2015-0125 Echelbarger (Amy Thomas-Wendell).pdf
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: March 20, 2015
TO: Todd Echelbarger, VP
Echelbarger Investments, LLC
FROM: Andrew Gahan, Plans Examiner
RE: Plan Check: BLD2015-0125
Project: New SFR
th
Project Address: 21811 86 Place W.
During a review of the plans by the Building Division for the above noted project, it was found that
the following information, clarifications, or changes are needed. A complete review cannot be
performed until the revised plans/documents, including a written response indicating where the
clouded or otherwise highlighted changes can be found on the revised plans, have been submitted
to a Permit Coordinator. Reviews by other divisions, such as Planning, Engineering, or Fire, may
result in additional comments.
Sheet A2
1.Reference the perforated shear wall detail located on sheet S1 where perforated shear
walls are used.
2.It appears that a holdown may be missing at the left side of the fireplace in the great
room.
3.Reference the Raised Shear Wall (RSW) detail located on sheet S1 where RSWs are
used.
Sheet A3
4.It appears that the wall at the corner of the Bonus was meant to be a shear wall and the
short wall to the right of the window in Bed #2 was NOT meant to be a shear wall.
Please revise.
5.The shear wall indicated adjacent to the Open To Below and stairs do not meet the h/w
ratio required and were not used in the calculations. Please remove the call-out from the
plan.
6.Add a note regarding whole house ventilation: 100 CFM whole-house ventilation
approved for use 3 hours/4-hour period, 24 hours/day per IRC M1508.
Sheet A4
7.Reference RSW detail located on sheet S-1 where RSWs were used.
st
8.Add holdowns to the foundation plan per the corrected 1 Floor Plan.
Sheet A5
9.Reference all pertinent structural details from sheet S1 as required.
10.Please specify hangers at each location where hangers are required.
11.Provide calculations for floor joists, especially where floor joists are carrying loading
from above along their midspan.
12.It appears there are beams missing at the entry roof to carry the low ends of the rafters.
Additionally, the plan shows an overhang at the front edge of the entry roof. Please
provide a detail for construction at that location.
13.The configuration of the floor system above the great room is unclear. The framing is
shown as simple span between beams 6 &7, and the exterior wall, and simple-span
between the exterior wall and the structural facia. If this is the case, then the south side
of the structural fascia is unsupported. If the joists in that area are to be cantilevered,
please represent that on the plans, provide calculations and specify connections for the
structural fascia. In addition, it appears that the dimensions of the upper floor
represented on the framing plan, do not match the dimensions of the upper floor as
represented on the roof framing plan. Please clarify.
14.It appears the joists above the nook are cantilevered over the exterior wall. Provide
calculations for this condition and specify a hanger to resist any resulting uplift loading
at the backspan.
15.There appear to be unsupported point loads from 12 girder truss above the bonus room.
Sheet A6
16.Per item 12 above, please reconcile the dimensions of the upper floor between Sheets A6
and A5.
Sheet A7
17.Add a note referring to details A, B, G, S, T, U, and V: See shear wall schedule for
shear flow connections.
18.Revise detail I so that the text is not overlaid on the detail.
Sheet S1
19.The design base shear in the structural notes does not match that shown in the structural
calculations. Please reconcile.
20.The shear wall schedule on the plans does not match the shear wall schedule in the
structural calculations.
21.Please number the details and reference them as required on the A sheets.
Calculations
22.It appears that the floor and wall loads were omitted from structural fascia calculation.
23.Verify that the point loads from both beams 4 and 5 were included in the calculation for
beam 6.
24.It appears that the point load from beam 5 was omitted from the calculation for beam 8.
Page 2 of 2