Detail 4: EOR submit analysis to account for the 100 psf force required for the
restrained wall. All the analysis submitted has stated the wall is free to rotate at
the top. This is not the case for the restrained wall. This still has not been
addressed. Also, the new analysis submitted used grade 60 steel but the detail
states to use grade 40. Modify the drawings accordingly.
23.22. EOR please submit analysis for straight bar embedment of the dowel to resist
the design force. It appears the analysis is counting on this bar to transfer this
force. Please clarify on the response. It is not clear how the straight bar
embedment was determined in the new analysis. What does the soil bearing
pressure have to do with bar developments? The dowels are required to resist shear
forces? Also, in seismic zone classified a zone D1 or D2 then 90 degree hook is
required in the footings unless analysis is submitted to justify straight bar
embedment per ACI.. Please modify accordingly and submit an analysis to transfer
the required design loads.
24.23. Detail 4: EOR submit analysis for the 18" wide footing to support the vertical
loads with out exceeding the allowable bearing pressure. This must include the
weight of concrete and the floor loads above. The maximum force that can be
resisted vertically is 2500 PSF * I8" wide footing * 12 " per foot = 3750 pound
per foot of wall. Just the weight of wall alone has a vertical force of 150 *I1 feet*8
inch wall/12 =1100 pounds per foot. IBC 1801.2 The analysis submitted states the
footing shall be 2'6" wide but the detail still state 18". Also, the analysis submitted
Page 6 of 7
EECE#: EDM 06-62 (2)
Walcker Residence
notes the stem is free to rotate about at the top of the footing. The detail shown on
the drawings does not match the analysis submitted. Please modify accordingly.
25. Detail A: The code requires the top and bottom of the ties spacing to be placed not
more than one half a tie spacing above the top of the footing and below the lowest
horizontal reinforcement in slab or drop panel above. Please modify the tie
reinforcement spacing of the pilaster column top and bottom to note 4" OIC. ACI
7.10.5.4
Shoring Review
General
26.
27.NiNknical
28. The analysis requires the concrete strength to have a compression force of 4 KSI as
noted on sheet SH5.2 Please add the requirements for the concrete to the drawing.
IBC 1901.4
Sheet SH1.0 Cover and Shoring Notes
No comment for this sheet at this time.
Sheet SH1.1 Shoring Notes
29. EOR, please the design properties of the pressure treated timber lagging add to the
general notes. Without this information there is no way to check the size specified.
Please add this information to the drawings and submit an analysis to justify the
size used.
Sheet SH2.0 Site Plan
30.
Sheet SH3.0 Elevations
31. Design analysis specify the piles spacing shall not exceed S foot O/C but the
drawings exceed this. The last page of the geotechnical analysis has the spacing of
9 feet but the wall height shall not exceed 5 feet. Pile P2 will exceed the wall
height of 5 feet. Please modify accordingly.
Sheet SH5.0 Typical Details
32. EOR, submit an analysis to justify the 4" pressure treated lumber to resist the
required design force.
33. EOR, please submit an analysis for the flange of the steel beams to support the
timber lagging.
Page 7 of 7
EECE#: EDM 06-62 (2)
Walcker Residence
Sheet SH5.1 Typical Details
34. EOR, please specify the required length of the tie back. The drawing states anchor
bond lengths see pile and anchor schedule, but 1 was unable to find the anchor
schedule specifies these requirements. Please clarify where this is located.
Sheet SH5.2 Typical Details
35. EOR, please submit an analysis for the flange of the steel beams to support the
timber lagging.
Sheet SH5.3 Typical Details
36. Detail 1: EOR, submit an analysis to justify the wood lagging will not shear off due
to the flange bearing directly on the wood piece. Based off a check of analysis the
wood will not be able to resist the design force bearing on the WI 8x55 flange
(tf=518). NDS 3.10.1 and NDS 3.4.1
37. EOR, please submit an analysis for the angle to support the design loads.
Sheet SH6.0 Permanent Retaining Wall Specifications
No comment for this sheet at this time.
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 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
By:
Hoyt Jeter, P.E.
President