ENGINEERS RESPONSE - BLDG.pdfCity of Edmonds
Second Floor City Hall
121 5"' Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Plan Check: BLD2016-1252
Project Name: Rory's of Edmonds TI
Project Address: 110 Sunset Ave North
Dear Mr. Miller,
I A i�llllllllll�l� � �
JAN Z 7 2017
111 ILDiNG I A ` ML -W..
C11"Y (),F EEXWO llw*
Itemized below is our response to the review comments in the November 16, 2016 letter for the above
referenced project. Our response appears in bold.
Sheet 51.2 _ Schedules
27. Holdown Schedule
a. Clarify on the plans the callout for the 'MSTM40' holdown. A corresponding strap
tie with the indicated capacity could not be found in the manufacturer
catalog/inventory.
There was a typo in the holddown schedule. The holddown specified is a MSTCM40 concrete strap
holddown. The holddown schedule has been updated and a new note has been added to the
schedule to refer to detail 1/54.2 which shows the attachment of the holddown strap to the lower
basement wall. We have also provided the sheet from the Simpson catalog for the holddown in
the attached supplemental calculations for your reference.
b. Provide on the plans the information for 'Note 4' referenced in the 'Anchor Bolt'
column to guide proper review, construction, and inspection.
The holddown is a strap that attaches to the lower basement concrete wall, therefore there are
no anchor bolts used. The reference to "Note 4" has been removed, and the holddown table has
been updated to show that there are no anchor bolts.
Sheet 52.1 Notrndation Plan
28. Foundation Plan
a. Clarify on the plans the callout for the middle 2'-0" diameter 6'-6" auger cast footing
below the ends of the N -S oriented PT 6x14 HF#2 beams (beam 'D. FL. BM -3' on
sheet '1.26' of the provided structural calculations) used to support the west end of
the 'Patio' floor framing and below the west end of the roof framing ridge beam
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
ph. 425.778.8500 1 f. 425.778.5536
www.cgengineering.com
110 Sunset Remodel
December 29, 2016
Structural Response #1 Page 2 of 3
(beam 'DR. BM -1' on sheet'1.7' of the provided structural calculations). It appears
to be undersized for the loads noted at that location in the provided structural
calculations.
There was an error in the calculation of the required pole area on page 1.68 of the original
structural calculations. This calculation has been updated and has been included in the attached
supplemental calculations, and on sheet S2.1 and detail 1/S3.1. The new footing size is 2'-9"
diameter x 6'-0" deep.
b. Clarify on the plans the callout for the north -most 1'-9" x 1'9" x 10" deep isolated
footing below the ends of the N -S oriented PT 6x10 HF#2 beams (beam 'D. FL. BM -
4' on sheet '1.26' of the provided structural calculations) used to support the 'Patio'
floor framing. It appears to be undersized for the loads anticipated by the
represented construction. The point load below the middle post of the roof framing
ridge beams does not appear to have been accounted for.
The point load below the middle post of the roof framing is picked up by R. HDR -4 and does not
come down at that location, however that load was not accounted for in the south most 1'-9" x V-
9" x 10" deep isolated footing. This calculation has been updated and has been included in the
attached supplemental calculations, and updated on sheet S2.1.
Sheet S2.2 Main Floor ramie Pian
29. Main Floor Framing Plan
a. Clarify on the plans the indicated location of work to be completed per detail callout
'2/S4.2'. It does not appear to correspond to that anticipated at that location.
This detail shows the 5-1/8" x 12 GLB framing into the PT 6x14 Beam. The section cut is shown
correctly. However, the section cut for detail 1/S3.1 has been updated to be shown in the right
direction.
b. Clarify on the plans the callout for the 2x12 HF #2 joists (joist'D. FL. J-2' on sheet
'1.26' of the provided structural calculations) to be used below the east -most portion
of the 'Patio' at the entry to the structure. They appear to be over spanned and fail in
bending. The joists specified on the plans appear to be different than those specified
for that location in the provided structural calculations.
The plan on sheet S2.2 has been updated to match what was shown in the structural calculations
(Dbl. 2x12 HF#2 joists @ 16" OC).
c. Indicate on the plans the required installation of a continuous 23 -foot 2 -inch multispan
6x10 DF#2 beam (beam 'MF. BM -7' on sheet'1.40' of the provided structural
calculations) to be used as a girder to support the floor framing below'Banquet A.
The use of three individual shorter beams results in beams that appear to be over
spanned and that fail in bending.
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
ph. 425.778.8500 1 f. 425.778.5536
MWONEERING www.cgengineering.com
110 Sunset Remodel
Structural Response #1
December 29, 2016
Page 3 of 3
A shorter beam has been checked and shown to be adequate. This calculation is included in the
attached supplemental structural calculations.
Indicate on the plans the required installation of a continuous 21 -foot 4 -inch multispan
6x10 DF#2 beam (beam `MF. BM -8' on sheet'1.40' of the provided structural
calculations) to be used as a girder to support the floor framing below'Banquet B'.
The use of three individual shorter beams results in beams that appear to be over
spanned and that fail in bending.
A shorter beam has been checked and shown to be adequate. This calculation is included in the
attached supplemental structural calculations.
Sheet S2.3 -- Ceilin Framin Plan.
30. Ceiling Framing Plan — Clarify on the plans the callout for the 4x10 HF #2 beam (beam 'R.
HDR -3' on sheet '1.11' of the provided structural calculations) over the sliding glass door in
the south wall of 'Banquet A'. It appears to be over spanned and fails in bending. The
beam specified on the plans appears to be different than that specified for that location in the
provided structural calculations.
The plan on sheet S2.3 has been updated to match what was shown in the structural calculations
(3-1/2" x 9-1/4" PSL Beam)
If you have any questions or comments regarding the responses to this review please do not hesitate to
call.
Sincerely,
CG Engineering
Dennis Titus, PE, SE
Project Manager
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
(EENGI I G ph. 425.778.8500 1 f. 425.778.5536
www.cgengineering.com