2018-1101 Sharma SFR (Underbrink)#2.pdf Page 1 of 4
DATE: March 11, 2019
TO: Jared Underbrink
FROM: Leif Bjorback
RE: Plan Check: BLD2018-1101 2nd review
Project Address: 15712 72nd Ave W
Scope: New 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.
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.
1. Previous item 13c. Revise and resubmit exterior elevation sheets P-4 and P-5
a. Indicate safety glazing on exterior elevations where required per International
Residential Code (IRC), Section R308.4. The response to this item was
incomplete. Please indicate safety glazing on the following windows.
i. Upper level: 20180 adjacent to the stairs; 5050 by tub
ii. Main: Sidelites adjacent to entry; 3 locations at main floor bath; 3080
adjacent to 14080 slider.
iii. Lower: 3080 within two feet of French doors.
2. Previous item 18b. Insulation – On Sheets P-6 and P-7
a. Revise the insulation and required framing and notes on each section detail to
show the high efficiency insulation chosen for the exterior roof, walls, and slab
for this project and the framing to accommodate it. This item has not been
addressed. On sheet P-7, modify the Typical Exterior Wall detail to graphically
show the R4 continuous insulation in above grade exterior walls and the R5 c.i.
in below grade walls. As part of this detail, show the installation components of
the stucco and lath system. Provide clarification (from code sources or the
Northwest Wall and Ceiling Bureau) to ensure that stucco is allowed to be
installed over the rigid foam in the manner presented.
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
Page 2 of 4
In addition to the previous corrections please address the following comments which were
generated upon a more comprehensive review of the project plans by a more experienced reviewer.
Our sincere apologies that this level of scrutiny was not applied during the first review; however,
the design deficiencies noted here are of such a substantial nature that they cannot go without
correction.
Sheet P-6
1. In the Energy Credit Table, Option 3a has been selected, for a high efficiency furnace. Since
there is no furnace indicated in the project, please select and provide details for an alternate
option. If the boiler is to be the source of heated water for the entire hydronic heating
system, indicate within Option 3a that the boiler will have a minimum EFUE of 92%.
2. In the Energy Credit Table, Option 5c has been selected, for a water heater with a minimum
EF of 0.91. Please label the equipment on the floor plan that will meet this requirement.
Structural Calculations – The following must be addressed, and any changes resulting from updated
calculations must be correspondingly shown on updated plan sheets.
3. EOR, please stamp and seal the latest set of calculations dated 1-22-19.
4. On page 9, verify the load of the 1 ¼ x 14 LVL edge beams are accounted for at the
cantilevered end of Beam B8.
5. On page 11, verify the point load of Beam B9 is accounted for at the cantilevered end of
Beam B10.
6. On page 12, use 60 psf live load for all deck beams (B11, B27, B28, B35, B36). IBC 1607.1
Washington State amendment. Specify all hangers required for these locations.
7. On page 20, verify the point load from Beam B14 is accounted for on Beam B19.
8. On page 21, verify the point load from Beam B14 is accounted for on Beam B20.
9. On page 30, the calculations for Beam B29 indicate a design load of 3313# at the end
supports, but the hanger notation for this location on S202 states “2000# FACT.” Please
specify the proper hanger for this load.
10. On page 42, use 60 psf live load for all deck joists. IBC 1607.1 Washington State
amendment.
11. On page 75, the design strength of the retaining wall concrete is shown as 3600psf which
requires special inspection. Please indicate this special inspection requirement on the plans.
IBC 1705.3
12. Reference the Roof, Upper and Lower Lateral Analysis (Along Grid #1 to #7) pages. For
gridline 1, the tables state “To be resisted by two HSS Steel Columns.” However, no steel
columns are found at gridline 1 on sheets S202, S203 or S204. Provide a lateral force-
resisting design for this gridline.
13. Reference the Upper Lateral Analysis (Along Grid #1 to #7). For gridline 2, the table shows
wall shear of 2250.0 plf and shear panel type “0”. Please check the calculations and provide
a proper shear wall type. Make adjustments to the plans as needed.
Sheet S201
14. In the Holddown Schedule, change the bolt size for the HD7B from ¾” to 7/8” per Simpson
specifications.
15. In the Footing Schedule, change the rebar designated for footing F-2 to read “5 #5 each
way…” to match that shown in Appendix D of the calculations.
16. Provide a footing/slab detail for the elevator pit.
Page 3 of 4
17. On gridline A, provide callouts to 35/S303 at all TJSB locations. Provide calculations for the
use of this product incorporated into the lateral design of the building.
Sheet S202
18. Reference the Shear Wall Table on sheets S202, S203 and S204:
a. Indicate the shank size and length of the sheathing nails, whether common or box.
These determine when 3 inch framing members are required at panel edges per
SDPWS section 4.3.7.
b. It appears that SW12 may require 3 inch framing at panel edges. Please clarify.
19. At gridline 3 the plans show several locations of HD7B hold downs, however the
calculations specify HDQ14. It appears the HD7B hold downs are insufficient for the
prescribed loads.
20. At gridline 5 the plans show HD12 hold downs at the ends of the 7 foot long SW13. It
appears the HD12 hold downs are insufficient to resist the 17,289# load shown in the
calculations.
21. Provide a detail for the anchorage at the base of the Portal Frame Wall on gridline 2-D. The
calculations state “To be resisted by concrete wall.” This does not appear to be the case.
Instead, one 24 inch CMST14 strap is called out on the plans. Provide calculations and
design for this wall, including uplift loads and associated hardware. Provide sufficient notes
and details on the plans to clearly show how this wall is to be constructed.
22. Shear wall types and lengths along gridline B and gridline C do not match the types and
lengths shown in the calculations. Please make any corrections needed to both the
calculations and the plans. Coordinate any changes with the architectural floor plans as
needed.
23. In the Joist/Drag Strut Schedule, indicate DF-L#1 for the 2x10 joists (J3 and J4) as per page
42 in the calculations. Make this same change to the corresponding schedule on sheet S203
as well.
24. In order to facilitate proper construction and inspection, specify the hanger model number,
instead of the designation “w/ 0000# FACT”, for each location where this designation
occurs. It is not sufficient to simply provide the design load at these hanger locations. (This
item also applies to sheets S203 and S204.)
Sheet S203
25. In order to facilitate proper construction and inspection, specify the hanger model number,
instead of the designation “w/ 0000# FACT”, for each location where this designation
occurs. It is not sufficient to simply provide the design load at these hanger locations. (This
item also applies to sheets S202 and S204.)
26. It appears that Beam B11 hangs off of the ‘P8/Thru’ column. Specify a hanger for this
connection or provide a detail on the plans.
27. At the 2-sided SW12 on gridline D, it appears the (2) CMST12 straps at each end are not
sufficient to resist the 19,667# design load in the calculations.
Sheet S204
28. In order to facilitate construction and inspection, specify the hanger model number, instead
of the designation “w/ 0000# FACT”, for each location where this designation occurs. It is
not sufficient to simply provide the design load at these hanger locations. (This item also
applies to sheets S202 and S203.)
Page 4 of 4
29. The calculations show SW13 at 3 locations along gridline 2, but SW10 is indicated on the
plans. Please make the needed corrections to the plans to indicate the correct shear wall type.
30. The calculations show 11.5+17.5LF of SW9 along gridline 2, but only 9LF is indicated on
the plans. Please make the needed corrections to the plans.
Sheet S301
31. EOR stamp and signature is missing on this sheet.
32. Revise detail ‘2A. Excavation Sections’ to reflect the geotechnical report requirement of 4
feet maximum vertical cuts, with a maximum 1:1 slope for cuts greater than 4 feet.
33. Provide structural calculations for the “Typical Retaining Wall” cantilevered basement
retaining wall shown in detail 14/S301. Please ensure that this detail, Table B, and any
associated design are modified on the plans if needed.
Sheet S303
34. Provide structural calculations and details for the deck ledger sufficient to carry the deck
loads. Deck ledger attachment shall not be accomplished by the use of toenails or nails
subject to withdrawal. Please modify detail 27/S303 accordingly. IRC R507.1
General
35. Note on the plans that all deck framing exposed to the weather shall be pressure treated
wood. IRC R317
Sheet C3.1
36. Upon performing a rough calculation of the water supply fixture units for the potable water
system, it is apparent that the minimum water meter size is 1½ inches, with a minimum 1½
inch service line to the house. Please make the needed corrections on the Grading and Utility
Plan. UPC Table 610.4
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions regarding this review.
Thank you,
Leif Bjorback
425 771-0220
Leif.Bjorback@edmondswa.gov