Loading...
2016-0344 Select Homes SFR - Nash.pdf City of Edmonds PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BUILDING DIVISION (425) 771-0220 DATE: December 27, 2016 TO: Select Homes, Inc. kayla.clark@outlook.com FROM: Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner RE: Plan Check: BLD2016-0344 th Project Address: 8721 218 Street SW Project: Select Homes SFR Scope: Construct single family residence – R-3/U occupancy group – V-B construction - NFPA-13D sprinkler system required– mechanical and plumbing included disapproved Please be advised that the building plans for the above referenced project have been for the purposes of obtaining a building permit. During a review of the plans by the Building Division for compliance with the applicable building codes, it was found that the following . information, clarifications, or changes are neededReviews by other divisions, such as Planning, Engineering, or Fire, may result in additional comments that require attention beyond the scope of this letter. A complete review cannot be performed until the revised plans/documents, including a written response in itemized letter format indicating where the ‘clouded’ or otherwise highlighted changes can be found on the revised plans, have been submitted to a Permit Coordinator. 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 and from 8:30am-12pm on Wednesdays. On sheet A1: 1.Rear Elevation – Clarify on the plans the difference in the width of the window represented in the east wall of the ‘Master Bedroom’ and of that represented on sheet ‘A4’ – Main Floor Plan. The window ‘callout’ appears to coincide with that represented on sheet ‘A1’, but not with that on the same sheet. On sheet A2: 2.Left Elevation – Clarify on the plans the difference in the width of the windows represented in the north wall of the ‘Kitchen’ and of that represented on sheet ‘A4’ – Main Floor Plan. The window ‘callout’ appears to coincide with that represented on sheet ‘A2’, but not with that on the same sheet. On sheet A3: 3.Foundation Plan a.Indicate on the plans the required minimum size and reinforcement of the ‘typical’ isolated footings to avoid ‘scaling’ and to guide proper review, construction, and inspection. b.Indicate on the plans the minimum ‘widened’ footing to support the loads below the converging ends of the 4x10 beam over the entry to the ‘Den’ and the east-west floor framing girder truss over the stairs, and from the west end of the east-west roof framing girder truss over the stairs. The ‘typical’ footing/foundation wall appears to be undersized for the loads anticipated by the represented construction. On sheet A4: 4.Main Floor Plan a.Indicate on the plans the ‘P1-4’ shear wall along the east wall of the ‘Garage’ (shear wall line ‘B’) specified in the provided ‘Beam, Lateral and Seismic Calculations’. b.Clarify on the plans the ‘callout’ for the ‘P1-6’ shear wall along the north wall of the stairs (shear wall line ‘2’) where there is no floor diaphragm. The design does not appear to meet that required/allowed per the American Wood Council (AWC) Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic (SDPWS). Update the provided ‘Beam, Lateral and Seismic Calculations’ as required in response to the review comment. On sheet A5: 5.Upper Floor Framing Plan – Clarify on the plans the proposed construction and connections for the represented floor diaphragm opening for the stairs and the designated shear walls on sheet ‘A4’. The specified design does not appear to meet that required/allowed per the AWC SDPWS. Often, a truss or beam is used as a ‘collector’/drag-strut to transfer the loads to an adjacent shear wall to avoid openings in the floor diaphragm and narrow portions of the floor diaphragm. On sheet A6: 6.Upper Floor Plan - Clarify on the plans the ‘callout’ for the ‘P1-4’ shear wall along the north wall of the stairs (shear wall line ‘2’) where there is no floor diaphragm. The represented shear wall lengths do not appear to be as specified in the provided ‘Beam, Lateral and Seismic Calculations’ and the design does not appear to meet that required/allowed per the AWC SDPWS. Update the provided ‘Beam, Lateral and Seismic Calculations’ as required in response to the review comment. Page 2 of 2