Loading...
20090309062847.pdfFD41 City of Edmonds PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BUILDING DIVISION Fst g90 (425) 771-0220 DATE. March 4, 2009 TO: Kristin Hanson Email: hansondesign@hotmail.com FROM: Ann Bullis, Building Official RE: Plan Check: 2008-0593 Project. Johnson SFR Project Address: 16117 74`h Place West During re -review of the plans for the above noted project, it was found that the following information, clarifications or changes are needed. Please provide written responses as to where the changes can be found on the plans, and submit revised plans/documents to a Permit Coordinator. 1 _ Previous item 3: Since you have chosen to provide combustion air to the water heater per IRC MI 703.2(3) from the attic and crawlspace, show compliance to IRC M 1703.3 and M 1703.4 on the plans with specific notes showing compliance so this is not missed by the contractor or inspector during construction. Also the walls of the closet must be insulated and door weatherstripped. Structural calculations are required for all retaining walls on and off site. The only structural cales we have received are for the temporary ecoblock shoring walls dated 5/30/08. Structural talcs (stamped and signed) must still be provided for all remaining retaining walls. Construction details must be provided on the plans and cross referenced where they apply. 2. Clearly show and label all of the permanent retaining walls (including shoring walls that will remain in place) on the site plan, including top and bottom wall elevations at 5 foot intervals. Coordinate drainage, grading, and site plans so they match. Remove reference to "rockery'- from draininge plan since rockeries are prohibited in the Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area. 3. Revise/clarify the /'r1 symbol on the east sideof the house. If they are retaining walls, revise symbol to be accurate and show location and extent of the walls as requested in item 2 above. 4. On the site plan, show the stairs at the south entry_ 5. On the site plan dimension the distance from the proposed house to the adjacent structure to the east (and any other structures within 20 feet of the subject property). This will address comments from our consultant regarding proximity of the house to property lines. 6. The energy calculations are on outdated forms. Please complete the attached energy/ventilation worksheets for the 2006 edition. The lower floor, including the garage, is shown as heated. Revise energy calculations to include all heated spaces (should be 6751 sf while calcs show 4938 sf). Provide manufacturer's information for the overhead garage doors showing they meet the minimum U value noted in the energy calcs. See attached structural and geotechnical comments from the City's consultants. 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 5`h Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Johnson Residence 1611774 Ih Ave W Edmonds, WA 98020 Plan Review # 2008-0593 EECE # EDM 08-76 (2) Plan review number 02 Structure Stated Area S.F. Main Floor 2131 Upper floor 2807 Total 4935 Garage 1845 Total 6783 Deck first floor 580 Porch 128 Grand total 7491 The above referenced project is in the process of plan review for compliance with Edmonds ordinances and applicable codes. The following comments, deficiencieslcorrections 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, Ordinance, V&IAQC, Energy 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 6 Plan Review Number 02 EECE#: EDM 08-76 (2) Johnson Residence 2008-0593 Second Comment Letter ORDINANCE COMMENTS General 1. The new engineering drawings are stamped by the engineer without the signature. Please when resubmitting the drawings have both the stamp and the signature on the drawings. 2. 1. Please note, sprinklers are required for this structure. Based on the stated square footage it appears a NFPA 13D is required. This still has not been specified on the drawings. However, the note that the fire department will verify this is fine but this should also be noted on the drawings. Sheet 2 Lower Floor Plan 3. 4. Please specify that all the penetrations through the garage to house separation wall shall be protected by filling the opening around the penetrating item with approved material to resist the free passage of flame and products of combustion. R309.1.2 The response state a note was added but I was unable to find where this note was specified on the drawings. Please clarify upon the response. Sheet 3 Upper Floor Foundation/ Middle Floor Plan 4. 6. Please add a smoke alann outside of bedroom 3. Smoke alarms shall be installed outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms. R313.2 A smoke alarm is required to be placed giving access to bedroom 3. The one by the stairs where the word Foyer is written is fine for giving access to bedroom 5 but not for bedroom 3. Please modify accordingly. 5. 7. Please clarify on the drawing how the under floor crawl space will be vented This shall be shown on the drawings R408.1 This still has not been addressed this time. 6. 8. Crawl space ventilation shall be a maximum of 3' from each corner. R408.2 This still has not been addressed at this time. 7. 9. Note minimum required finish wall material & height in the shower & bath areas. R307.2. The drawings do not reflect the minimum height of 6" as required per R307.2. Please modify accordingly.. Sheet 4 Upper Floor Plan 8. 10. Please add a smoke alarm outside of master bedroom. Smoke alarms shall be installed outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the Page 3 of 6 Plan Review Number 02 EECE#: EDM 08-76 (2) Johnson Residence 2008-0593 Second Comment Letter bedrooms. R313.2 This still has not been corrected as required. Please modify the drawings. 9. 11. Please add a smoke alarm outside bedroom 2. R313.2. This still has not been correct as required per the IRC. Please modify accordingly. 10. 12. The drawings appear to show a closet around the water heater at the utility room. Please add the information per M1305. This still has not been addressed at this time. The response states it but the drawings do not reflect this information. Please modify accordingly. 11. 13. Please provide detail for the construction of the deck and the deck guards. Nothing is specified at this time accept schematically. This still has not been addressed on the drawings_ Flashing requirements should be specified on the drawings at the interface between the house and the decking. Nothing is shown at this time. R703.8 12. Comment not applicable since there is a common area Sheet 9 Section A 13. Comment not applicable since there is a common area 14. Comment not applicable since there is a common area 15. Comment not applicable since there is a common area Sheet 10 Section B 16. Comment not applicable since there is a common area 17. Comment not applicable since there is a common area 18. Comment not applicable since there is a common area 19.20. Please clarify sections KIS6 noted in the sections. This appears not to be correct. This still has not been corrected as per the response. Please modify accordingly. STRUCTURAL COMMENTS Shoring Page 4 of 6 Plan Review Number 02 EECE#: EDM 08-76 (2) Johnson Residence 2008-0593 Second Comment Letter 20.21. Please note special inspections are required for the installations of the shoring block wall. This has not been added to the drawings. Please modify the drawings accordingly. 21. 22. Please note that the geotechnical engineer shall perform the monitoring for the durations of the foundations system. Please note this on the drawings. This appears not to be addressed at this time. Sheet 5 Lower Floor Foundation 22. 25. EOR, please dimension the size of the footing under the post next to the retaining wall footing in order to check the capacity. This still has not been corrected at this time Sheet 6 Main Floor Framing 23. 26. EOR, provide analysis for the 4x8 ledger supporting the 4x10 beam. The drawings have not been corrected as per the response. Please modify accordingly. Sheet 8 Roof Plan 24. 27. Please submit analysis for the (2) 2x8 over the kitchen window. The drawings have not been revised as per the response. Please modify accordingly. Sheet S 1 Foundation Plan 25.28. EOR, please submit analysis for the 4x10 ledger span at the knock out area. This should include the connections of the ledger to the wall. Per check analysis, it appears this will not support the design loads. PIease modify the drawing to show the correct ledger and connections. 26.29. EOR, please add detail Q on sheet S6 as referenced on this sheet. This still has not been corrected at this time. 27. 30. Please incorporate the geotechnical recommendations noted for this sheet. It appears this has not been addressed at this time. This still has not been modified as required per the geotechnical report. Sheet S2 Main FIoor Framing Plan 28.31. EOR, please provide analysis for the 4x10 being support by the 4x8 ledger. Please submit analysis for the 4xI0 ledger supporting the 4x10 beam. Page 5 of 6 Plan Review Number 02 EECE4- EDM 08-76 (2) Johnson Residence 2008-0593 Second Comment Letter 29.32. FOR, please provide analysis for the 4x8 ledger supporting the 5-1/8X9 GLB. Per check analysis, it appears this will not be able to support the design loads. Analysis has not been submitted at this time. 30. FOR please specify the required hanger to support the glu-lam beams. All that is stated is GLT hanger. 31. 35. FOR, please clarify the size of the covered deck framing. This also should include the connections. This has not been a specified at this time. Please modify accordingly. Sheet S3 2nd FIoor Framing Plan 32. 36. FOR, please specify the required deck ledger size and connections shown on this sheet. IBC 1604.8.3 This still has not been corrected at this time. 33.37. FOR, please specify the required multiple stud to beam connections. IBC 2304.9.7. This still has not been specified at this time. Please modify accordingly. Sheet S4 Roof Framing 34. 39. FOR, please specify the required multiple stud to beam connections. IBC 2304.9.7 This still has not been corrected at this time 35. 40. FOR, please specify the required collector element for the shear wall mark W6 at the master bedroom, dining and kitchen area. There are no collector elements specified. This still has not been specified at this time 36. 41. EOR, please provide details at the shear wall W6 at the deck area. The roof trusses extend over this shear walls and it is not clear how the diaphragm forces will be transfer to these walls_ Please modify the drawings accordingly. This still has not been provided at this time. Sheet S5 General Notes, Schedules, Tables & Details 37. 45. Please note the plate washer shall be a minimum 3" x 3" x 0.229" at all anchor bolts. The shear wall schedule note 10 states 2X2X3/16. R602.1 I .I. and IBC 2305.3.11./ This still has not been corrected at this time Sheet S6 Details Page 6 of 6 Plan Review Number 02 EECE#: EDM 08-76 (2) Johnson Residence 2008-0593 Second Comment Letter 38.47. Detail K: Please modify the hanger call out stating U210. This hanger is not approved to be used in contact with treated lumber per Simpson catalog.R3193. This still has not been corrected at this time. VENTILATION AND INDOOR AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMENTS General 39. 48. I was unable to determine the size and the locations of the whole fan for this structure. The city of Edmond form state to be placed in the hall by the stairs but this is not shown on the drawings. Please specify the required CFM for the whole house fan on the drawings. ENERGY COMMENTS No comment at this time. Prescriptive method Used 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 LANDAU 1A ASSOCIATES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ewvaoNmEwvJ.IGW%aMr-xl aES TO: Ann Bullis, Building Official City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Building Division FROM: Dennis R. Stettler, P.E. t Ll� DATE: March 6, 2009 RE: GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW FOR ESLHA SUBMITTAL PACKAGE BUILDING PERMIT NO. BLD20080593 RESUBMITTAL JOHNSON SFR —16117 74TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON This technical memorandum provides our geotechnical peer review of portions of the permit package resubmitted to the City of Edmonds (City) for the proposed referenced development within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA) of North Edmonds. Landau Associates previously provided geotechnical peer review comments on the original building permit submittal package in a technical memorandum dated August 14, 2008. The purpose of this current geotechnical peer review was to review resubmitted portions of the permit package related to geotechnical, foundation, and earthwork aspects of the project, and to assess whether the previous peer review comments have been appropriately addressed by the project design team and whether the submittal is in compliance with City development and building permit requirements as contained in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 19.10 and 23.80. This geotechnical peer review was accomplished in accordance with Task Order No. 09-03 of Landau Associates' On -Call Geotechnical Engineering Services Agreement with the City. We have received the following additional information forwarded by the City for the resubmittal review in addition to material that was a part of the original submittal package: • Johnson New Residence, 16117 74`h Place West, Project #BLD 2008 4593, Response to Landau Letter: Aug. 14, 2008, letter prepared by Hanson Design, dated February 5, 2008. • Johnson New Residence, 16117 74`h Place West, Project #BLD 2008 0593, to Gina Coccia, Planner, Response to Letter: Aug. 20, 2008, letter prepared by Hanson Design, dated February 5, 2008. • Block Walls Plan (including Figures 1 and 2 Temporary Ecology Block Wall) prepared by Zipper Zeman & Associates (ZZA-Terracon) (figures dated May 2008, Plan Sheet 513 dated February 2009) • Structural Drawings for Johnson Residence, Sheet S1 through S6, prepared by Baker Engineers, Inc., P. S., dated June 12, 2008, through Revision #4 dated October 12, 2008. 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 . fax (425) 778-6409 . www.landauinc.com • Grading & TESC (Sheet]) and Road & Drainage Plan (Sheet 2) for Steve and Joan Johnson, prepared by Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated March 13, 2008, including Revision #2 dated January 22, 2009. The following paragraphs briefly restate our August 14, 2008 review comments and indicate how the review comments have been addressed by the applicant. Landau Associates' review comment: The plans should note the requirement for Geotechnical Engineer of Record monitoring. The letter from Hanson Design states that this requirement is covered in the Edmonds Special Inspection Form on record with the City. This action addresses the review comment. Landau Associates' review comment: We recommend Figures 1 and 2 and the accompanying notes prepared by ZZA-Terracon regarding temporary ecology block gravity shoring walls be incorporated into the construction drawings. This comment has been addressed by including the figures on Plan Sheet 5B. Landau Associates' review comment: We recommend that a note be added to the figures to reflect that the ecology block walls will remain. The response to comments and review of the plans indicate that this comment has been addressed by including a note on Plan Sheet 5B stating that the lower ecology block wall will be left in place. However, the upper ecology block wall is called out on Plan Sheet 5B as a temporary wall. The Civil Plans show a permanent wall at this location. We assume that the temporary ecology block wall will become the permanent wall at this location. The plans should either be revised to reflect this understandin or, if a different wall tyve is planned for the permanent wall the details for the permanent wall need to be provided. Landau Associates' review comment: We recommend temporary construction easements or other documentation be obtained that grants approval to extend temporary excavations and ecology block walls into the adjacent Common Area. The response to comments from Hanson Design indicates that this comment has been addressed in the Edmonds grading permit and has been signed by adjacent property owners. Landau Associates' review comment: We recommend that the ZZA-Terracon temporary shoring wall design, the Excavation .Flan (prepared by Ken Davis Backhoe), and all related requirements regarding the temporary cut and shoring be integrated and combined into one plan sheet document for purposes of construction. Hanson Design states that this comment has been addressed by including a construction sequence on page 1 of the Civil Plan dated January 22, 2009. However, the construction sequence outlined on the 03106109Nedmdata5projectsl074\1495PileRm5R4GeotPeerRetiew-Resubmittal—tm.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 Civil Plan addresses primarily the temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) issues and does not include the construction sequence contained in the previously submitted Excavation Plan. Our previous review comment has not been addressed in the resubmittal. Landau Associates review comment: We recommend that the recommended revisions or additions to the plans as contained in the bulleted list of the ZZA-Terracon letter dated May 30, 2008 be addressed by the design team and incorporated into the final drawings. It does not appear that the design team has fully addressed the ZZA-Terracon review comments. We recommend that the design team refer to the ZZA-Terracon May 30, 2008 letter for detailed recommendations provided on each bulleted item and confirm that the ZZA-Terracon comments have been fully addressed. In particular, the recommendations referenced in the following comments do not appear to have been addressed: The second bullet refers to Sheet S5 and provides the recommendation for compaction to a depth of 2 feet (ft) below foundations, and overexcavation and replacement of the existing soil, if necessary. This recommendation has not been incorporated into the notes or details of Sheet S5. The recommendations of the sixth bullet references Detail A/S5 and recommends a minimum drainage trench depth and a call -out for a 6 -inch diameter perforated PVC drain pipe; these recommendations have not been addressed in the revised plans. The seventh bullet states that the c -c drain line spacing on Sheet S 1 should be 15 ft rather than 15 inches; that comment has not been addressed. The eighth bullet recommends a construction sequence that includes backfilling the walls prior to other work on the structure to limit the time the temporary cuts are left open. This recommendation and the related recommendation for minimum concrete cure time or strength prior to backfilling has not been addressed. Landau Associates' review comment: We recommend that the structural engineer confirm that the lower wall has been designed to accommodate surcharge loading from the upper retaining wall. The response to review comments from Hanson Design states that the revised Structural Plans dated January 26, 2009, sheet S5, detaiI J addresses this comment. Landau Associates' review comment: The Civil Plans should be revised to show the concrete retaining walls now planned far the area adjacent to the driveway. This comment has been addressed by showing a concrete wall adjacent to the lower driveway. Landau Associates' review comment: A note on the Civil Plans states that the wall adjacent to the asphalt paved driveway adjacent to the entrance porch near the southeast corner of the house will be an "Engineered Retaining Wall (By Geotec). " No plans for this wall are included in the materials 03108109 Nkedmdata5projectsA0745149NFileRm5RXGeotPeorReAew-Reaubmittal—tm.doc LANDAUASsocIATES 3 provided for our review and the type of retaining wall and the details need to be addressed in either the civil or structural plans. A review of the revised Civil Plans still shows the comment "Engineered Retaining Wall (By Geotec)" adjacent to the wall in question. It a ears that this review comment was not addressed by the design team. Landau Associates' review comment: The pre -construction meeting needs to include the Geotechnical Engineer of Record [see City of Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Requirements]. These requirements should be noted on the Grading and TESL sheet and the owner or lead design professional should arrange for these services with the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. The geotechnical engineer has been added to the required attendees at the pre -construction meeting. Landau Associates' review comment: We recommend that the TESC and Grading plans specifically indicate that earthwork is restricted between October I and April 30 and any earthwork in this time period requires approval from both the Geotechnical Engineer of Record and the City Building Official. The referenced seasonal restriction has not been added to the plans. Hanson Design responded in its written comments that it could be added, but seems irrelevant because no one would even think of working on the site during the wet season. We appreciate this perspective, but it has been our experience that owners or contractors do occasionally attempt to work during this time period and making it clear on the plans to all parties that a restriction is in place would be prudent. This technical memorandum has been prepared for the exclusive use by the City of Edmonds in evaluating the adequacy of resubmitted permit documents related to the proposed Johnson single-family residence at 16117 74th Place West. The focus of this resubmittal review was the geotechnical aspects of the application. The purpose of the review was to assess the adequacy of the application documents for compliance with City of Edmonds requirements contained in ECDC 23.86 and ECDC 19.14 and conformance with conventionally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This geotechnical peer review by Landau Associates does not lessen the requirements for the applicant's geotechnical consultant and other design professionals to prepare an appropriate design for the site conditions. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City of Edmonds. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we may be of further service. DRS/ccy 173/06/09 lledmdatalorojectsti07419491FileRm'RXGeotPeerReAew-Resuhmittal_tm.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES 4