20160808114000.pdfAugust 5, 2016
Chuck Miller
Plans Examiner
City of Edmonds
Building Division
1215th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Plan Review Comments, Structural Response
612 91h Ave S
Plan Check: BLD2016-0737
Dear Mr. Miller,
JG 0 5 "201
BUILDING
ml
NICKERSON
ENGINEERING
The following is an itemized response to the corresponding comments in the above referenced letter.
These responses are limited to the structural engineering related items only. Response to other
comments is by others.
1. Window/Skylight/Door Schedule
b. Clarify on the plans the differences in the indicated width of the window marked 'W47'
and of that represented on sheets 'A2.1' and '32.2 ; and depicted on sheet 'A3.1'.
The architectural and structural drawings have been revised to be consistent. Please see
revised structural sheet S2.2.
6. Main Floor Framing/Foundation Plan
a. Clarify the note on the plans "Verify or provide..."for the main floor framing members.
The allowance for replacement appears to be in conflict with the indicated intention to
retain the existing floor framing as noted on sheet 'D2.1' — Main Level Demo Plan —
General Notes — 'bullet point' #4. Of particular concern is the possibility that the
proposed work will exceed the allowable extent of removal and reconstruction of the
existing structure. If more than 75% of the existing structure is removed, the project is
required to be in conformance with the full provisions of the City of Edmonds Community
Development Code as that of a new residence.
b. Clarify on the plans the callout for the 'HTTS' hold-downs at each end of the shear walls
along gridline '3.6' — shear wall line 'Win the provided structural calculations. The
overturning loads indicated in the provided structural calculations appear to be greater
than the allowable tension loads specified by the manufacturer.
Structural sheet S2.1 has been revised to clarify the above items. In regards to item 'a', the
intent is to leave the existing floor joists intact and to add in joists as required. The existing
joist spacing has not been verified, but we have made an assumption and will proceed with
that. The calculations for J101 have been revised to be consistent with the assumption that
Nickerson Engineering LLC - 2221 Everett Avenue, #202 Everett, WA 98201 • (425) 610-4425
"'
e ti
V^ii� I^;tl°vV �� � yp"�l
I l
the floor joists are spaced at 16" oc. Please see the revised calculation sheet attached to this
letter.
For item 'b', one hold down was incorrectly called out on our plan. Please see the revised
structural drawings for the updated callout on sheet 52.1 and added detail to sheet 54.1. This
hold down will experience the full overturning load indicated in the structural calculations. The
other hold downs along structural shear wall line V will experience less overturning load since
they do not compound or line up with the shear wall on the level above. The overturning load
for these other HTTS hold downs only occurs from the second floor shear wall and the
overturning load is 4342 Ibs (wind), which is within the allowable tension loads specified by the
hold down manufacturer.
7. Upper Floor/Lower Roof Framing Plan — Clarify the note on the plans "Verify or provide..."for
the lower roof framing members. The allowance for replacement appears to be in conflict
with the indicated intention to retain the existing roof structure as represented on sheet
'D2.1' — Main Level Demo Plan. Of particular concern is the possibility that the proposed work
will exceed the allowable extent of removal and reconstruction of the existing structure. If
more than 75% of the existing structure is removed, the project is required to be in
conformance with the full provisions of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code as
that of a new residence.
Structural sheet 52.2 has been revised to clarify the intent of the low roof framing members.
The intent is to leave the existing low roof rafters intact and to add in rafters if required. The
existing rafter size and spacing has not been verified, but we have made an assumption and
will proceed with that.
8. Upper Floor/Lower Roof Framing Notes — Note #5 - Clarify the note on the plans "New low
roof framing shall be..." for the lower roof framing members. The allowance for replacement
appears to be in conflict with the indicated intention to retain the existing roof structure as
represented on sheet 'D2.1' — Main Level Demo Plan. Of particular concern is the possibility
that the proposed work will exceed the allowable extent of removal and reconstruction of the
existing structure. If more than 75% of the existing structure is removed, the project is
required to be in conformance with the full provisions of the City of Edmonds Community
Development Code as that of a new residence.
Structural sheet 52.2 has been revised to clarify the intent of the low roof framing members.
Note #5 refers only to the new low roof framing at the garage. We have updated the wording
of this note to be more clear and specific so there is no confusion.
9. Roof Framing Plan - Indicate on the plans the required construction to transfer the lateral
loads from the shear wall along gridline '3' — shearwall line 'C' in the provided structural
calculations — to the resistive elements below.
The shearwall on structural shearwall line 'C' is supported by a continuous 5.25" x 11.25" LVL
flush beam in the floor system below. A detail callout has been added to sheet 52.2 and the
Nickerson Engineering LLC • 2221 Everett Avenue, #202 Everett, WA 98201 • (425) 610-4425
' .1 NICKERSON
ENGINEERING
corresponding detail added to sheet S4.1 to clarify this lateral load transfer and to show the
hold down strap attachment. Please see the revised structural sheets.
We trust this addresses your concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact us directly if you have any
further questions.
Regards,
4--, L-- U �- ---
Gina Wagenleitner, EIT
Nickerson Engineering LLC
wagenleitner@nickersonengineering.com
425.610.4425 (o)
Nickerson Engineering LLC • 2221 Everett Avenue, #202 Everett, WA 98201 • (425) 610-4425