2015-0641 O'Malley SFR2 - O'Neill.pdf
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: August 14, 2015
TO: Bruce ONeill
mick@designworksconstruction.net
FROM: Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner
RE: Plan Check: BLD2015-0641
Project: OMalley SFR
Project Address: 754 Bell Street
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. Items that recur on this list appear in italics.
On sheet A-4:
1.Upper Floor Plan and Roof Framing Plan - Clarify the difference in the placement of the
window marked 20 and of that represented on the East Elevation on sheet A-7, and
noted in the provided structural calculations. The reduced size sheet A-4 in the provided
structural calculations does not show a window (although there is a mark 20). The shear
wall calculations on page 4.7 of the provided structural calculation indicate shear wall
segment widths of 9.5 feet and 5.5 feet, neither of which can be located adjacent the stairs
without additional lateral design.
On sheet A-5:
2.First Floor Framing Plan
a.Indicate on the plans the required posts to support the compression loads below each
end of the of the shearwalls marked SSW24 along wall line B on sheet A-3
Upper Floor Framing Plan. The response to the plan review comment states:
Lower floor SSW24 has been added to the west shear wall along line B to
utilize Simpson SSW details. (see plan for call outs). SSW24 on the east shear
wall along line B is only on the main floor because wall below is concrete to
top of lower main floor. (see plan for call outs).
A full-height concrete wall
below the first floor framing appears to have been added below the east-most main
floor SSW24, so no posts are required below it. However, no changes appear to
have made (by adding either posts or SSW24s) below the remaining two shearwalls
marked SSW24 along wall line B on sheet A-3 Upper Floor Framing Plan.
b.Indicate on the plans the required hanger or construction to support the loads at the
The response to the plan
north end of beam FB-3 3.5x11.875 2.05E PSL.
review comment states: HSUL410 Added to plans to support end of FB 3.
Per
the manufacturer, the allowable load capacity of the HSUL410 is well below the
loads noted in the provided structural calculations.
c.Indicate on the plans the minimum required post to support the loads below the east
end of beam FB-4 7x14 2.05E PSL. The hanger callout in response to the review
comment above appears to have replaced/obscured the post noted on the construction
documents submitted earlier.
On sheet A-6:
3.Foundation Plan
a.Clarify the location of the 24x24x12 isolated footing intended to support the loads
below the converging ends of beams FB-7 3.5x11.875 2.05E PSL - and FB-8
3.5x9.5 2.05E PSL. It appears to be mis-located 2 feet to the east.
b.Clarify the location of the 24x24x12 isolated footing intended to support the loads
below the east end of beam FB-8 3.5x9.5 2.05E PSL. It appears to be mis-
located 2 feet to the north.
4.Holdown Schedule
a.Clarify the callout for the holdown marked T-2 HDQU11-SDS2.5. Per the
manufacturer, it appears that it is no longer available and there is quite a difference
in the allowable tension loads when attached to a 6x6 for those similarly identified.
HDQU11-SDS2.5 changed on
The response to the plan review comment states:
shear wall schedule to HHQU11-SDS2.5 (typo.) and 6x6 DF #1 noted on plan
1/A5.
No change appears to have been made in the resubmitted construction
documents.
b.Indicate on the plans the required framing members to be used for the attachment of
the holdown marked T-3 HDQ8-SDS3. Per the manufacturer, it appears that a
very specific wood member thickness and species of wood be used to develop the
The response to the
tension loads noted in the provided structural calculations.
plan review comment states: Detail of the wall-to-wall connection is shown on 1-
A5 and revise to show member called out on shear wall schedule in the
comments column (6x6 DF #1). Also holdown is corrected to HHQU11-SDS2.5.
No change appears to have been made in the resubmitted construction documents.
Page 2 of 2