Bldg Comments 2.pdfEagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S.
PO Box 523
Olaf[a, WA 98359
hoytjeter@centurytel.net
360 874 0562 QJ
Fax 360 874 0591
Theresa Umbaugh
121 5th Avenue
Edmonds, WA 98020
Holt Residence -DWIN CYN' -
1141 Sea Vista Place
Edmonds, WA 980220YC(��
7 } � 00� C
Plan Revie # 200 -11 EECE # EDM 07-59 (2)
Second Comment Letter
The above referenced project is in the process of plan review for compliance with
Edmonds ordinances and applicable codes. The following comments,
deficiencies/corrections must be addressed prior to completion of plans review and
subsequent issuance of permits.
Provide revised plans and calculations along with a written response to each of the
items listed below to facilitate a shorter back -check time.
A written response was not received so I did my best to see how each item was addressed
based off the submitted documents. Please submit a written response on the next cycle
o review. T ....—
SCOPE OF REVIEW
The scope of this review is for the Structural Code requirements only of this project.
The project was reviewed under guidelines and regulations for residential facilities of the
State of Washington Building Code
Lower floor Finished
1346
Lower Floor Unfinished
874
Main Floor
3934
Total
6154
Garage/storage
1556
Total
7707
Covered porch
919
Deck
761
Grand total
9387
Sprinklers
7707
The above referenced project is in the process of plan review for compliance with
Edmonds ordinances and applicable codes. The following comments,
deficiencies/corrections must be addressed prior to completion of plans review and
subsequent issuance of permits.
Provide revised plans and calculations along with a written response to each of the
items listed below to facilitate a shorter back -check time.
A written response was not received so I did my best to see how each item was addressed
based off the submitted documents. Please submit a written response on the next cycle
o review. T ....—
SCOPE OF REVIEW
The scope of this review is for the Structural Code requirements only of this project.
The project was reviewed under guidelines and regulations for residential facilities of the
State of Washington Building Code
Page 2of5
EECE#: EDM 07-59 (2)
Edmonds #: BLD2007-1100
Holt Residence
Second Comment Letter
All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittals provided. All
portions of this project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements,
conditions and concerns before permit approval.
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
General
15. Please submit the original geotechnical report, dated October 31, 2006, as
referenced by the letter by the geotechnical engineer dated October 17, 2007. This
still has not been provided. Please submit this upon response.
2. EOR please clarify where the surcharge is coming from over the toe used in the
analysis. The analysis state 50 psf surcharge is being used in the analysis.
3. The design analysis for the studs used a height of S' but the sections show the wall
will be 9 feet (Page 10). Resubmit stud analysis for the correct height of 9 feet and
not S'. With a height of 9 feet the combined stresses exceed unity. Also on the next
page please clarify how the number 69 was determining to divided twice in the
analysis for the 9 foot wall. Please modify accordingly.
Sheet 5 ELEVATIONS:
4. 17. Please specify the required connection of the tile roof on the drawings. Nothing
is shown at this time. R905.3 This still has not been submitted as required.
,Sheet 1 MAIN FLOOR PLAN:
5. I8.EOR, please verify the hold down specified at the corners of the library. The
hold down specified is smaller on one side than the other. Submit an analysis to
.justify the smaller hold down. Lateral forces will be applied in either direction.
For some reason the hold down have been removed. Please add the hold downs to
the set as required.
6. 19.EOR, the drawings do not show any collector element to drag the horizontal
diaphragm force into the interior shear wall specified on the drawings. Please
clearly add to the drawing the required collector elements in order to transfer the
lateral forces. This still has not bee addressed as required. Please modify
accordingly.
7. 20.EOR, please specify the required spacing of the vertical post and attachment for
the glass guard rail support. Nothing is shown to show how the code required
design forces will be resisted Please add this information. This still has not been
addressed. Please submit this upon the response.
Page 3 of 5
EECE#: EDM 07-59 (2)
Edmonds #: BLD2007-1100
Holt Residence
Second Comment Letter
,Sheet 2 BASEMENT & FOUNDATION PLAN:
S. A 90 degrees hook is required for the restrained wall into the footing. Please note
this on the details. -
9. Detail B and Detail C: Submit analysis for the reinforcement steel placed at 2.5"
clear. This was not in the submitted analysis for these walls.
10. All that walls on this sheet do not match the engineer's details. All conflicting
information is required to be removed and the requirements should be added to the
drawings. Please modify accordingly.
11. 22.Please specify the number of studs required to support each side of beam #15.
It is not clear at this time. This still has not been addressed at this time. Please
modify accordingly.
12. EOR please provide a detail at the angle beams 52 and 54. The joist bear on the
PSL but the 5-114 appear to be flush. The analysis for the beam has the top being
continuous nail for bracing. But based off the drawings it is not clear how this is
going to be built. A detail still has not been provided. Please provide a detail at
these locations to show how the forces will be transferred.
13. 23.EOR, please specify the required connection of the 5-1.8x13-1/2 at the beam
pocket. Nothing is specified at this time. This still has not been addresses.
14. 24.Please specify the required connection of the cantilever beam to the supporting
member. Nothing is specified at this time. This still has not been addressed at this
time.
15. 25. EOR, please provide an analysis for the 2x8 ledger supporting the deck loads.
This still has not been addresses, please submit analysis as requested.
16. 26.All beams that are supported by posts, including built-up posts and in -wall
posts, shall clearly note the required connections on the drawings. Currently this
is not clearly noted on the drawings. Please note all required post to beam
connections on the drawings. This still has not been completely addressed. For
example the 3-112X11-718 PSL at the media room. All beam supports shall be
specified and the required connections. Please modify accordingly.
17. 27.EOR, the analysis for the Glu -lam beams in the garage appear not to include
the point loads from the Glu -lam beams. For example, Glu -lam beam mark 19 is
supporting beams marks 10, 11, and 14. Please modify accordingly. The new
analysis has not included all point loads. For example beam mark 41 has three
Page 4 of 5
EECE#: EDM 07-59 (2)
Edmonds #: BLD2007-1100
Holt Residence
Second Comment Letter
point loads but the analysis for this beam has only two specified. Please re -verify
all beam analysis on this level.
18. New analysis for the cantilever beam has not applied alternate live loads as
required per code. The cantilever section will have uplift loads and a connection is
required to resist this force. Please clearly add this information to the drawings.
19. 28. The analysis shows there will be an uplift force required to be resisted on the
back span. Currently there aren't any connections specified to resist this loads -
Beam 9 is an example. Please clearly specify the required connections to resist the
code prescribed forces. The beams number has changed and the old plan was not
submitted. Please specify the required connection of the cantilever joist on the
drawings.
20. 33.Please specify the required connection for the (3) 2x12's to the post. This still
has not been addressed at this time.
Sheet 3 Foundations Plan (original was the ROOF FRAMING PLAN):
21. EOR, please provide a detail for where the 24" diameter footing overlaps the
36X36 footing. A detail is required to show how this will be built.
22. EOR, please specify the required reinforcement for the 24" Diameter footing.
Nothing is specified at this time.
23. The code required the vertical reinforcement to have a 90 degree hoof into the
footing. Please modify detail 1 to reflect this.
24. Please add detail sections cut to show what detail shall be used for the foundations
system. It is required to show the contractor which detail to use where.
25. The city of Edmonds fall under moderate weather potential and the concrete
strength shall be 3000 psi and not 2500 psi. Please modify accordingly. Table
R402.2
Sheet 4 ROOF FRAMING PLAN: (Original plan it was sheet 3)
26. 34. EOR, please provide calculations for the exterior studs to support the truss
spanning 64 feet. All load combinations shall be included when analyzing the
exterior stud wall. The engineer has only done the shear wall design in plane but
out of plane forces must also be checked to support the roof framing members and
all load combinations. The analysis used 16" for the tributary width on the trusses
but the trusses are spaced at 24" OIC and this must be used to determine the
reactions on the studs. With the studs spaced @ 16" the truss will land directly on
Page 5 of 5
EECE#: EDM 07-59 (2)
Edmonds #: BLD2007-1.100
Holt Residence
Second Comment Letter
the stud and full reaction on the studs must be checked. Please resubmit the
analysis with the correct static loading on the studs. And also the double top plate
must be checked for the reactions between the studs.
Sheet 5 Details: (Original plan it was sheet 4)
27. 35. EOR, please provide an analysis of the deck details shown on this sheet. The
notes are per the old UBC and not the adopted code at this time. This still has not
been addressed correctly. For example 20 plf is not the correct loading the guard
are required to resist. This is still the UBC requirements. Also how is the lateral
bracing being connected? More information is required with analysis to justify the
deck detail to meet the current adopted code.
28.36.Deck detail: Please provide an analysis for the % " diameter lag bolts at 16"
o.c. Also, it is not clear what the lag bolts are connecting to in order to support the
design loads. This still has not been complete. The lag are noted at 6" but it is still
not clear what the lag will be connected to support the forces. Please add this
information to the detail.
29. 37. Please note the vertical reinforcement shall have a 90 degree hook in the
footing or submit an analysis to justify straight bar embedment. This still has not
been corrected.
Sheet S: LATERAL ANALYSISITYPICAL DETAILS:
30. 38.EOR, please submit a design analysis for the full -height cantilevered retaining
wall. IBC 1506.5 The analysis requires the vertical steel to be placed 1-112 from
the earth face but the detail state 2" clear. The "d" used for the design was 6.25"
With a 2" clear the d would be (8"-2-#4 bar diameter/2 =5.75). Please modify
accordingly and resubmit analysis.
Additional corrections may be required following receipt of corrections and additional
information as requested.
Your plans are being reviewed concurrently with the Building Department, Fire
Department, Zoning Department and Public Works Engineering. Changes, clarifications
or additional corrections may be required subsequent to the Building Department plan
review when comments are received from the other concerned departments.
Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please contact Hoyt Teter at (360) 874-
0562 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
By:
Hoyt Jeter, P.E.
President