844 OLYMPIC BLVD 2022-01-20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Michael Snitko Washington Flippers, LLC Plan Check Number: CW1910-001, First Structural Review December 13, 2019 Sections 4.1.1 and 4.2.1. Existing roof diaphragm was not modified. Modified vaulted ceiling did not affect roof diaphragm nor the connection to the shear walls 24. The proposed design includes a new deck projecting 15.5 feet from the south face of the building. The deck exceeds the maximum allowable projection for a horizontal cantilever per AWS SDPWS-15 Section 4.2.5.2 The deck should be provided with a second line of lateral resistance along the north side. The structural drawings should be revised to specify additional lateral elements. Sections and details should be provided to specify the required construction. Additional foundations may be required. Structural calculations substantiating the design shall be submitted for review. See IBC Sections 1603.1, 1604.1, 1604.4, and 2306.1. The IRC Currently does not state the design requirements for Lateral Loads, but it does provide an approved design per section R507.2.3 of the IRC. IRC R507.1 requires anchorage of the deck to the primary structure to resist lateral loads. Further,the IRC includes hold down tension devices as a prescriptive means to achieve compliance with the lateral load connection requirements without mandated engineering. Further more,AWS SDPWS-15 Section 4.2.5.2 allows a L:W ratio no greater than 1:1. The deck length (15' 1.5") is shorter than the Width at (15'9"). Therefore the Deck Diaphragm conforms to SDPWS. 25.The deck is laterally-supported in the north south direction by fastening it to the main building per Detail F/S1. Note that Detail F/S1 provides two different connections; see additional comments above. Calculations substantiating the lateral load path shall be submitted for review. At a minimum, the connection capacity should satisfy the requirements of ASCE 7-10 Section 12.1.3. Where the connection is subject to multi-axial loading (i.e., gravity loading and seismic loading in one or both orthogonal directions), the connection should be evaluated for concurrent loading per AWC NDS-15 Section 12.4. See IBC Sections 1604.1, 1604.4, and 2306.1. Both connection details are adequate. See answers above. Miscellaneous: 26.Architectural Sheet 3-of-3 includes details for the guards around the deck. The following comments shall be addressed: a. The design of the guards,the supporting framing, and the connections to the supporting framing, should be designed to comply with IBC Section 1607.8.1. b. The details specify a design load and holdowns"per manufacturer". The make and model of the required holdowns should be specified in the drawings. c. The details specify a couple distance between the 1/2"through-bolts of 2"to 5". The minimum dimensions should be specified. Note that 2"does not appear adequate to provide the required resistance at the connection. Additional manufacturer details, drawings, and model provided for the existing aluminum railing. The other deck guard details follow the prescriptive code from R507.12. Both meet the code requirements and have been previously approved on projects throughout Everett. 0 3200 Cedar Street CD 425.257.8810 O everetteps@everettwa.gov Everett,WA 98201 425.257.8857 fax everettwa.gov/permits Page 7 of 8