HJ2.GURNEE.2006.0575.doc
Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S.
PO Box 523
Olalla, WA 98359
hoytjeter@centurytel.net
253 857 4151
Fax 253 857 5759
To: JoAnne Zulauf
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, 98020
Re: Gurnee Residence June 27, 2006
18210 Homeview Dr
Edmonds, 98020
Plan Review #2006-0575 EECE # EDM 06-10 (2)
Second Comment letter
Structure Area S.F.
Lower Floor 1134
Main Floor 1763
Upper Floor 334
Total 3231
Garage 814
Total4045
Main Floor Deck 321
Roof Deck 135
Grand total 4501
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.
Original comments will be written in italics if not addressed appropriately to confirm code
compliant.
Page 2 of 6
EDM 06-10 (2)
2006-0575
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
Many items are written in pencil on the revised set. I assume this is not a response or
change to the drawings. All items must be in pen so it may not be erased or modified.
Please clarify what the complete set will be. I will attempt to do the back check based off
the submittal by the applicant but this will need to be verified before approval.
General
1.The new analysis submitted used the UBC and not the IBC. The UBC is not the
adopted code. For example, page 12 of the analysis. Please modify analysis
accordingly.
2.1. Based off the site plan it appears there is going to be a concrete retaining wall
approximately 10 feet high. Please add the requirements for this condition to the
drawings. IBC 1806 This needs to be verified by the City of Edmonds. The
response state maximum height is 4 feet. But it appears this will be exceeded. This
has to be verified by the city.
3.2. Please add the shear wall requirement to the drawing for the mark SW1 and
SW2. Sheet A is different then the analysis and different than sheet 5. Which one is
correct? This has not been addressed based off the drawings.
4.4. The drawings appear to being using a moment frame at the garage entrance.
The R value for ordinary moment frames is 3.5 not 6.5. Please resubmit lateral
analysis to account for different seismic resisting elements. IBC table 1617.6.2
IBC 1617.6.2.3 It is not correct to just increase the frame by the ratio. Also, the
diaphragm must be checked. The code has different R values based off the different
stiffnesses of the vertical resisting elements. The analysis is using a flexible
diaphragm so the smallest R must be used for the diaphragm analysis. Resubmit
analysis with an R of 3.5.
Sheet 5 of 9 Foundations
5.5. Please provide analysis and detail for the 9’ high foundation wall. Detail should
be added for the requirement for this wall. The detail on sheet 9 will not work for
the required design forces. Please submit this on the response how detail 9 will
work for this wall or modify accordingly. IBC 1604.4 This has not been addressed
on the response. There are no details for how this is to be constructed on the
drawings. Also, the new analysis appears to assume a restrained top and the
connections are very important to be detailed to be able to transfer the required
forces. This should be added to the construction drawings, including an analysis.
Page 3 of 6
EDM 06-10 (2)
2006-0575
6.6. Single 3X member are required and not (2) 2X as stated in the notes. Please
modify accordingly. IBC table 2306.4.1 footnote i. This has not been modified and
it is required to state single 3X member per the code.
7.7. The shear walls do not meet the minimum 3-1/2 to 1(wind) and 2 to 1 (seismic).
If footnote a is used then the seismic shear wall requirements may increase to 3-
1/2 to 1. Please modify and submit analysis accordingly. IBC table 2305.3.3. This
has not been addressed in the response. Resubmit an analysis to account for the
proper height to width requirements.
Sheet 6 of 9 Main Floor Framing
8.There is a post-it note on the drawings to add the moment frame detail but this has
not been added to the sheet. Please add this to the set as required to show
compliance with code.
9.8. Please justify knee braces, X-Bracing , etc is not required at the deck framing.
How are the lateral loads being transfer for the deck? CC66 bracket is not
approved to transfer lateral loads per Simpson catalog. IBC 2304.9.6. This still
has not been addressed.
10.9. Please provide detail at the deck where the Shearwall bears on the PT 2x10.
Details on the drawings have not dealt with this. The detail shows this to be
continuous at the Shearwall. Please provide detail for this condition on the
drawings in order to complete the review. IBC 2304.9.6 A detail is required for the
shear wall where the PT 2x10 are called out The 2x10s have to bear on the shear
mark SW2 and there must be a load transfer at this location in order to transfer the
forces. I wrote this comment for this sheet so if you look at where the deck is at
you would see the shear walls called out. If there were grids on the sheet it would
be easier to point out the location. There is not a clear load path to transfer the
shear forces at these locations. If you look at this sheet you state PT 2x10 @16”
O/C but there is not any detail to deal with how the loads are going to be
transferred at this location. This is required to be shown on the drawings.
11.10. Please provide detail for the connection BM A to BM C. IBC 2304.9.6
Response states ‘see detail’ that is added to the drawings. The detail states HIT
hanger. This hanger is not approved to be used with a glu-lam beam per the
Simpson catalog. Please specify a hanger that may be used to support the glu-lam
beam and be used with a wide flange beam.
12.11. Please provide a detail for the connection of BM B to BM C. IBC 2304.9.6
The response states ‘see detail’ that is added to the drawings. The detail state HIT
hanger. This hanger is not approved to be used with a glu-lam beam per the
Page 4 of 6
EDM 06-10 (2)
2006-0575
Simpson catalog. Please specify a hanger that may be used to support the glu-lam
beam and be used with a wide flange beam.
13.12. The drawing states metal beam but does not give the size of the metal beam.
This is required to be added to the drawings. Please add this information in order
to check code compliance. IBC 106.3 The analysis submitted does not specify the
W8x21. How was this determined? Submit an analysis for this member to be used.
Also, the detail added does not show how this wide flange will be connected at the
ends. This is required to be added to the drawings in order to complete the review.
14.13. Please add to the drawing the requirement for the joist drag strut. The joist
manufacture typical only design for the dead plus live load and leave the lateral
up to the design professional. Please either add to the drawing the requirement
for the drag struts or design a member including the connection at this location.
IBC 2304.9.5 This has not been addressed at this time. The joist manufacturer does
not do a lateral analysis for the structure. This is required to be clearly labeled on
the drawings. Please add this information to the drawings.
15.14. Please clarify where the detail is for the note stating “4x6x1/4 steel tube frame
per detail”. Where is the detail? How are the members being connected? Please
add this information to the drawings. The response states ‘see detail’ but there is
not a detail on the drawings for this. There is a post-it note to add the detail but it
was not added to this sheet. Please add this detail to the drawings.
16.16. It is not clear what is required for the header beam size. Please add this
information to the drawings. IBC 106.3.3. This still has not been addressed on the
drawings. Please add this information to the drawings.
17.17. Provide analysis for the beam supporting the girder truss above. IBC 1604.4
This has not been addressed. Please submit this on response.
18.18. Provide analysis for the beam that is supporting the (3) 1-3/4X 11-7/8 micro
lam. IBC 2304.9.7. This has not been addressed. Please submit this on response.
19.19. Please specify the required connection for the (3) 1-3/4X11-7/8 micro lam to
the supporting beam. IBC 2304.9.7. The response state HB hanger. There are
many different HB hangers. The actual size is required to be added to the drawing
to assure the force will be transferred.
20.20. Please provide analysis for the horizontal diaphragm.. IBC 1620.2.5 The
analysis submitted is per UBC and not IBC on page 11. Submit an analysis per the
adopted code at this time.
Sheet 7 of 9 Upper Floor Framing
Page 5 of 6
EDM 06-10 (2)
2006-0575
21.22. Please specify the required connection of the typical 6x12 DF#2 beam to the
post. It is not clear what the required connection will be used for in this project.
IBC 2304.9.6. This still has not been addressed.
22.Please specify the required connection of the PT post at the covered deck. The
base of the column is required to resist lateral and uplift induced forces. This still
has not been added to the drawings. See sheet 8 where the post is called out and
the top connection is called out but not the base. IBC 2304.9.7
Sheet 8 of 9 Roof Framing
23.26. Please add the required connection of the 3-1/8X12 ridge beam to the
supporting post. It is not clear the size of the post required or the required
connection. IBC 2304.9.7 The revised drawings have this called out on one side but
not the other side. It is important to clearly specify the required support of the
member to assure the required forces may be transferred.
24.27. Shearwall at the door opening does not meet the minimum 2 to 1 ratio. This
may be increased to 3-1/2 to 1 if footnote A is met. Provide analysis to justify. IBC
table 2305.3.3. The response states p10 of the calculation. This is for the garage
panel not for the shear wall for the media room. This is required to be submitted to
show code compliance.
Sheet 9 of 9 Building Sections
25.28. Please provide detail on the drawing for the connection of the guard rail to
resist the required 200 pound force applied in any direction. IBC 1607.7.1 The
response states ‘see detail on this sheet’. Submit an analysis to justify this will resist
the required force of 200 pounds. Per a check of analysis this will not resist the
code required force. Submit engineering analysis to justify detail.
26.29. Please specify the spacing of the 4X4 post. It is not clear on the drawing what
the spacing will be. Please add this to the drawing. IBC 106.3.3 Response states
‘see detail on this sheet’. The code states for single family homes, hand rails and
guards shall be able to resist single concentrated loads of 200 pound applied in any
direction. Per a check of analysis this will not resist the code required force.
Submit engineering analysis to justify detail as shown on the drawings.
27.Habitable rooms shall have a height of not less than 7 feet, but the drawings state 4
feet for the media room and deck. This does not meet the code required heights.
Exception 3 state the following note more than 50 percent of the required floor
area of a room or space is permitted to have a slop ceiling less than 7 feet in height
with no portion of the required floor area less than 5 feet in height. Drawing state 4
feet. R305.1
Page 6 of 6
EDM 06-10 (2)
2006-0575
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 Jeter at
(253) 857-4151 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
By: ____________________________________
Hoyt Jeter, P.E.
President