2017-0980 Ellis.pdfOV EDAf
>
St.
DATE
TO
FROM
RE:
Citv of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
July 24, 2017
Ron Cearly
RONNIECEARLEY@COMCAST.NET
Eric Carter, Plans Examiner
Plan Check: BLD2017-0980
Project Address: 23404 74h AVE W.
Scope: Deck replacement.
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, includint! a
written response in itemized letter format indicatin where the 'clouded' or otherwise
hil!hlil!hted chani!es 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. The proposed 3.5"xl4" glu lam beam spanning 26' is overstressed for the anticipated
loading conditions of IOPSF of "dead load" and 60PSF of "live load". Please change
the beam to a larger size or add additional posts to distribute the weight...
2. The footing supporting the north post of the 26' span is undersized for the
anticipated loads. A minimum of a 33"03" footing will be required. Please indicate
the appropriate footing sizes on the plans.
3. With the anticipated loading conditions, an excessive amount of beam uplift will be
present on the post closest to the stairs. To avoid uplift, you can upsize the beam or
eliminate the post, unless it is required for other structural reasons.
4. Per our phone conversation, you mentioned not utilizing the post along the southern
portion to improve access to the exiting man door. If this is still intended, please
remove from the plans.
Please let me know if I can be of any additional assistance.
Eric Carter
Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3