2016-0563 Willowdale Townhomes 5-unit 2- Wattenbarger Arch.pdf
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: September 12, 2016
TO: Wattenbarger Architects
TravisM@Wattenbarger.com
FROM: Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner
RE: Plan Check: BLD2016-0563
th
Project Address: 20736 76 Avenue W, Building B
Project: Willowdale Townhomes - 5-unit
Scope: Construct 5-dwelling unit structure IRC R-3/U townhouse V-B
construction - NFPA-13 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. Items that recur on this list appear in italics.
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 S6 Main Floor Shearwalls & Framing Above:
1.Main Floor Shearwalls & Framing Above
a.Clarify on the plans the callout for the HDR - (2)2x6 beam - over the plan north
window in Bath #1 of Unit 15. It appears to be over spanned and fails in bending
The HDR over the
and in shear. The response to the plan review comments states:
plan north window of Unit 06 has been calculated as beam (1-23). (2)-2x6 are
adequate to support the loading conditions at that location.
The point load below
the plan east end of Beam 2-2 4x10 DF #2 does not appear to have been
accounted for.
b.Clarify on the plans the callout for the HDR - (2)2x6 beam - over the plan south
door in the Entry of Unit 15. It appears to be over spanned and fails in bending.
Beam calculations for Beam 1-17 could not be found among the submitted
A
construction documents. The response to the plan review comments states:
calculation for Beam (1-17) was performed and determined (2)-2x6 beam is
adequate.
. While a uniform load from FLOOR appears to have been accounted
for in spite of the open to below design, the point loads below the plan south end
of the 3-1/2x9 GLB 24F-V4 and the plan east end of Beam 2-6 4x8 DF #2 do
not appear to have been accounted for. Also note that when designing the beam, the
span shall be taken as the distance from face to face of the supports, plus ½ the
required bearing length at each end per the American Wood Council (AWC)
National Design Specifications for Wood Construction (NDS) 3.2.1.
c.Clarify the difference in the representation of a fireplace in the Living Room of
Unit 16 and of that on sheet A04. The response to the plan review comment
We changed our documents to match the architects plans in regards to
states:
the fireplace.
. Sheet A04 does not represent a fireplace in the Living Room of
Unit 16.
On sheet S7 Main Floor Shearwalls & Framing Above:
2.Main Floor Shearwalls & Framing Above - Clarify the difference in the representation of a
fireplace in the Living Room of Unit 14 and of that on sheet A05. The response to the
We changed our documents to match the architects plans
plan review comment states:
in regards to the fireplace.
. Sheet A05 does not represent a fireplace in the Living
Room of Unit 14.
On sheet S8 Upper Floor Shearwalls & Framing Above:
3.Upper Floor Shearwalls & Framing Above - Clarify on the plans the callout for Beam 2-12
4x8 DF #2 - over the plan south window in the Living Room of Unit 15. It appears to
A
be over spanned and fails in bending. The response to the plan review comment states:
new beam calc (2-12) was assessed for the HDR over the plan south window in the
Living room of Unit 15. It was determined that the HDR should be sized as a 4x8 to
have capacity large enough to carry the demand load.
. The point load below the plan
east end of Beam 3-4 3-1/8x9-1/2 GLB 24F-V4 does not appear to have been
accounted for.
Page 2 of 2