2012-0858 Olson SFR.pdf
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: November 14, 2012
TO: James Thomas
jthomas@arch-design.net
FROM: Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner
RE: Plan Check: 2012-0858
Project: Olson SFR
th
Project Address: 15500 75 Place W
During a 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, cloud all changes on the revised plans, and submit the revised
plans/documents to a Permit Coordinator. Thank you.
General review notes:
The geotechnical engineering evaluation report presented by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc.
references items that could not be found among, or were not represented in, the other construction
documents. Please clarify the following statements:
Retaining walls up to nine feet in height are planned. pages 1 & 14 No retaining
·
walls could be found on the site plan or architectural/structural plans, and no structural
design for such a wall was submitted.
The lower floor slab will be designed as a structural slab and will be entirely supported
·
on auger cast piles. pages 1, 8, & 15 - No structural slab could be found on the
architectural/structural plans and no structural design for such a slab was submitted.
A small soldier pile retaining wall is planned near the northeastern corner of the site to
·
replace a failed ecology block retaining wall. pages 1, 8, &16 - No soldier pile wall
could be found on the site plan or architectural/structural plans, and no structural design
for such a wall was submitted.
The unique and specific nature of the work necessary to complete your project requires special
inspection per IBC 1704 and the project structural engineer. A City of Edmonds Special Inspection
and Testing Agreement (see attached) for the following work will need to be completed and
returned prior to permit issuance:
Grading/Soils
·
Auger Cast Concrete Piles
·
On page T1.0:
1.Division 7 Note #1 Change the WSEC code year/table reference from 2006/Table
106C to 2009/Table 6-1.
2.Division 8 Note #4 Remove the conditional language with habitable spaces. An
operable emergency escape and rescue opening is required in all basements per R310.1.
3.Division 23 Note #4 Change the word ceiling to intake grille and the value 1.5 to
1.0 or less at 0.1 inches water guage to meet the requirements of M1508.4.2.
4.Division 26 Note #1 Change the code year/reference from 2006 International Electrical
Code to 2008 National Electrical Code.
5.Governing Codes Change the International Mechanical Code reference year from 2006 to
2009.
On page A1.0:
6.Rear Elevation - Clarify the difference between the windows/door of the master bedroom
shown and that represented on page A2.1 and the window schedule on page A5.0 see also
review note #16.
7.Rear Elevation Clarify the difference between the deck off of the master bedroom shown
and that represented on page A3.2 see also review note #30.
On page A2.0:
8.Provide the required smoke alarm per R314.
9.The 100 CFM whole house fan located in the laundry room meets the requirement (60 CFM)
for continuous operation per Table M1508.2. Intermittent operation requires the fan to be
sized according to the time of operation as a fraction of the day (i.e. a fan in operation 12
hours a day is required to be 120CFM, 8 hours would be 180CFM).
10.Provide the required crawl space access per R408.4.
On pages A2.0 and A5.0:
11.Indicate the required safety glazing for the 6046 slider window (window #14) in the
Storage Room per R308.4.7.
12.Indicate the required safety glazing for the 4046 picture window (window #4) in the
Sewing Room per R308.4.2&7.
On page A2.1:
13.Indicate the required access for the master bathroom tub pump (if jetted) and the tempering
valve per UPC 414. The tempering valve can also be installed at the water heater.
14.Clarify the section callout 5/A5.0 at the interior stairway.
15.Provide the required attic access per R807.1.
16.Clarify the difference between the windows/door of the master bedroom shown and that
represented on page A1.0 see also review note #6.
On pages A2.1 and A5.0:
17.Indicate the required safety glazing for the 7046 picture window (window #23) in the
master bedroom per R308.4.2.
18.Indicate the required safety glazing for the 2046 single-hung window (window #28) in the
master bathroom per R308.4.5.
Page 2 of 4
On page A3.0:
19.Clarify the detail callout 3/S1.0 at gridline C.1 / 3.5.
20.Provide the detail callout at the edge of the driveway to guide proper construction and
inspection. It appears to have been cut off during the processing of the plans.
21.Provide beam calculations for the driveway deck framing members Beams E2 PT 5-
1/8x16-1/2 24F GLB - and the (2) #2 Hem-fir 12x12s used to meet the loading
requirements of Table R301.5a. Include the required species and layup design for the
glulam.
On page A3.1:
22.Clarify the detail callout 3/S1.0 at gridline C.1 / 3.5.
23.Provide beam calculations for the following:
a.Beam 21 5-1/8x15 24F GLB
b.Beam 22 5-1/8x12 24F GLB
Include the required species and layup design for each.
On page A3.2:
24.Change the detail reference from 15/S1.1 to 15/S1.0.
25.Change the detail reference from 16/S1.1 to 16/S1.0.
26.Change the detail reference from 18/S1.0 to 18/S1.1.
27.Change the detail reference from 19/S1.0 to 19/S1.1.
28.Clarify the detail reference 20/S1.1 along the front of the house. While present at each side
of it, there does not appear to be a cantilever at that location.
29.Clarify the omission on the P1-6 shear wall along gridline F represented on page A3 of
the provided structural calculations.
30.Clarify the difference between the deck off of the master bedroom shown and that
represented on page A1.0 the structural calculations for Beam 16 - #2 Hem-fir 4x8 do not
seem to support either - see also review note #7.
31.Provide beam calculations for the garage floor framing members Beams E1 5-1/8x16-
1/2 24F GLB - and the 1-3/4x11-7/8 LVLs used to meet the loading requirements of Table
R301.5a. Include the required species and layup design for the glulam.
On page A3.3:
32.Clarify the difference between the length and type of shear walls shown on gridline C/F
and that represented on page A4 of the provided structural calculations.
33.Clarify the omission on the P1-4 shear wall along gridline 2 represented on page A4 of
the provided structural calculations.
34.Indicate the required construction to complete the shear transfer from the roof diaphragm to
the P1-4 shear wall along gridline 2.
35.Clarify the callout for Beam 4 #2 Hem-fir 6x8 the point load from the girder truss does
not appear to have been accounted for.
36.Clarify the callout for Beam 8 #2 Hem-fir 4x4 the point load from the 2x12 ridge beam
does not appear to have been accounted for.
Page 3 of 4
On page A5.0:
37.Typical Wall Section Typical Floor - Clarify the difference between the floor sheathing
thickness and attachment noted and that required in the Structural Notes/Floor Sheathing
notes on page S1.0 see also review note #38.
On page S1.0:
38.Structural Notes Floor Sheathing - Clarify the difference between the floor sheathing
thickness and attachment noted and that required in the Structural Notes/Floor Sheathing
notes on page 8 of the provided structural calculations.
39.Provide legible structural details to guide proper construction and inspection in the field.
After being reduced and copied, the provided details are difficult to read in even a well-lit
office environment.
40.Clarify detail #16 it appears to be identical to detail #15 and different than that of the same
number in the provided structural calculations.
41.Provide a complete shear wall schedule to guide proper construction and inspection. A
portion of the provided shear wall schedule appears to be missing.
These plan review comments summarize the Building Division concerns regarding the construction
documents that have been submitted to date.
Reviews by other divisions, such as Planning, Engineering, or Fire, may result in additional review
comments.
Also included (attached to the same email) is a technical memorandum, summarizing the
geotechnical peer review required for development within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide
Hazard Area (ESLHA) of North Edmonds per Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Chapters 19.10 and 23.80. Please include the response(s) to the peer review with any other
documents brought in to the Permit Center at the time of resubmittal.
Page 4 of 4