20161010085432.pdf�tI.1-SG
o�
E Clot of Edmond s
�r�
LP
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
,�t y (425) 771-0220
DATE: September 27, 2016
TO: Ron Johnson, Architect
�-o�aaach s c�u lc�c�.ccarr�
FROM: Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner
RE: Plan Check: BLD2015-1559
Project Address: 16404 75"' Place W
Project: Abbott SFR
�oro���� ,
("ICT o7 2016
"N'Ty OF EOWNDS;
Scope: Construct single-family residence w/attached garage — R-3/U occupancy
group — V-B construction - sprinkler system required— mechanical and plumbing
included m4c ((1& 0
Please be advised that the building plans for the above referenced project have been disapproved
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 needed. Reviews 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 revisedplans/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.
Resubmittals must be made at the Development Services Department on the 2nd 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:.
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 'A]', `A2', and `AY 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:
NI74 Upper Floor Plan — Clarify the difference in the identification of the space to the east of the
may,, 'loft Area' as `Open to Room Below' and of that anticipated by the construction indicated
I/ 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.
-- *?Lt?'FLC, U a 69 P 6 told i
On sheet S5 — Section Details:
t' 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
beamlfoundation wall. The response to the first plan review comment states: "See enclosed
calculations. ". The calculations appear to support the design of a grade beam different than
that specified on the plans. The response to the second plan review comment states: "See
typ. Calcs for 8"x24" grade bm.". The design provided in response (for a 10"xl8" grade
beam) and none of the other provided designs are for an 8"x24" grade beam.
Page 2 of 2