2017-0798 Yen addition.pdfOV EDAf
>
St.
Citv of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: July 13, 2017
TO: James Ma
JAMES@YENDES.COM
FROM
RE:
Eric Carter, Plans Examiner
Plan Check: BLD2017-0798
Project Address: 18211 Homeview DR.
Scope: Alteration/ Addition of existing SFR
Please be advised that the building plans for the above referenced project have been disapproved
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 needed. Reviews 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 indicatin2 where the 'clouded' or otherwise
hi2hli2hted chan2es can be found on the revised plans, have been submitted to a Permit
Coordinator.
Resubmittals must be made at the Development Services Department on the 2 nd Floor of City Hall.
Permit Center hours are M, T, Th, & F from 8am-4:30pm and from 8:30am-12pm on Wednesdays.
This building plan review cannot be completed until we receive the following items:
General:
1. It appears that some or all of the plans submitted have not been stamped by a
Washington State licensed Architect or Engineer. Per RCW 196-23-020 all designs must
be stamped by the designing party. Please have the plans stamped by the applicable
party-
S 2.3:
2. It does not appear that calculations for beam "134"or "BY were included in the
engineering packet. Please include calculations for beams "B4"and "BY'.
3. Support at the exterior wall for beams '%4" does not appear to have been addressed.
Please indicate on the plans the intended post and sizing, as well as how this will be
supported through to the foundation. With the anticipated "dead, live, and snow" loads
an increase in footing size may be necessary. Furthermore the specified 6x8 "134" is
overstressed for the anticipated loads. Please clarify and address.
4. The beam located adjacent to the front entry has not been identified for size. Please note
on the plans the size and how the beam will be attached to post "P5" in combination with
the "135" beams.
Please let me know if I can be of any additional assistance.
Sincerely,
Eric Carter
Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3