2012-0858 Olson SFR2.pdf
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: June 11, 2013
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. Previous items that recur on this list appear in italics.
Thank you.
On page A3.0:
1.Indicate on the plans the required (2)2x12 DF #2 to be used as driveway deck joists per the
revised structural calculations submitted in response to the plan review comments dated
November 14, 2012.
2.Foundation Provide installation criteria for the 2-inch diameter pipe piles/pile caps to be
used to support the deck on the west side of the structure gridlines A-D/5 and detail
12/S1.0. None could be found among the submitted construction documents.
3.Foundation Plan Eliminate the callout and leader line for an auger cast pile located
between piles #7 and #8 gridlines D.55/3.1 to avoid confusion and guide proper
construction and inspection.
4.Wall Legend Clarify the detail referenced on page S1.0 for the required construction of the
auger cast piles. Detail 3/S1.0 does not appear to apply.
5.Wall Legend - Clarify the difference between the grade beam reinforcement noted and that
required in detail 1/S1.0 and on pages 1 and 2 of the provided structural calculations.
On page A3.3 (this page appears to be missing from the resubmittal documents):
6.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.
7.Clarify the omission on the P1-4 shear wall along gridline 2 represented on page A4 of
the provided structural calculations.
8.Indicate the required construction to complete the shear transfer from the roof diaphragm to
the P1-4 shear wall along gridline 2.
9.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.
10.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.
On page S1.0:
11.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, even in a well-lit
office environment. The details are exactly as submitted earlier. There appears to be room
on page S1.1 that would allow a few to be moved there and for all of the details to be
enlarged. The detail references on the preceding pages would need to be changed also.
12.Clarify detail #16 it appears to be identical to detail #15 and different than that of the
same number in the provided structural calculations. Detail 16 on page S1.0 is exactly
like detail 15/S1.0 and represents a condition where the joists are perpendicular to the
shear wall below. The reference made to detail 16/S1.0 on page A3.2 is where the floor
joists are parallel to the shear wall below. Detail 16 in the provided 8-1/2x11 structural
calculations properly indicates the construction requirements where the joists are parallel to
the shear wall below.
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.
Please include the response(s) to the attached peer review dated June 7, 2013, completed by Landau
Associates, with any other documents brought in to the Permit Center at the time of resubmittal.
Page 2 of 2