2014-0662 Dahlman (Edmonds Remodel).pdf
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: July 18, 2014
TO: Greg Brewer
Edmonds Remodel
edmondsremodel@gmail.com
FROM: Andrew Gahan, Plans Examiner
RE: Plan Check: BLD2014-0662
Project: Dahlman SFR
Project Address: 632 Fir Street
During a review of the plans by the Building Division for the above noted project, it was found that
the following information, clarifications, or changes are needed. A complete review cannot be
performed until the revised plans/documents, including a written response indicating where the
clouded or otherwise highlighted changes can be found on the revised plans, have been submitted
to a Permit Coordinator. Reviews by other divisions, such as Planning, Engineering, or Fire, may
result in additional comments.
For the purpose of plan review, the plans have been given sheet numbers: 1 of 3, 2 of 3 and 3 of 3.
Sheet 2 of 3
1.It appears that the 4x8 beam supporting the larger portion of the deck is overstressed in the
configuration shown. Please provide calculations to verify the beam is adequate.
2.Provide a guard around any portion of the deck that is anticipated to exceed 30-inches in
height above grade. Additionally provide a detail for construction of a guard per IRC R312.
3.It appears that 4 steps are anticipated to access the deck. If 4 or more steps are anticipated,
please provide a handrail. Additionally, provide a detail for construction of a handrail per
IRC R311.7.8.
4.Identify those members requiring the use of treated wood per IRC R317.
Sheet 3 of 3
5.Footing Detail - It appears that the toe-nainling specified is meant to be from the rim board
to the sill plate, not through the sheating to the sill plate. Please clarify.
6.Beam Pocket Detail Identify how the floor beams will be protected from the concrete per
IRC R317.
7.Beam Pocket Detail Provide a minimum of 3-inches of bearing for the floor beams per
IRC R502.6.
8.Deck Ledger Detail Identify the member to be used for the ledger board.
9.Pad Footing Detail Revise the detail to fit both the 4x12 and 6x12 floor beam conditions
by using terms such as beam per plan instead of 4x10 beam, post per plan instead of
4x4 column, etc. Then identify those posts on sheet 2 of 3 one time each by using terms
like 4x4 post typical, etc.
10.Pad Footing for Deck Detail The beam shown on sheet 2 of 3 does not match that shown
on this detail. Additionally, both beams appear to be overstressed in the configuration
shown (see comment 1 above).
Page 2 of 2