20090903095926894.pdfDATE: 9/3/2009
TO: Phil and Diana Tiegs
16911 Talbot Road
Edmonds, WA 98026
RE: Plan Check: BLD20090316
Project: SFR
Project Address: same
During the second review of the resubmitted plans for the above noted project, it was found that the
following information, clarifications or changes are needed. Please provide written responses as to
where the changes can be found on the plans, and submit revised plans/documents to a Permit
Coordinator.
L See attached City of Edmonds consulting engineer's structural second plan review comment
letter #2.
2. The Engineer of Record, Chris Covington, is required to stamp and sign the plan sheets A3.2
through S-3.0, as he had done on the original documents.
Pat Lawler
patrick.lawler@ci.edrnonds.wa.us
Plans Examiner
425 7710220 x1703
Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S.
PO Box 523
Olalla, WA 98359
hoytjeter@centurytel.net
360 874 0562
Fax 360 874 0591
To: Linda Thornquist
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Tiegs Residence
16911 Talbots Rd
Edmonds, WA 98020
Plan Review # BLD 2009-0316 EECE # EDM 09-07 (2)
Plan review number 02
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 italic if not addressed properly.
First floor
1676
Second floor
1780
Total
3456
arae
916
Total
4372
Deck
93
Grand total
4465
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 italic if not addressed properly.
Page 2 of 7
Pian Review Number 2
EECE 09-07
Tiegs
2009-0316
f39biIh1111 7: AL1 I_.►l] 31�► �.y
General
1. Revised design analysis submitted has a restrained retaining wall but the drawings
do not reflect any retaining wall or details. Please clarify upon the response. Page
11 A.
2. Please submit the design professional's stamp and signature for the Pro -built guard
rails.
3. Engineer of Record (EOR), it appear the accidental torsion force was not applied to
the horizontal diaphragm resisting elements. Please clarify upon the response.
ASCE 12.3.1.1 & ASCE 12.8.4.2
4. The Metwood building solutions design analysis package submitted, during this
review cycle, was not stamped by a licensed professional in the state of
Washington. Since the framing is not prescriptive per the IRC then stamped
documents are required. (the shop drawings were stamped by Jason M Conn and he
is also required to stamp the analysis for his portion of the design)
S. In the design analysis per intertek on page, 27 of 79 show the member are "bad".
Please clarify why this is the case and revised analysis and drawings accordingly.
6. 1. Please submit an analysis for the web crippling as noted in the Metwood truss
analysis. The analysis stamped by Jason M. Conn state web crippling will be
checked manually. Please submit this upon the response. The analysis submitted
used AISA-2001 spec. Reference and standards of IBC 2006 shall be 2004 and not
2001. Please resubmit or clarify upon the response why older code was used. IBC
chapter 3 S
7. 2. There was not any lateral analysis for the Metwood building solutions. All that
was submitted was the gravity analysis of the beams. Please submit this upon the
response. IBC 1604.2. The response states `see revised letter from SDA attached'.
However, there was not any analysis for the lateral load transfer for the diaphragm
load as required. Details and analysis are required to be submitted. Also, the new
analysis submitted states the lower floor dead load to be 12 psf. Please clarify how
this was determined when the floor system will exceed this. Please revise and
modify as required upon the response.
8. 3. Please submit lateral design for the ICFpanelize system used. This was not in
the submitted information. IBC 1604.2. This appears not to be addressed at this
time. Please clarify upon the response.
Page 3 of 7
Plan Review Number 2
EECE 09-07
Tiegs
2009-0316
9. 5. EOR, please justify the plate height used in the analysis for the main floor.
Based off the building sections the plate height used of IO feet appears to be lower
then the sections specify. Please resubmit or modify drawings accordingly. The
response states to see attached letter but no letter was submitted. Please clarify
upon the response.
10. 6. EOR, please justify the plate height used in the analysis for the Upper floor.
Based off the building sections the plate height used of 8 feet appears to be lower
then the sections specify. Please clarify upon the response and resubmit or modify
drawings accordingly. The response states to see attached letter but no letter was
submitted. Please clarify upon the response.
11. 7. Please add to the drawings a statement of special inspections as required per
1705 and 1704.1. The responses states note added to structural notes. Please see
sections 1705 for the items to be added to the drawings. It appears based off the
revised submitted document this has not been addressed. IBC 1705
12. 10. EOR, the design analysis used "trib" height for the wall for the first floor of 9.5
and 4.75'. How was this determined? Based of the section cuts this appears not to
be correct. Please clarify upon the response. It was not clear how this was
addressed since there was not any letter from the EOR as per the response.
13. The drawings do not specify the thickness of the ICF walls. Please add this
information to the drawings or clarify where this information is specified.
14. 15. For member BI from Metworks has an uplift load of 6.7 kips. Please clarify
on the drawings how this force will be resisted. The response states inverted
hanger but I was unable to find where this was specified in order to transfer the
loads. Please clarify upon the response and modify drawings accordingly.
15. 16. EOR, there is a concrete column analysis but there is not any concrete column
shown or detailed on the drawing. Please clarify upon the response. The response
states `see letter from SDA' but there was not a letter in the submitted package.
Please clarify upon the response.
16. 17. There are two lateral calculations that are different in the submitted analysis.
One in the beginning of the analysis and one at the end use different heights and
widths. They are not the same but they appear to be for the same part of the
structures. For example, the A and B zone are different. Please clary the submit
analysis upon the response with either a key or another way to distinguish where
each portion applies to the structure. No letter was submitted for SDA. Please
submit this upon the response.
Page 4 of 7
Plan Review Number 2
EECE 09-07
Tiegs
2009-0316
Sheet A2.1 Upper Floor Plan
17. 19. Please provide analysis and details for the deck support shown on this sheet.
None of the structural sheets nor the Metwork sheets have details the support of
the deck. Please submit this upon the response. It was not clear where the analysis
was provided. Please clarify upon the response.
Sheet S2.1 Foundations Plan
18.22. EOR, please clarify the size and reinforcement for the footing mark 60 in order
to complete the review. This is not on sheet S-2.0. EOR, the footing changed from
60 to a 48. Please submit an analysis for the footing to be smaller than on the
originally submitted drawings.
19. 25. EOR, please provide a detail for the concrete column note on the foundations
plan. Where is the steel to be placed? How are the vertical bars tied? Please
modify the drawings to show the construction of the concrete column. ACI 7.10.5.
This still has not been addressed. Grid 3A shows a concrete column without any
supporting documents. Please submit and revise accordingly.
Sheet S2.2 Upper Floor and Lower Roof Framing Plan
20. 26. EOR, the drawings only show three sided lateral vertical resisting elements.
The analysis submitted has not accounted for this type of lateral resistance. Please
resubmit analysis and modify the drawings to show how the horizontal lateral
forces will be transferred. ASCE 12.14.7.4. Letter was not submitted to justify the
thrce-sided diaphragm to resist the lateral design loads. Please submit this upon the
response.
SheetS3.1 Details
21. 30. Please provide a licensed design professional's stamp on this sheet. This is not
conventional framing per the IRC and a design professional is required to stamp
this sheet. IBC 106.1 The response states `now stamped by the EOR', but there is
not a stamp on this sheet. Please submit this upon the response.
Sheet S 1.0 Structural Notes
22. The EOR analysis states slab to resist sliding but the slab is not poured up against
the wall. Please modify details or analysis accordingly.
Sheet S-2.0 Structural Details
Page 5 of 7
Plan Review Number 2
EECE 09-07
Tiegs
2009-0316
23.33. Details 2: EOR, please submit analysis for the out of plane connections for the
support of the concrete wall. ASCE 12.11.2. The response state `see letter from
SDA.' There was not a letter submitted with this response. Please submit this upon
the response.
Sheet 1 of 9 METWOOD
24.34. Please submit ICC approved report for this structural system. This should be
included with the submittal. IBC 1604.2. This has not been submitted for the
material used. Please submit this upon response or submit an analysis to justify.
Sheet 3 of 9 METWOOD
25. 36 Detail 3: EOR, please submit design analysis for the special post. IBC 1604.2
The response states see page 252-257. There is not a page with this number. Please
clarify upon the response.
26. 37. This sheet state the decking attachment by other but the drawings prepared by
Structural Design Associates state this also by other. Please clarify where this
information is specified and provide analysis to justify. IBC 106.1.1. The response
states `see letter from SDA', but there was not a letter that clarified this. Please
submit this upon the response.
27. 38. Detail 4: Please submit analysis for the deck ledger and attachment shown on
this detail to support the design loads. IBC 1604.2. The response states to see page
258-260 but there was not this page labeled in the submitted documents. Please
clarify upon the response.
28. 39. Detail I & 2: Please clarify the size of the IFC hanger noted in the details to
support the design loads. IBC 106.1.1. The design analysis submitted for the
Metwood hanger states to use 7 -gage steel but the details state use 10 -gage. 10
gage thickness is .1345 and 7 -gage is .1793. Why are the drawing specifying
smaller gage then required by analysis? Please clarify upon the response and
modify accordingly.
Sheet 4 of 9 METWOOD
29.40. Detail 1: Please submit analysis for the post shown to support the design
loads. IBC 1604.2. The response states that testing and evaluations were performed
per third parry. Please submit ICC approved report for this product or hand
analysis to justify.
Page 6 of 7
Plan Review Number 2
EECE 09-07
Tiegs
2009-0316
30. 41. EOR, please submit analysis for the lateral loads being transfer to the ICF
panel to be able to transfer this force. This was not in the submitted package. IBC
1604.2. The engineer of record's analysis required welding of the deck to the
structure but this sheet states screws. Please modify drawing accordingly and
resubmit.
Sheet 5 of 9 METWOOD
31. 43. EOR, please provide ICC report for this deck system upon the response. ICC
report for this system has not been provided. Please submit this upon response.
Sheet 7 of 9 METWOOD
32. 44. Please submit hanger analysis or capacity upon the response in order to
complete the review. IBC 1604.2. The hanger analysis submitted states to use 7 -
gage but the drawings state 10 gage. Please modify accordingly.
33. 45. Please submit lateral analysis for this level. IBC 1604.2. Lateral analysis has
not been submitted for this floor diaphragm system to resist the required forces.
Please submit this upon response.
Sheet S of 9 METWOOD
34.46. EOR, please submit analysis for the hanger specified to carry the design force
shown on this sheet. This was not in the submitted documents. IBC 1604.2. The
hanger analysis submitted states to use 7 -gage but the drawings state 10 gage.
Please modify accordingly.
Sheet 9 of 9 METWOOD
35.47. EOR, please submit analysis for the hanger specified to carry the design force
shown on this sheet. This was not in the submitted documents. IBC 1604.2 The
hanger analysis submitted states to use 7 -gage but the drawings state 10 gage.
Please modify accordingly.
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.
Page 7 of 7
Plan Review Number 2
EECE 09-07
Tiegs
2009-0316
Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please contact Hoyt Teter at (360) 874-
0562 between 5:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
By.
L
Hoyt Jeter, P.E.
President