5306 ROCKEFELLER AVE 2022-01-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

• • Ms. Courtney Crosby Plan Check Number: B2004-017, Second Structural Review August 5, 2020 e. The plans have been stripped of information on the existing construction, such as overall plan dimension and framing sizes and spacing, that was included in the original submitted drawings. Those were included in Drawing A and were clearly outlined. f. The structure appears to have existing 2x8 boards that are proposed as the deck surface. This should be clarified. Fasteners for the boards should be specified. This was added to the drawing. g. The foundations for the deck are not clear. Photography of the existing structure indicates the southwest post bears on an apparent concrete wall of unknown construction that is not shown in the drawings. You mean SE, not SW. This is built into a cinderblock wall filled with concrete. We added this to the drawing. h. Drawings include a number of details and notes that are not properly referenced with the plans. Each detail and notes are properly notated. If you are going to say there is an error or its confusing, you must provide that example(s). i. Drawings lack sufficient sections, details, and information to specify the existing and new connections between the framing, including post connections to the foundations and the deck connection to the house. See Drawing A, added how it connects to the House. Outside of the SE Post (already addressed) and South Center Post, Footing is encased in concrete with rebar in the center of the post. South Center post is about the same, except it has a Hot Dip Galvanized Steel saddle bracket holder with #10 x 1 1/2 screws. j. Photography of the southeast post appears to show that the beam does not bear on the post, and that the connection between the beam and post is inadequate or non-existent. See Update on Drawing A. That's why there's a gusset (I've learned). More on the Gusset two points down (L). k. Drawings include unclear information such as "steel brackets" of unknown construction at multiple locations. The side of the drawing on our previous submission provided you with the exact specifications of each bracket and what they were secured with down to the brand. I. The submittal documents include a "Gusset D" detail that has been characterized as a "creative idea" and "not required". The documents should only include work to be performed. I have since learned that one of my engineer's (the one that told us to do the Gusset) was being sarcastic. I didn't realize this, and I apologize. Gusset is there to hold up the SE Post to ensure it is braced. See Gusset D Detail for Structural Reasons. The Gusset was also added to the Drawings. We actually already did the Gusset, so it is on Drawing A (which is the Existing Carport Detail). Original Comment: The proposed construction of the structure is generally not clear. The drawings appear to be missing information, including but not limited to: framing sizes, leader without information, floor joists, connections between framing (e.g., joist-to-beam, beam-to- beam, post-to-beam, post-to-foundation, header to studs, etc.), fasteners in Post Detail #2, shear wall nailing, shear wall anchor bolts, etc. Revised construction drawings showing the intended construction, including the construction of existing framing and connections, should be submitted for review. See IBC Sections 107.2.1 and 1603.1. 7. This comment has not been completely addressed. The original comment address the "Gusset Detail D". The response appears to indicate that this detail is not required. The detail should be removed from the construction drawings. See IBC Section 107.2.1. See L Above. ( ) 3200 Cedar Street t�j� 425.257.8810 / � everetteps@everettwa.gov -" Everett, WA 98201 '`--1 425.257.8857 fax am everettwa.gov/permits Page 4 of 7