Loading...
2015-1091 Albertson addition-remodel2 - Clay Design.pdf City of Edmonds PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BUILDING DIVISION (425) 771-0220 DATE: October 19, 2015 TO: Elizabeth Clay Johnson elizabeth@claydesignllc.com FROM: Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner RE: Plan Check: BLD2015-1091 Project: Albertson addition-remodel th Project Address: 19715 80 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. Items that recur appear in italics. nd Resubmittals must be made at the Development Services Department on the 2 Floor of City Hall. Permit Center hours are M, T, Th, & F from 8am-4:30pm. The Permit Center is closed on Wednesdays. Reviews by other divisions, such as Planning, Engineering, or Fire, may result in additional comments. On sheet A100 – Notes: 1.Door/Win Schedule - Clarify the difference between the size of the windows marked ‘A’ and ‘B’ and of those represented and marked on sheet ‘A102’ – New Floor Plan. The plans should consistently represent the proposed construction to guide proper installation and inspection. On sheet A101 – Exg. Floor Plan: 2.Detail 2 – New Roof Plan – Ventilation - Clarify the reference to the ‘FHA 1/300 150 rule’ regarding the required roof ventilation. The specified ventilation values do not include a unit of measure. Verify that the proposed values meet the minimum required per International Residential Code (IRC) R806.2. The building code regulating one and two- family dwellings adopted by the Washington State Building Code Council is the International Residential Code (IRC). IRC R806.2 requires a minimum net free ventilation area of 1/150 of the area of the vented space. The square footage of the proposed addition, and the attic above it, appears to be about 366 sq. ft. and would require approximately 2.44 sq. ft. (or 352 sq. in) of net free ventilation area. The proposed methods and amounts appear to be less that that required. On sheet A102 – New Floor Plan: 3.Detail 3 – Level 1 – New a.Indicate on the plans the required ‘SW1’ shearwalls along shear wall line ‘V2’ proposed in the provided structural calculations. The response to the plan review Shear wall designations have been updated on New Floor Plan comment states: (p. A102). An approximately 4 foot section of ‘existing’ wall has been ‘marked’ ‘SW1’ and another 5.5 foot section of existing wall has been ‘marked’ SW3’. Together they appear to provide a bit less than one-half of the required lateral resistance of that noted in the provided structural calculations. b.Provide on the plans a detail, and a reference to it, for the minimum required attachment at the top of the interior shear walls marked ‘SW3’ and ‘SW1’along shear 1 wall line V. 2 c.Provide on the plans a detail, and a reference to it, for installation criteria of the indicated ‘LSTA24’ straps at the ends of the interior shear walls marked ‘SW3’ and 1 ‘SW1’along shear wall line V. 2 On sheet A103 – Fdn./Framing: 4.Foundation Plan and Floor Framing Plan – Clarify the reference to detail ‘D6/A108’ for the ledger connection. The proposed design and use of the ‘Simpson DTT2Z’ framing connectors does not appear to develop the resistance to the anticipated shear forces where the ledger used to support the ‘new floor’ of the addition connects to the ‘existing’ rim board. Typically, lag screws or ‘through-bolts’ are used to attach the ledger to the ‘existing’ rim board, or the joists are directly supported by the ‘existing’ rim board using joist hangers. On sheet A104 – Framing Plans 5.Roof Framing Plan a.Clarify the callout for the proposed 2x8 roof rafters. At the maximum span they appear to be over spanned and fail in bending. The response to the plan review The common and jack rafters are 2x8. The engineer approved comment states: the spans (longest being 11’-8.25”). Using the span provided in the response, the rafters still appear to be over spanned and fail in bending. No calculations supporting the specification could be found among the provided construction documents. b.Clarify the callout for the 2-2x10 hip rafters. They appear to be over spanned, fail in bending, and deflect beyond that permitted per IRC Table R301.7. Note: The specified ‘Simpson MTHMQ-2’ hanger proposed to support the hip rafters at the ridge beam is not designed for a connection into the end-grain of a wood framing member. c.Clarify the callout for the proposed 2-2x10 ridge beam. It appears to be over spanned, fails in bending, and deflects beyond that permitted per IRC Table R301.7. Page 2 of 3 On sheet A106 – Sections: 6.Detail 2 – Transverse Section – Clarify the callout for detail ‘D11/A109’ for the required construction at the top of the exterior wall. The referenced detail does not appear to correspond with that anticipated at the top of a wall. Page 3 of 3