20090113083458.pdf�� or EDCity of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
�qa (425) 771-0220
DATE: January 13, 2009
TO: Sunset 100 L.P.
Attention: John Thoresen, contact person
Sent via e-mail
FROM: Ann Bullis, Building Official
RE: Plan Check: 2008-0463, 0464, 0465
Project: Sunset 100 LP Mixed Use
Project Address: 121, 123, 125 Sunset Ave N
During the re -review of the above noted project, it was found that the following issues still need to be
addressed. We have redlined some minor issues to help keep things moving forward, but the items below
still must be addressed and revised plan sheets provided accordingly. Please provide written responses to
each comment as to how it has been addressed and where changes can be found on the plans. Please
resubmit revised plans to Marie Harrison, Senior Permit Coordinator for this project.
1. Previous Item 6: Details 6 & 8 on Sheet A13 now reference an STC of 50 or more (IBC 1207), but as
noted in the past comments, the listed and tested assemblies referenced (UL V471 & G512) did not
include sound testing. Provide the sound testing documentation for these assemblies.
2. Previous Item 10: Coordinate new detail 11/A13 with structural detail requested by the City's structural
consultant (see structural comment 427). Clearly show how fire rating will be maintained. Currently
the detail shows sheetrock between the joist Danger and shearwall.
3. Previous Item 11: The construction supporting vertical and horizontal fire rated assemblies must be
protected to the same fire rating. Notes are provided on the plans that generally state this, but no listed
and tested assembly details for fire rated beams and columns could be found on the plans. Please
provide to fully address this issue. This was previously discussed with the architect.
4. Previous Item 15: On Sheet Fl, clarify where the duct penetrations will terminate to the exterior of the
building for all three mechanical rooms on the garage level. See IBC 716.6 for duct penetrations of
horizontal assemblies and limitations. As shown, the duct penetrations do not meet the exception to IBC
716.6.1 (must meet all items in exception). A 2 -hour shaft will be required at each location. Also, if the
ducts are routed as shown on the plans, the shaft will affect the stairways. This issue still needs to be
addressed.
5. Previous Item 30: The datum point must still be provided with an elevation (on which height
calculations are based) and be Iabeled.
6. Previous Item 33: Special inspection Agreements must still be submitted.
7. A separate permit is required for the trash enclosure located on the adjacent property. The adjacent
property owner must apply for and obtain the permit, or provide a letter from the adjacent property
owner authorizing you to act as their agent on this issue and apply for and obtain the permit on their
behalf. Please contact Marie Harrison to apply for the permit.
See attached structural comments from the City's consultant. Please have your engineer contact him
directly if he has questions regarding his review comments.
Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S.
PO Box 523
Olalla, WA 98359
hoytjeter@centurytel.net
360 874 0562
Fax 360 874 0591
To: Marie Harrison
1215 th Ave N I
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Sunset 100, LP
121 Sunset Ave N ILDI °
Edmonds, WA 98020
Plan Review # 2008-0463 EECE # EDM 08-55 (2)
Plan review number 02
Structure
Occupancy
Type of
Constructions
Gross
Area S.F.
Lower Floor
S2
VA
10,397
First floor A
R2
VA
1,865
First floor B
R2
VA
2,278
First floor C
R2
VA
2,154
First floor B
B
VA
179
2nd Floor A
R2
VA
2,730
n Floor B
R2
VA
2,457
nd Floor C
R2
VA
2,154
Total
24,214
Covered Patio A
347
Covered Patio B
327
Covered Patio C
327
Deck A
347
Deck B
327
Deck C
327
Total
26,216
xterior Stairs
228
rand total
26,444
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
Page 2 of 6
Plan Review Number 02
EECE#: EDM 08-55 (2)
Sunset 100, LP
2008-0463
The scope of this review is for the Structural, only 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.
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
General
1. EOR, the analysis uses a steel stud wall to resist the lateral forces in plane. Out
of plane analysis has be submitted but not in -plane for shear wall resisting
element. Please submit this upon the response.
2. 44. Engineer of Record (EOR), the geotechnical report is a preliminary report not
the final report. Please submit the final report upon the response. The response
state the owner shall provide, but this was not provided. Please submit this upon
the response.
3. The new design analysis submitted on sheet page 51 shows the member failed.
EOR, please clarify upon the response how the forces will be resisted and submit
analysis to justify.
4. 48. The analysis state this is a two way PT slab but there are banded tendons in
one -direction and distributive tendons in the other directions. A two slab is
where distributive the one are spaced in both directions. Please justify upon the
response how it was determined to be a two way PT slab. The new analysis
submitted only has the output and not the input. Please submit the complete the
input in order to complete the review.
5. 49. The design analysis for the PT slab only has three sheet of floor plan diagram
output printed. Please submit the complete input and output analysis of the PT
slab upon the response. In addition, it is not clear what PT program has been
used. When resubmitting please verify the current ACI 318-05 has been used in
the design of the PT slab. The response states please see Rain concept Output.
But the input used in the analysis is required to be submitted in order to complete
the review. There is no way to complete the review without this. Please resubmit
this upon the response.
6. 50. EOR, the structures are attached with a stairway without considering lateral
effect due to this. Please submit analysis of effect of the lateral loads on the
stairway or provide some type of separations. ASCE 7-05 12.12.3. Submit
analysis to show the stairway are independent of the structures. Currently there is
no separation shown.
Page 3 of 6
Plan Review Number 02
EECE#: EDM 08-55 (2)
Sunset 100, LP
2008-0463
Sheet S 1.1 Structural Notes
7. 51. Continuous special inspection is required for the installation of the stud rails.
Please add this to the inspections schedule. ESR -2494. The response states stud
rails are not used but the analysis submitted state stud rails are required. In
addition, sheet 52.3 clearly state studs rails are to be used at the column on grid
4. Please modify analysis and drawings accordingly.
Sheet S 1.2 Structural Notes
No comment for this sheet at this time
Sheet S 1.3 Structural Notes
No comment for this sheet at this time
Sheet S2.1 Foundations Plan
8. 56 FOR, please submit analysis for the pile cap specified on this sheet. This
appears not to be addressed in the analysis submitted. The response state see
sheets P1 -P5 but this was not in the submitted analysis. Please submit this upon
the response in order to complete the review.
Sheet 52.2 Post Tension Plan
9. 57. The minimum clear of bonded reinforcement steel for post tension concrete
shall not be less than I". This sheet shows CGS of the slab at 1". Please modify
design and analysis to maintain a 3 -hour lid. IBC table 720.1.. The design
analyses submitted still have the CGS at 1" but the drawings state 1.25 at the mid
span. Resubmit PT analysis for the CGS shown on this sheet..
10. 58. FOR, drop panels or stud rails are required for the slab system at the columns
due to shear loads. There are stud rail details on sheet 55.2 but the stud rails are
not specified on any of the slab plans. Please modify accordingly. ACT 421.1 R-
08. The analysis submitted state stud rails required or drop panel are required.
However, the response state studs are not to be used. See Reinforcement SSR
plan 41.
11. 59. FOR, please provide the tendon profile at the opening in the slab and submit
analysis to transfer this force around openings. ACI -05 18.2.3.. EOR, provide
analysis at the corner of the opening of the PT slab to resist the design forces.
This still has not been provided at this time. The opening at the stairway is
required to show the profile at the corner. There is not a concrete wall at this
location. A tendon profile is required to be specified at this locations Also the
Page 4 of 6
Plan Review Number 02
EECE#: EDM 08-55 (2)
Sunset 100, LP
2008-0463
opening South of grid C and a little to the East of grid 2 analysis at this locations
should be provided. I was unable to determine this form the submitted
information.
12. EOR, the tendon profile specified on this sheet does not inatch the analysis
submitted. Please clarify upon the response and submit analysis for the tendon
profile specified.
Sheet 52.3 Mild Steel Plan
13. EOR, please adjust the text between grid 3 and grid 4 near the opening in the
slab in order to read the requirements. The text over laps and it is unreadable to
see what is required.
14. 61. EOR, it appear the top reinforcement does not match page PT -3. For example
at the stair, or at the perimeter, etc. Please modify accordingly or clarify upon the
response why this does not match the analysis submitted. The reinforcement
specified on this sheet does not match the analysis submitted. For example, the
analysis state 32 45 top but this is not specified on the drawings between grid 3
and grid 4. Please modify the analysis or the drawings accordingly.
Sheet 52.4 Second Floor Framing Plan
15. 63. EOR, please specify the required collector elements for the horizontal
diaphragm on this level to drag the forces into the interior shear walls. The
response state see revised plan but there appear not to be any collector elements
nor the required nailing specified on the drawings. Please clearly show the
requirements for the collector elements to transfer the lateral horizontal
diaphragm forces to the vertical resisting elements.
16. 64. EOR, please provide a detail for how the beam marls BM3 is connected to the
tube steel post/beam. Nothing is specified at this time. EOR, please submit
analysis for the cantilever beamm. The connections and alternate span loading
shall also be considered. Base off the back span the uplift forces appear not to be
resisted. Please clarify upon the response.
17. EOR, the detail at the 2 -hour separation wall 1/56.2 appears not to be an
assembly for 2 hours. Please modify the detail and submit analysis to maintain
the required separations. This is required at grid C and 2. Please clarify how the
rated assemblies will be maintained. A UL number, ICC report number or IBC
approved rated assembly shall be used. Please modify accordingly.
Page 5 of 6
Plan Review Number 02
EECE#: EDM 08-55 (2)
Sunset 100, LP
2008-0463
18. EOR, please provide a detail for the connection of BM4 to the concrete wall.
Detail 4/S7.1 detail is for the floor joist. Are metal joist but beam 4 is wood. It is
not clear how this will be constructed based off the drawings submitted.
19. EOR, please submit analysis or the Vulcraft joist specified on this sheet.
20. EOR, please provide a detail for the note of the light gage metal studs to support
the Vulcraft joist. Also submit analysis for the joist to support the loads.
21. EOR, please submit lateral analysis for the diaphragm forces of the metal deck
with concrete shown for note 12.
22. Design analysis requires studs to be 54 mil but the drawings state 43 mil. This is
not conservative please modify accordingly.
Sheet S4.1 Foundation Details
23.71. EOR, please submit design of the pile cap as shown on this sheet. The
response state see attached calculation P1 -P5. These sheets do not appear to be
in the submitted documents. Please submit this upon the response.
Sheet S4.2 Foundation Details
24.72. EOR, please submit design of the pile cap as shown on this sheet. The
response state see attached calculation PI -P5. These sheets do not appear to be
in the submitted documents. Please submit this upon the response.
Sheet S5.2 Post Tension Details
25.75. EOR, please submit analysis for the Decon studs rails specified on this sheet.
The response state stud rails were not used but the analysis submitted state studs
rails are required. EOR, either add a drop panel or stud rails as required per the
analysis submitted..
Sheet S6.2 Wood Framing Details
26. Detail 8: EOR, please submit analysis for the (2) 318" Lag screws bolted to the
blocking to resist the design forces.
Sheet S7.1 Wood Framing Details
27. New details do not show how the three-hour rate assembly will be maintained
between the S2 and the residence. Please modify detail and or analysis
accordingly. See architectural details I I/A13.
Page 6 of 6
Plan Review Number 02
EECE#: EDM 08-55 (2)
Sunset 100, LP
2008-0463
28. EOR, please clarify where detail 6 is to be used. It is not clear based off the
drawings submitted at this time.
29. Detail 5: EOR, please submit analysis for the 2x nailer to support the design
loads.
SHORING REVIEW
SH1.1 Structural Notes
No comment for this sheet at this time
SH 2.1 Temporary Shoring Plan
30. EOR, the pile spacing appear to required the reductions factor of table 2 of
geotechnical report and it appears this has not been addressed. Based off
diameter of the pile and spacing of 8 feet it appears a reduction factor shall be .5
for the lateral capacity. Please clarify upon the response. Associated Earth
Science, Inc. table 2. The design engineer states the group effect is not required.
Please submit stamped letter for the geotechnical engineer that group effect is not
required for these piles spacing as shown on the shoring plan.
SH 3.1 Temporary Shoring Profile and Details
No comment for this sheet at this time
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 (360) 874-
0562 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
'19/1 1/1��
Hoyt Jeter, P.E.
President