Loading...
2015-1559 Abbott SFR 3- Johnson Arch.pdf City of Edmonds PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BUILDING DIVISION (425) 771-0220 DATE: September 27, 2016 TO: Ron Johnson, Architect ronarchps@outlook.com FROM: Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner RE: Plan Check: BLD2015-1559 th Project Address: 16404 75 Place W Project: Abbott SFR Scope: Construct single-family residence w/attached garage – R-3/U occupancy group – V-B construction - sprinkler system required– mechanical and plumbing included disapproved Please be advised that the building plans for the above referenced project have been for the purposes of obtaining a building permit. During a review of the plans by the Building Division for compliance with the applicable building codes, it was found that the following . information, clarifications, or changes are neededReviews by other divisions, such as Planning, Engineering, or Fire, may result in additional comments that require attention beyond the scope of this letter. Items that recur on this list appear in italics. A complete review cannot be performed until the revised plans/documents, including a written response in itemized letter format indicating where the ‘clouded’ or otherwise highlighted changes can be found on the revised plans, have been submitted to a Permit Coordinator. nd Resubmittals must be made at the Development Services Department on the 2 Floor of City Hall. Permit Center hours are M, T, Th, & F from 8am-4:30pm and from 8:30am-12pm on Wednesdays. General Review Notes: 1.Provide as part of a complete submittal structural calculations prepared and ‘stamped’ by an engineer supporting the design of the temporary soldier pile walls represented on sheets ‘1’ and ‘2’ of the submitted ‘Grading Plan’ and sheets ‘A1’, ‘A2’, and ‘A3’ of the architectural/structural plans for the proposed structures to be constructed under this permit and permit BLD2015-1602. The response to the earlier plan review comment states: OK “”. No information regarding the design of the temporary soldier pile walls could be found among the resubmitted documents. On sheet A7 – Upper Floor Plan: 2.Upper Floor Plan – Clarify the difference in the identification of the space to the east of the ‘Loft Area’ as ‘Open to Room Below’ and of that anticipated by the construction indicated in that area on sheet ‘S3’ – Upper Floor Framing Plan. The plans should consistently represent the proposed construction to guide proper review, installation, and inspection. On sheet S5 – Section Details: 3.Section 5 – West Wall Detail - Provide as part of a complete submittal structural calculations prepared and ‘stamped’ by an engineer supporting the design of the grade See enclosed beam/foundation wall. The response to the first plan review comment states: “ calculations. ”. The calculations appear to support the design of a grade beam different than See that specified on the plans. The response to the second plan review comment states: “ typ. Calcs for 8”x24” grade bm. ”. The design provided in response (for a 10”x18” grade beam) and none of the other provided designs are for an 8”x24” grade beam. Page 2 of 2