Loading...
2018-1030 Vector One SFR #2.pdf DATE: September 12, 2018 TO: Vector One LLC FROM: Eric Carter, Plans Examiner RE: Plan Check: BLD2018-1030 Project Address: 8364 Olympic View DR. Scope: New SFR, VB Construction, Plumbing and Mechanical included. 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 indicating where the ‘clouded’ or otherwise highlighted changes 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 2nd Floor of City Hall. Permit Center hours are M, T, Th, & F from 8am-4:30pm and from 8:30am-12pm on Wednesdays. General: 1. RECONCILED The proposed plans were submitted with calculations performed by Andrew Gahan P.E. for lateral design only, it does not appear that calculations for gravity were included with the submittal, without the calculations, the gravity portion of the plan review has not been performed and may generate additional comments upon review of the submitted documents. Please submit two sets of calculations for all load carrying members indicated on the plans. 2. RECONCILED It appears that a “dead space” may be created between the foundation retaining wall and the adjacent SW1 wall. How will this space be ventilated in accordance with IRC R408.2? Will the SW1 wall be perforated at the crawlspace level, if so, indicate on the plans the size and quantity of openings to be created. 3. RECONCILED The plans indicate a deck on the upper floor, but do not appear to indicate how the guardrail will comply with the minimum requirements of IRC R312.1.2 and R312.1.3. Please indicate the guard construction details on the plans. City of Edmonds PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BUILDING DIVISION (425) 771-0220 Page 2 of 3 Page 2: 4. There are typed plan notations that indicate that the whole house ventilation is to be provided through the HVAC system. Hand written notes on the lower floor plan indicate the whole house ventilation will achieved through a 120 CFM local exhaust fan in the laundry room. a. Please clarify which method is to be utilized and remove the extraneous notes form the plans. b. If a whole house fan in the laundry room will be utilized, a transfer grill will need to be installed for times when the door is closed. Fresh air inlets of a minimum of 4 square inches at habitable space will be required. Please indicate the requirements of M1507.3 on the plans. Page 3: 5. Hand written notes on the foundation plan indicate that the positive drains for the crawlspace are to be directly connected to the footing drains. The positive drains will need to be connected in a way to prevent the drainage system from backing up into the crawlspace. Please indicate the desired method to prevent backflow on the plans. Page 4: 6. The proposed plans appear to indicate the GLB over the Dining/Family room will be hung on the GLB beam over the kitchen area. If this the case please indicate that the specific hanger to be used on the plans. 7. The plans indicate a 2x10 PT joist will be used in construction of the deck on the upper floor framing plan. With a 10PSF “Dead load”, 60PSF “live load”, and the incising factor. The joist will be over spanned when exceeding 10.5’ in length. With a waterproof membrane PT joist are not required but if you do prefer to use PT joists the joist will need to be increased in size, decrease span, or decrease spacing. Please clarify which approach will be used to correct the issue and indicate on the plans. 8. The GLB at the middle of the garage appears to have exceeded the allowable deflection limits as noted in table R301.7 of the 2015 IRC. Please clarify and indicate any changes on the plans. Additional comments may be generated on the review the resubmitted material Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Eric Carter Page 3 of 3