20140820110245862.pdfUA on I wo, MOWN R
RE- Plan Check: BLD2013-0860
Project: Gray Addition d
Project Address: 22306 92 Ave. W
On Sheet AD1.0:
Foundation Demo Plan — Clarify the difference in the size of the east isolated
footing in the center of the garage and of that required at that location on sheet
'AF1.0" — Foundation Plan, The review response confirms the dimensions of the
west isolated footing in the garage. However, the 3'-4 W x 24" footing to the east
appears to be a bit smaller than the 48"x24" footing represented at the same
location.
Detail I on sheet AD1.0 — The dimension for the area of the slab to be
demolished has been updated to read 4'-O"x2'-O" in order to match the
48"x24" footing on sheet AF1.0.
On Sheet AF1.0:
2. Second Floor Framing Plan:
a. Clarify the callout for the east'existing 5-1/2x7-1/2 glu-lam beam' to be used
to support the loads from the (4)2x8 and (3)2x8 built-up members and the
loads from the floor joists. It appears to be over spanned, fails in bending, and
deflects beyond that allowed per"'Fable R301.07. The point load from the
(4)2x8s noted in the provided structural calculations appears to be a bit low
and that from the (3)2x8s does not appear to have been accounted for at all.
See attached structural response letter.
b. Clarify the callout for the east'existing 5-1/2x7-1/2 glu-lam beam' to be used
to support the loads from the (2)2x8 built-up member and the loads from the
floor joists. It appears to be over spanned, fails in bending, and deflects
beyond that allowed per TableR301.7. The uniform loads appear to be a bit
low and the point load from the (2)2x8s does not appear to have been
accounted for at all.
3. Foundation Plan — Indicate on the plans the required minimum wood member
thickness and species for the attachment of the 'HDU11-SDS2.5' holdowns at
each end of the shearwall marked 7 along the north wall of the garage to
develop the tension load noted in the provided structural calculations.
- . - • •1 - -
On Sheet A1.1:
4. Roof Framing Plan ® Clarify the callout for the (4)2x8 HF #2 to be used as a
girder supporting the upper and lower roof rafters. It appears to be over spanned
and deflects beyond that allowed per Table R301.7. The provided structural
calculations do not appear to include the overhang and indicate a lower than
anticipated tributary load.
Sincerely,
Miles Walker
Associate
Struc,tur-al Dcsi',:,�11
August 18, 2014
Botesch, Nash., & Hall
Attn: Miles
2727 Oakes Ave, Suite 100
Everett, WA 98210
Subject: Building Official Colliments, Plan Check: 131B2013-0860
SDA Ref. # 7290
To whom this may concerti:
At the request of Miles. with Botesch. Nash. & Hall, this office reviewed the subject project to answer the
building official comments.
Following is Our response to those comments:
2.a) Reaction from ( ' 4) 2x8 HF 4 2 floor joist with rooffloint load was verified and is correct, (see middle of
page GI). "rho LUDL'reaction for this beam is 4.61 11/174 DL This is the only point load along the I Y-0"
main floor beam. The uniforin load of 729 LL / 185 DL was checked and is correct. The exist 5 V2x 7 ',�, beam
fails by 40% as the calculations show. Al/2- x 7 steel plate added to the side of the existing wood beam is
required, as shown on the bottom of p. G 1. & top of'G'-I of the calculations. The (3) 2x8 HFJ!2 do not Pall of) this
span, but the adjacent span.
b) The southeast beam (Closest to the house) is ok.,(see Computer printout (32A). The northeast beam (closest to
the house), fails in deflection and requires a 1 -/4 x 7-1/2 Microllain sistered to the side and connected with',!, x
4 1/% SDS screws, spaced at 12" o/c (staggered), (see attachc(l sketch).
3. Note added under Holdown "w/ 6x6 DF#2-.
4. The roof beam shown on the top of page GI, has a span of] 1'-0'"and a tributary width of 1.3.33' / 2 which is
correct. Calculations show that (4) 2x8 HF#2 is correct.
Please cot:
Si c -elv.
e
Chris CI
this office if you have any questions concerning this letter, or for any further assistance.
gton, P.E.
2210 1 lo\vin A\ c�„ �udk, 101 i ^,vcrc t1,
..:.i.2' a2 ol. 16