2018-1405 Heldridge SFR - Ryan Rhodes Designs (2).pdf
DATE: May 6, 2019
TO: Christine Greene
christine@ryanrhodesdesigns.com
FROM: Leif Bjorback, Building Official
Leif.bjorback@edmondswa.gov
RE: Plan Check: BLD2018-1405 – 2nd review
Project Address: 923 Glen Street
Project: Heldridge SFR
Scope: Construct SFR w/attached garage – IRC one-family dwelling– VB
construction – NFPA 13D sprinkler system required – mechanical and plumbing
included - fire sprinkler, yard irrigation, etc. under separate permits
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. Only those sheets specifically referenced as follows need to be resubmitted.
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.
Reoccurring or additional comments have been identified in bold print.
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
Page 2 of 3
On sheet S2.1 – Foundation Plan:
1. Previous item 15. Foundation Plan
a. 15 b. Indicate on the plans the minimum required ‘widened’ footing at the southeast
corner of the lower floor ‘GUEST BEDROOM’ to support the anticipated loads
from the ‘HIGH ROOF FRAMING’, the ‘LOW ROOF FRAMING’, and the ‘MAIN
FLOOR FRAMING’ above. The engineer’s response indicates “Footing width is
based on the retained height of soil per 12/3.1.” However, the review comment
refers to total gravity load on the thickened slab (per detail 7/S3.2) at the lower
floor Guestroom, not a retaining wall application. Please verify the thickened
slab footing width is adequate to support the applied loads.
b. 15 c. Indicate on the plans the minimum required ‘widened’ footing at the southeast
corner of the lower floor ‘LIVING ROOM’ to support the anticipated loads from the
‘HIGH ROOF FRAMING’, the ‘LOW ROOF FRAMING’, and the ‘MAIN FLOOR
FRAMING’ above. The engineer’s response indicates “Footing width is based on
the retained height of soil per 12/3.1.” However, the review comment refers to
total gravity load on the thickened slab (per detail 7/S3.2) at the lower floor
Living Room, not a retaining wall application. Please verify the thickened slab
footing width is adequate to support the applied loads.
On sheet S2.2 – Main Floor Framing Plan:
2. Previous item 16. Main Floor Framing Plan
a. 16 d. Clarify on the plans the callout for the ‘PT 6x10’ to be used to support the
south ends of the deck joists adjacent to the stairs. It appears to be over spanned
and fails in bending. The length of the span used for item ‘1’ in the ‘vertical design’
on sheet ‘V4’ of the provided structural calculations appears to be less than that
suggested on sheet ‘A1.0’ – PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR PLAN – and the total
load used does not appear to reflect the required live load for exterior decks per IRC
Table R301.5. The new calculations show the PT 6x10 has been changed to a
GLB 5 1/8x10 ½. Please update the plan sheet to reflect this change.
b. 16 f. Clarify on the plans the callout for the ‘PT 4x10’ to be used to support the west
end of the ‘PT 6x10’ adjacent to the stairs. It appears to be over spanned and fails
in bending. The point load indicated for item ‘2’ in the ‘vertical design’ on sheet
‘V4’ of the provided structural calculations appears to be low. The new
calculations show the PT 4x10 has been changed to a 6x10. Please update the
plan sheet to reflect this change.
Page 3 of 3
On sheet S2.4 – High Roof Framing Plan:
3. Previous item 18. High Roof Framing Plan
Clarify on the plans the callout for the 2x12-HF #2 to be placed at 24 inches on
center over the ‘Living’ area. They appear to be over spanned and fail in bending.
The length of the span used for item ‘1’ in the ‘vertical design’ on sheet ‘V1’ of the
provided structural calculations appears to be less than the width of the room noted
on sheet ‘A1.1’ – PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR PLAN – and does not include at least
one-half of the required bearing length at each end per the NDS 3.2.1. As indicated
in response 16 g, revised joist calculations have been provided for the fore
mentioned comment. Revised calculations for sheets V4 and V5 were received
but V1 does not appear to have been included. Please provide documentation of
how you determined that the joist was less than 2% overstressed. Furthermore,
it is unclear how a framing member exceeding the limits of bending stress in
new construction is acceptable? In accordance with practices in existing
buildings this may be acceptable but in new construction I am not aware of any
exceptions that would allow the use of a known overstressed member. Please
clarify and provide the documentation.
On sheet S3.1 – Typical Concrete Details:
4. Previous item 19. Detail 8 – Retaining Wall Schedule – Provide as part of a complete
submittal structural calculations supporting the designs for the various wall heights. Of
particular concern are those walls those supporting a surcharge from vehicles. The
calculations provided for retaining walls do not appear to allow for a vehicular
surcharge. Please verify this surcharge has been allowed for, and if not, make any
changes necessary to the plans. Of particular concern is the retaining wall at the east
edge of the driveway.
Please let me know if I can be of any additional assistance.