BLDG COMMENTS 2.pdfar EDS City of Edmonds
�v
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
Est 1$90 (425) 771-0220
DATE: September 13, 2006
TO: John Carter Woolen
Fax (206)784-9809
FROM: Jenny Readwin, Plans Exami r
RE: Plan Check # 06-148
Project: Hadfield SFR
Project Address: 509 6th Ave S.
During re -review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information,
corrections, or clarifications are needed. Please redline plans or submit two (2) sets of revised
plans/documents (affected sheets only) with a written response to each of the above items to a
Permit Coordinator.
1) Still need all applicable information (height calculations, label Gtr` Ave, etc.). If all
information can not fit on one page it is permissible to use a second sheet and also note lot 1
and 3 are not required to be shown just applicable roads, easements, etc, adjacent to the
proposed lot. Reduced site plan must be scaled no smaller than 1 "=20'. Provide new reduced
plot plan on maximum 8 %2" x 14" size paper for microfilming purposes. Also, all information
including height calculations, datum, etc. must be shown. If necessary provide a second page
with all data information.
2) Still need. Choose fixed datum point closer to property. Datum point chosen will be difficult for
the inspector to verify height.
3) ok
4) Provide detail. Per R310 basements with habitable space are required to have at least one
emergency escape and rescue opening complying with that section. Currently none is provided.
5) ok
6) An additional smoke detector is required outside the master bedroom, outside the basement
bedroom, Show location of all smoke detectors on the floor plans.
7) Bath and Laundry fans are required to be minimum 50 cfm, 100 cfm for kitchen stoves and
per the Energy handout the Whole House fan is required to be 95-143. Revise plans
accordingly. Show size and location of all exhaust fans and whole house fan.
8) ok
9) ok
10) ok
11) Response says see detail A9.1. This sheet was not provided and I was unable to locate a
shower detail on an alternate page. Still need. Provide shower construction detail for site built
shower.
12) ok
13) ok
14) ok
15) ok.
16) ok
17) ok
18) Still need signed form. Special inspections are required for the following. Complete the
enclosed special inspection agreement signed by the owner, the general contractor and the
special inspector and submit to the City for approval prior to issuance. A separate form is
required for each separate special inspector.
• Excavation/grading/site preparation
• Soil Bearing verification
• Placement of fill and compaction
• Foundation drainage
• Rockery/Retaining wall Construction including drainage
• Wall backfill
• General Site monitoring during wet weather construction
• Temporary and final erosion control
• Structural steel (including high strength bolting and field welding)
• Concrete construction
• Masonry
• Expansion bolts and expansion inserts
• Wood shear wall system as noted on sheet S 1.1 note 11B
19) See additional comments farm City's structural consultant attached. See attached structural
comments from city consultant. Respond to each item in writing.
20) New: basement bedroom egress window was changed on the new set. Specify on the plans if the
windows shown on the new plans meet the minimum egress requirements of IRC 310
21) New: EOR to verify new kitchen office window does not alter lateral calculations.
Page 2 of 2
Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S.
PO Box 523
Olalla, WA 98359
hoAeter@centurytel.net
253 857 4151
Fax 253 857 5759
To: Swenson Say Faget
2124 3`d Avenue STE 100
Seattle WA 98121
Re: Hadfield Residence
506 6th Avenue
Edmonds, WA
Plan Review # 20060619 ( OLD 06-148 number)
EECE # EDM 06-18 (2)
Second Comment letter
Structure
Area S.F.
Lower Floor
1048
Main floor
1075
er floor
1824
Total
3947
Garage
955
Total
4902
Deck second floor
141
Roof Deck
286
Grand total
C
5329
3947
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.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
The scope of this review is for the structural requirements of this project.
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.
Page 2 of 4
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
Sheet S2.1 Foundation Plan
1. 7. EOR please correct note under slab on grade to state note 3 and not note 1.
Note 3 are for the requirements for the slab. This has not been modified as noted
in the response. Please modify drawings accordingly.
Sheet S2.2 Main Floor Plan
2. 8. EOR please provide a detail along grid E to show how this will be framed. This
has not been modified as noted in the response.
3. 9. EOR please sped the HD required. I was unable to determine this from the
drawings. This has not been modified as noted in the response. The response states
the hold -down's are PHD5 but the drawings do not specify this. Please modify
drawings to clearly call out the required hold-downs as stated in the response.
Sheet S2.3 Upper Floor Framing Plan
4. 10. EOR please provide detail for the attachment of the column above (44) at the
base. How is this connected to the floor system? Please add this information on
the drawings. IBC 2304.9.7 Response state see updated drawings but nothing has
been modified. Please modify accordingly.
5. 11. By definition the diaphragm would be classified as plan structural irregularity.
Based off the stair location there is a reentry corner more than 15% of the
diaphragm length. Analysis submitted has not addressed this. Resubmit analysis
to address or add a shear wall at the stairs along grid D. Nothing has been
changed on the drawings. Please clarify how this was addressed.
6. 12. Please sped the required length for the CS16 flat strap tying the diaphragm
together. This coil strap can be any length. Nothing has been changed on the
drawings. Please clarify how this was addressed
7. 13. Plan Note 4 states different column caps to use. Please clearly specify which is
required for which case. Nothing has been changed on the drawings. Please clarify
how this was addressed
8. 14. EOR please provide a detail for the connection of the 3' diameters steel pipe to
the wide flange. Also provide analysis for the 3 " pipe to support the design loads.
The response state see updated plans but the plans are not updated. Please modify
drawings and resubmit.
Page 3 of 4
9. 15. Please provide detail for the support of the 5-1/4X11-7/8 PSL at grid line D.
The response state see updated plans but the plans are not updated. Please modify
drawings and resubmit.
Sheet S3.1 Framing Details
10.16. Detail 6. Please provide analysis for the retaining wall schedule as shown.
The design calculation did not have any analysis for the retaining walls. Analysis
submitted does not match the drawings. For example the analysis requires the toe
of the 3 foot wall to be 6 inches but the drawing state 5"
11. Justify by analyses that the slab will resist the sliding forces for the retaining walls.
The safety of factor shall be 1.5. Note the slab is only 4" thick and design analysis
is required to justify the 4" slab will resist this forces. IBC 1806.1
Sheet S4.2 Framing Details
12.18. Shear wall Schedule 12: Code requires 3X member at abutting panel edges.
Please modify note 4 to state single 3 X member and not double stud. IBC table
2306.4.1 footnote i. (Also Detail B to show 3X member). The city will have to
accept the APA submitted in the response. Also analysis must be submitted to
show the shear will transfer with the double stitched together. This has not been
submitted and must be submitted to show the forces will be able to transfer the
forces.
13.19. Shear wall schedule 12: Please note that the sill plate shall be a single 3X
member for shear wall SW3 and SW4. IBC 2305.3. 10 The response state double
the amount of anchor bolts were used. it is not clear in the submitted documents
this has been done. Please submit this on the response.
14. 20, Detail 4: Please add blocking member on the wide flange web to prevent the
hanger from rotating or juste not required. Simpson Hanger option matrix. This
has not been modified.
15.21. Detail 4: ITT hangers are not approved to be welded The gage of ITT hanger
is too thin. I called Simpson manufacturers to verify and he also said this is not
approved to be welded. Please modify accordingly. See Simpson Hanger option
Matrix. The response state LBU series but this is not approved to be welded per the
hanger matrix. Also the detail clearly state M hanger to be used. This still has not
been modified. Please modify accordingly.
Additional corrections may be required following receipt of corrections and
additional information as requested.
Page 4 of 4
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 Jeter at
(253) 8574151 between 5:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
By:
Hoyt Jeter, P.E.
President