2015-0716 Classico Homes (Hagge-SSS).pdf
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: August 11, 2015
TO: Joe Schmaus
Classico Homes
classicohomes@gmail.com
FROM: Andrew Gahan, Plans Examiner
RE: Plan Check: BLD2015-0716
Project: New SFR
th
Project Address: 530 7 Avenue S.
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.
Sheet 1.1
1.Table 1507.3.3(1) was included on the cover sheet but no specification was made. Please
specify on the correlating plan sheet that the whole house ventilation fan should be rated to
exhaust 90 cfm continuously, or some combination of fan capacity and time per the
aforementioned table. Please provide the specifications on the appropriate sheet.
Sheet A3
2.Provide a Carbon Monoxide Alarm at this level per IRC R314.
Sheet A6
3.The wall shown as truss bearing above the STOR/WIC and M. BEDROOM was not
considered a bearing wall per the structural sheets and calculations provided by the EOR.
Please coordinate.
Sheet S4
4.It appears that pipe piles are proposed to support the east portion of the structure. Please
provide calculations showing that the piles are structurally adequate as proposed.
Sheet S5
5.It appears that beam 1-23 is missing the concentrated load from 3-1 above.
6.It appears that beam 1-10 is missing the concentrated load from 1-25.
7.A calculation for beam 1-17 was found, but no correlating beam 1-17 could be found.
Please verify.
8.The wall between the stairs and the garage is equipped with STHD14 holdowns. There are
no shear walls above and the wall in question is not specified as a shear wall. Please clarify.
9.It appears that overturning loads were not included in the analysis of those beams supporting
shear walls above. For example at beams 1-19, 1-8 and 1-11. Please verify the structural
adequacy of those beams.
10.It is clear from the calculations that the typical header size is meant to be (2) 2x6. However,
that information could not be located on the plans. Please verify that the typical header is
specified.
Sheet S7
11.It appears that beam 3-21 is missing the concentrated load from 3-25. Please verify.
12.Per comment 3 above, a bearing wall was downgraded to a regular partition wall between
the STOR/WIC and the M. BEDROOM. This change has resulted in some of the framing
supported by typical rafters. Please review this area and revise the framing as necessary.
Page 2 of 2