Loading...
20160429104319.pdfPLAN REVIEW RESPONSE Date: April 25, 2016 To: Nash and Associates Attn: Mike Johnson From: Brian Lampe, P.E., S.E. Project: 620/622 Glen Street Condos Edmonds, WA Re: BLD2015-0771 — Second Review Dear Mike, 19011 Wood-Sno Road NE, Suite 100 Woodinville, WA 98072-4436 Phone: (425) 814-8448 Fax: (425) 821-2120 APR 2( 2016 `�'t Pages: 5 rNTY, Or WOWS The following is in response to the plan review comments dated March 31, 2016: On Sheet A3: 2. Foundation Plan a. Indicate on plans the minimum required anchorage for the VDUl l' holdowns to resist the overturning loads noted in the provided calculations. The response to the prior plan review comment states: See notes in regards to HDU11 installation on A3. The specified anchorage — Simpson SB 100 anchor bolts — has very specific installation requirements that do not appear capable of being met by the proposed construction. The 2 foot wide stem wall would not allow the required 48" long (2 x le) horizontal rebar, located 3" — 5" from the top of the stemwall, to be installed. Response: Please revise your A3 sheet accordingly... q STEM N L q 6 .___,« ..................... TO 46" ABV. SLAB 6 See the supplemental calculations. b. Indicate on the plans the minimum required anchorage for the `HDU2-SDS2.5' holdowns to resist the overturning loads noted in the provided calculations. April 25, 2016 Response: Please revise your A3 sheet accordingly... R-10 INSUL AT!ON R AT ED6E5 G)F .p ALL SLA6� IN - T HEAT 00 � I k d IL I Wx8 STK IR r+ ,,r `I✓uM I"$d'I.� I& �L IW Q 9 rmG'��'a�✓f N� d 11 L, r,�u�4 � R R-1-10 RR1 • 1, O61© INS. i7 PERIMETER 9 SLAB QQ e Ea6E. 24" ICTAL i 56x8 STRIP PpOTIN6 '„• - 1 L� '3--4 OONTI"JOU5 � U . ....... ... ^- 56x8 TT(QIP FO=IN& PW 5-04 1.. .,�. w,.,....,. �. ,. GONT1 NUOU3 I '-O' OEEP,a �' ......� ELEVATOR PIT P°IT (SEE 4ti OETAIL) V4, 3 STRIP FOOT j' yh. m� ANTI 3d Ytl, f� d On Sheet A4: 2. Lower Floor Plan g. Eliminate the detail representing the use of (2)CS16 straps placed horizontally to connect 2 separate 3-1/2x11-7/8 PSL beams near the elevator. It does not appear to apply to any represented construction due to changes to the plans. • Page 2 April 25, 2016 h. Eliminate the callout for beam `BB -1' — 5-1/8x9 GLB — over the Foyer. It does not appear to apply to any represented construction due to changes to the plans. j. Clarify the callout for the (3)2x6 post to be used to support the loads below the west end of the 7x11-7/8 PSL (beam TB -01 in the provided structural calculations) over the `Kitchen', the east end of the 3-1/2x9 GLB (beam RB -04 in the provided structural calculations), and the west end of the (2)2x10 (beam RB -03 in the provided structural calculations), above in unit `B'. It appears to be undersized for the loads anticipated by the represented construction and noted in the provided structural calculations. Given the differences noted on various sheets of the plans for the support of similarly oriented beams in the two `mirrored' units, indicate the proposed post to be used for each of the units. Response: Reaction at each end of TB -01 beam is 8400#. (3)2x6 capacity (compression perpendicular to grain controls, see calc sheet M1.3) is 10,020# so is adequate. Please revise your sheet A4... k. Indicate on the plans the minimum required post to support the loads below the east end of the 7x11-7/8 PSL (beam TB -01 in the provided structural calculations) over the `Kitchen' above in unit `B'. Response: See item j. On Sheet A5: 6. Main Floor Plan 0 Page 3 April 25, 2016 Clarify the detail representing the use of (2)CS16 straps placed vertically to connect a 3-1/8x9 beam to the beam over the window below. It does not appear to reflect the beam specified on the `Main Floor Plan'. Response: The straps are not required to resist any loads. You may leave them in there for "positive connection" purposes but the detail should match the framing: g. Clarify the callout for the (4)2x4 post to be used to support the loads below the west end of the 3-1 /2x11-7/8 LSL (beam TB -02 in the provided structural calculations) over `Bedroom Two' and the east end of the 5-1/8x9 GLB (beam RB -05 in the provided structural calculations) above in unit `B'. It appears to be undersized for the loads anticipated by the represented construction and noted in the provided structural calculations. The similarly loaded, but differently specified 4x6 post in unit `A' also appears to be undersized. Response: Reaction at each end of TB -02 beam is 4900#. (4)2x4 capacity (stud axial strength controls) is 6983# and 4x6 capacity is 6410# (not shown in M1.4 but using M1.4, stud axial weak -axis strength controls) so either post size is adequate. h. Clarify the callout for the (3)2x6 post to be used to support the loads below the west end of the 7x11-7/8 PSL (beam TB -01 in the provided structural calculations) over the `Kitchen', the east end of the 3-1/2x9 GLB (beam RB -04 in the provided structural calculations), and the west end of the (2)2x10 (beam RB -03 in the provided structural calculations), above in unit `B'. It appears to be undersized for the loads anticipated by the represented construction and noted in the provided structural calculations. Given the differences noted on various sheets of the plans for the support of similarly oriented beams in the two `mirrored' units, indicate the proposed post to be used for each of the units. Response: Reaction at each end of TB -01 beam is 8400#. (3)2x6 capacity (compression perpendicular to grain controls, see calc sheet M1.3) is 10,020# so is 0 Page 4 22, In �T 4�k- .. . g. Clarify the callout for the (4)2x4 post to be used to support the loads below the west end of the 3-1 /2x11-7/8 LSL (beam TB -02 in the provided structural calculations) over `Bedroom Two' and the east end of the 5-1/8x9 GLB (beam RB -05 in the provided structural calculations) above in unit `B'. It appears to be undersized for the loads anticipated by the represented construction and noted in the provided structural calculations. The similarly loaded, but differently specified 4x6 post in unit `A' also appears to be undersized. Response: Reaction at each end of TB -02 beam is 4900#. (4)2x4 capacity (stud axial strength controls) is 6983# and 4x6 capacity is 6410# (not shown in M1.4 but using M1.4, stud axial weak -axis strength controls) so either post size is adequate. h. Clarify the callout for the (3)2x6 post to be used to support the loads below the west end of the 7x11-7/8 PSL (beam TB -01 in the provided structural calculations) over the `Kitchen', the east end of the 3-1/2x9 GLB (beam RB -04 in the provided structural calculations), and the west end of the (2)2x10 (beam RB -03 in the provided structural calculations), above in unit `B'. It appears to be undersized for the loads anticipated by the represented construction and noted in the provided structural calculations. Given the differences noted on various sheets of the plans for the support of similarly oriented beams in the two `mirrored' units, indicate the proposed post to be used for each of the units. Response: Reaction at each end of TB -01 beam is 8400#. (3)2x6 capacity (compression perpendicular to grain controls, see calc sheet M1.3) is 10,020# so is 0 Page 4 22, g. Clarify the callout for the (4)2x4 post to be used to support the loads below the west end of the 3-1 /2x11-7/8 LSL (beam TB -02 in the provided structural calculations) over `Bedroom Two' and the east end of the 5-1/8x9 GLB (beam RB -05 in the provided structural calculations) above in unit `B'. It appears to be undersized for the loads anticipated by the represented construction and noted in the provided structural calculations. The similarly loaded, but differently specified 4x6 post in unit `A' also appears to be undersized. Response: Reaction at each end of TB -02 beam is 4900#. (4)2x4 capacity (stud axial strength controls) is 6983# and 4x6 capacity is 6410# (not shown in M1.4 but using M1.4, stud axial weak -axis strength controls) so either post size is adequate. h. Clarify the callout for the (3)2x6 post to be used to support the loads below the west end of the 7x11-7/8 PSL (beam TB -01 in the provided structural calculations) over the `Kitchen', the east end of the 3-1/2x9 GLB (beam RB -04 in the provided structural calculations), and the west end of the (2)2x10 (beam RB -03 in the provided structural calculations), above in unit `B'. It appears to be undersized for the loads anticipated by the represented construction and noted in the provided structural calculations. Given the differences noted on various sheets of the plans for the support of similarly oriented beams in the two `mirrored' units, indicate the proposed post to be used for each of the units. Response: Reaction at each end of TB -01 beam is 8400#. (3)2x6 capacity (compression perpendicular to grain controls, see calc sheet M1.3) is 10,020# so is 0 Page 4 April 25, 2016 adequate. Please revise your sheet A5... Give me a call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Brian Lampe, P.E. BTL Engineering 0 Page 5 ..... ...... .... � F� t pp ` �i j U T "I'] y ft r q Give me a call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Brian Lampe, P.E. BTL Engineering 0 Page 5