Laserfiche WebLink
• • <br /> Drew Martin <br /> From: Drew Martin <br /> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 4:40 PM <br /> To: Mark Mcllvain <br /> Cc: jonathan Martin' <br /> Subject: City of Everett Permit Services: 8417 Evergreen Way(B1805-010) -Third Review <br /> Mark, <br /> I've reviewed the responses to the second review letter.There are still multiple comments that have not been <br /> adequately addressed. In an effort to expedite completing this review, I am providing supplemental commentary for the <br /> remaining comments. Note that some comments simply need to be addressed as stated in the comments in the second <br /> review letter.The commentary below is itemized for consistency with the comments, and is generally supplemental (i.e., <br /> comments do not supersede the comments in the second review letter). <br /> Architectural <br /> 10.The drawings do not appear to be updated to specify the required insulation, including the extent, and the thermal <br /> break between the slab-on-grade and the exterior foundation walls. <br /> Structural <br /> 1.The updates should specify both the walls and diaphragms.The special inspection is required for nail spacing less than <br /> or equal to 4", not less than 4". <br /> 3.The relevant sections of the IBC should be referenced in the drawings for approved fabricators. It is noted that special <br /> inspection is still required for approved fabricators.The difference is that the fabricators may self-perform the special <br /> inspections rather than hiring an outside special inspector. <br /> 13.The response is not clear.The comment should be reviewed and the response updated to clearly address the <br /> comment. <br /> 16.The following issues were identified with the response: <br /> a.The detail reference now indicates both Details 11/S-1.2 and 12/S-1.2. Detail 11/S-1.2 does not appear to match the <br /> condition where the reference occurs in the roof framing plan. <br /> b.A note at Grid B/1 on Sheet S-2.1 references Detail 3/S-3.0 (also referenced in the comment response).This detail <br /> does not occur. <br /> c. Continuing with the previous comment,the note references a generic type of Simpson hardware.The specific model <br /> number shall be specified. <br /> d. Continuing with the previous comment,the note states to weld the cap to the post.The FOR shall submit <br /> documentation from the manufacturer confirming that the proposed welding is acceptable. <br /> 26.The response is not sufficient.The response appears to provide an alternate approach to calculating the holdown <br /> forces.The vertical seismic component still does not appear to be included.The total height of the walls shall be used to <br /> calculate holdown forces, not the height of the wall piers, unless the walls are designed by the Force Transfer Method <br /> per AWC SDPWS-15 Section 4.3.5.2; it is noted that the design does not appear based on this method. Documentation <br /> substantiating the holdowm loads per the original comments shall be submitted for review. <br /> 1 �� <br />