2014-0930 Billdt remodel2 - Alcova Arch.pdf
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: November 17, 2014
TO: Pietro Potesta
pietro@alcovaarch.com
FROM: Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner
RE: Plan Check: BLD2014-0930
Project: Billdt remodel
th
Project Address: 22515 98 Avenue W
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. Items that recur on this list appear in italics.
On sheet S-2:
1.Structural Foundation Plan Indicate on the plans the required construction to resist the
overturning loads noted in the provided structural calculations of the E-W SW2
shearwalls. The review response regarding the placement of the CS16 straps at the top of
the SW2 shearwall as shown on sheet S-3 and connected per detail 8 would be
appropriate if the concern expressed in the plan review comment was for the overturning of
the SW1 shearwall on the upper level. The SW2 shearwalls on the lower level appear to
be completing the load path below the upper level SW1 shearwall and the upper floor
diaphragm. The construction depicted in Detail 3 on sheet S5 does not appear to be
sufficient to resist the anticipated 2.3K of overturning loads (at their base) per sheet L3 of
the provided structural calculations.
On sheet S-3:
2.Structural Floor 1 Plan
a.Indicate on the plans the minimum beam required to support the loads over the
openings into the Gym. The review response that no new loads are imposed on
the existing beam therefore the existing beam is adequate to continue support the
existing loads seems to be only partially correct. Sheet A-3 appears to represent a
wall along the west side of the Family/Kitchen (and soon to be Gym), presumably
providing support for the west ends of the upper floor framing members over it.
Sheet S3 provides a note guiding the contractor to verify support condition prior
to wall demo below beam at the location in question, but the size of the existing
girder beams could not be found among the originally submitted plans. The revised
sheet A-5 depicts the proposed 8-foot-wide openings in the wall with existing
2x10 beam(s) (below joist) supporting the upper floor framing. The 2x10 appears to
be over spanned and fails in bending.
b.Indicate on the plans the required framing member to support the loads below each
end of the beam over the southeast bedroom closet window. The existing 2x10 HF
#2 appears to be over spanned and deflects beyond that allowed per Table R301.7.
The review response that no new loads are imposed on the existing
framing therefore the existing framing are adequate to continue to support the
existing loads does not appear to account for the window changes made in the east
wall of proposed Bedroom1. The point loads below each end of the beam over the
Bedroom 1 closet window appear to be in a different location than that of the
existing window. Typically, double joists are provided where point loads are
supported at the ends of cantilevered framing. The same provisions would appear to
provide the appropriate support below the point loads below each ends of the beams
over the other windows placed as shown on sheets A-6 and A-8 Elevation -
East.
c.Indicate on the plans the required beam to support the loads over the window in the
Guest Room. The typical (2)2x8 HF #2 appears to be over spanned and fails in
bending. The review response that no new loads are imposed on the existing
framing therefore the existing beam is adequate to continue to support the existing
loads does not appear to account for the window changes made in the east wall of
proposed Bedroom1. The point loads below each end of the beam over the south-
most window in Bedroom 1 appear to be in a different location than that of the
existing window. The smaller window also requires the existing beam to support an
additional load from the roof.
d.Indicate on the plans the minimum beam required to support the loads over the
garage door openings. The review response that no new loads are being imposed
over the garage therefore the existing headers for the garage doors are adequate to
continue to support the existing loads does not appear to account for the window
changes made in the west wall of the proposed Master Bedroom. The point loads
below each end of the beams over the windows appear to be in different locations
than those of the existing window and the integrity of the existing beams could not
be verified because their size and species could not be found among the submitted
construction documents.
Page 2 of 3
e.Indicate on the plans the required beam to support the loads over the window in the
Den. The typical (2)2x8 HF #2 appears to be over spanned and fails in bending.
The review response that no new loads are being imposed on the existing
beam therefore the existing beam is adequate to continue to support the existing
loads does not appear to account for the window changes made in the west wall of
the proposed Living Room. The point loads below the ends of the beams over the
new Living Room windows appear to be in different locations than those of the
existing window. If the Den window is located as shown on sheet S-3, it appears
that the (2)2x8 HF #2 will fail as noted above.
f.Clarify the difference in the size and location of the window in the west wall of the
Den and that represented on sheets A-5 and A-8 Elevation West.
g.Indicate on the plans the minimum beam required to support the loads over the
opening into the Den. The review response that no new loads are imposed on the
existing beam therefore the existing beam is adequate to continue support the
existing loads seems to be only partially correct. Sheet A-3 appears to represent a
beam along the east side of the Rec Room (and soon to be Den), presumably
providing support for the east ends of the upper floor framing members over it.
Sheet S3 provides a note guiding the contractor to verify support condition prior
to wall demo below beam at the location in question, but the size of the existing
girder beams could not be found among the originally submitted plans. The revised
sheet A-5 depicts the proposed 20.5-foot-wide opening in with existing 2x10
beam(s) (below joist) supporting the upper floor framing. The 2x10 appears to be
over spanned and fails in bending.
h.Clarify the callout for the existing 2x10 beam(s) (below joist) used to support the
floor framing over the garage and the Guest Room. They appear to be over
spanned, fail in bending, and deflect beyond that allowed per Table R301.7.
Page 3 of 3