WJA #2.pdfMessage Page 1 of 2
Readwin, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 15911 74th place West
-----Original Message -----
From: Brian Moll [mailto:bmoll@wjadc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:43 PM
To: Harrison, Marie
Cc: 'Brian Moll'
Subject: 15911 74th place West
Resubmittal Struct Review Comments (WJA Brian Moll)
1. I think the Geotech of record will need to call out the minimum Rock sizes for the 2 tiered
rockery, in addition to doing the geotechnical observation
2. I still do not see a detailed section through the rockeries, per the City of Edmonds rockery
submittal requirements ... This drawing still needs to be submitted and approved by the city
3. Review Comment #3 has not been addressed, provide the full building sections in both directions
as requested
4. I still do not see SOG control joint details, provide control joint details. Also why are there 2
foundation plans? A-5 and S-5, EOR review and delete one of these sheets. Are you using 11
7/8" TJI 110's or 560s????
5. Review comment #6 still has not been addressed
6. Review Comment #7 show joist hanger symbol at 4x12, and are you using a TJI360 which you
call out for your joist hanger or TJI560
7. Review Comment #9 still has not been addressed
8. Review Comment #10, has not been adequately addressed, detail W/A8 does not provide a
complete load path from roof diaphragm to shear wall below. EOR to correct
9. Review comment #13 has not been addressed, EOR to provide struct details, show bolt
size,spacing and edge distances
10. Detail T/A8 refers to the shearwall schedule for the anchorage of the pony wall. What is the
shear wall mark number for this pony wall? Is there structural sheathing on it
11. Detail U/A8 just is unrealistic. EOR please correct this detail to look like it will actually be built.
Consider iJ at ext sog, and anchor bolt embedment etc
12. Review comment #17, remains uncorrected on this submitted version
13. Review comment #20 has not been addressed, EOR to review and correct
14. Review comment #21 There is no new detail 2/S-4 in this submittal, per the EOR response.
Therefore; this item still remains unaddressed. Provide details requested.
15. Review comment #22, has not been addressed, EOR to review and comment
16. Review comment #23:refer to sheet A7, Lets look at for example the posts supporting the ridge
adjacent to the master bedroom. The 4x6 DF#1 and 6x8 DF#2. These both have CCQ column
caps supporting the 5 1/8x glulam beams, so they are supported at the top in the north south
direction. But how are they supported in the east -west direction which is the other principal
direction? I see nothing which shows me they will be braced in that direction. Similarly they need
to be connected at the base ,braced in both principal directions. How are these posts connected
at the base? Is there a detail? EOR to review. Then review all posts throughout the building
similarly
6/21/2006
Message Page 2 of 2
17. Review Comment #24: has not been fully addressed. Detail 11/S-2 partially addresses this issue,
is a single cripple at the header acceptable at all locations? What happens at that large window
at the stairs, with 2 story spanning studs? What out of plane deflection occurs there?
18. Review comment #25 does not appear to have been addressed
19. Review comment #26 : the EOR' s response does not address all the issues raised it! comment
#26. All issues should be addressed and details shown
20. Review comment #27 has not been addressed, EOR to add info to drawings
21. Review Comments #28 and #29 have not been addressed, EOR to review and comment.
22. Review comment #30 has not been addressed , P/A8 does not adequately describe what is
happening here
23. Review comment #32:EOR to respond
24. Review comment #34 has not been addressed: Geotech of record to review and comment.
Brian E Moll, PE, SE, SECB
Senior Structural Engineer
WJA Design Collaborative
1736 Fourth Avenue South, Suite A
Seattle, WA
T 206.254.2570
F 206.254.2571
www.wiadc.com
6/21/2006