Loading...
2015-0872 Cumberland 2nd Review.pdf City of Edmonds PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BUILDING DIVISION (425) 771-0220 DATE: November 9, 2015 TO: Builders Service Co. Mason Rappel vinylsyd@earthlink.net FROM: Andrew Gahan, Plans Examiner nd RE: Plan Check: BLD2015-0872, 2 Review Project: Cumberland Deck th Project Address: 24105 89 Place W During the second review of the plans by the Building Division for the above noted project, it was found that the following information, clarifications, or changes are still 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. Note the original comments appear in italics below. 1.The note regarding the 2x10x30’ header (ledger) attachment should specify the size and spacing of the lag bolts. The response to the above comment letter does not conform to IRC Table R507.2. Either revise the spacing to conform to that table, or provide wet-stamped engineering calculations to support the proposed connection. 2.OK 3.Please provide details for the deck roof and related connections, or remove the deck roof from the plans. A boiler-plate set of plans was submitted in response to the above comment. While the plans are sealed by an engineer licensed in the state of Washington, there are hand-drawn revisions to the details show, thus nullifying the engineer’s seal. Additionally, it necessary to isolate only those details necessary and relevant to this particular project, and include them on the plan to help guide accurate and efficient plan review and inspection. Please resubmit with a set of concise plans showing only those details necessary and cross referencing those details on the framing plan(s). The resubmitted plan set should be wet- stamped by the engineer of record (EOR) with any additional hand-drawn changes to the plan initialed by the EOR. Lastly, the plans are to be resubmitted in duplicate. 4.Provide seismic connections per IRC R507.2.3. Note that the state amended version of this code section includes a detail for an existing structure condition. The response to the above comment states that the seismic connection per IRC 507.2 is not required as a result of the framing configuration within the main structure. No exemption from this requirement could be found. One of the following must be provided: provide a reference to the current IRC (or IBC) that shows an exemption to the · deck seismic connection requirement, or provide structural engineering calculations showing that the connections · provided are adequate to resist the required lateral loads, or Add a detail to satisfy the requirements of IRC R507.2.3. Note that a helpful · detail can be found at the following location (see page 4 of 6, Option 2) online for retrofit solutions: http://www.mybuildingpermit.com/Constuction%20Tip%20Sheets/2012%20Tip %20Sheets/MBP%20Tip%20sheet%2005_2012.pdf Page 2 of 2