Review Comments

Click Here To Go Back To Permit Information

Permit Number:	09 5071
Permit Type:	Commercial Building Permit - None BldgNew
Address:	2810 O'MALLEY RD Anchorage
Location:
Work Description:	Work Descr: 4284 SQ FT, Remarks: JRD
Status:	Closed
Project Name:	GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH
Review Type:	Structural
Result:	Approved
Result Date:	5/10/2010 12:00:00 AM

Comments:

	Code Section	Review Comment	Status

Advisory Information:
. PERMIT STATUS (no response required) 12/16/2009: Review completed, comments issued. 2/8/2010 - Responses reviewed. Comments issued. 2/22/2010 - Responses reviewed. Comments issued. 3/9/2010 - Responses reviewed. Approved pending special inspection letter and new drawings. 3/22/2010 - Approved pending special inspection letter. 5/10/2010 - Approved. Advisory Comment (no response required): This review is based on the requirements of the Anchorage Administrative Code (AAC), 2006 International Building Code (IBC) and all adopted references thereto as amended by MOA. The following comments must be addressed before a permit can be issued. The approval of plans and specifications does not permit the violation of the codes, or any federal, state or local regulations. STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS Please provide a Statement of Special Inspections containing all the information required by IBC sections 1704, 1705, 1706, and 1707. Comment remains. The response refers to attached document that do not appear to have been provided. Please clarify. WAB - 2/4/2010 Comment resolved. WAB - 2/22/2010 SPECIAL INSPECTORS Please provide a letter from the Owner, Owner's Representative (can not be the Contractor unless Owner/Builder in which case the Special Inspectors must be approved by the Building Official Ron Thompson), or the Special Inspection Agency stating that the Owner (please include Owner's name) has hired the Special Inspection Agency to perform the special inspection services for this project. Please note that special inspectors must be MOA licensed in the inspection type. See the following link for licensed Special Inspectors: http://bsd.muni.org/ContractorLicensing/sisearch.aspx Comment remains.The response indicates the special inspector information will be provided when it become available. This information must be submitted and approved prior to permit issuance. WAB - 2/3/2010 Comment remains. WAB - 2/18/2010 Comment remains. WAB - 3/9/2010 BUILDING OCCUPANCY CATEGORY Reference the calculations. Per the load summary page (1st page of the calculations) Building Occupancy Category II has been used. This does not appear to be correct. Per the Code Study, this structure is mainly an A-3 occupancy with an occupant load of 412 (265 1st floor and 147 basement). Per IBC table 1604.5 covered structures who primaryoccupancy is public assembly w/ and occupant load greater than 300 must be designed as Occupancy Category III. Please clarify or revise all affected design and resubmit. Comment resolved. This was approved by the Building Official Ron Thompson with an Alternate Means and Methods. See Architectural Change Order #1. WAB - 2/3/2010 SHEAR WALL ASPECT RATIO Reference Seismic Load Distribution for the Roof in the North/South direction. Per this spreadsheet the wall height is 13 feet. This would mean the minimum shear wall length would be 3.71 ft to give a 3.5:1 aspect ratio. It appears that at least three of the piers do not meet this requirement (they are inputted into the spreadsheet as 3.75 ft, but per the plan (and the Architectural plan) they are only 2.5 ft, and there is another that the projected length is inputted as 2.15 ft where the actual length appears to be about 3 ft. Please clarify. Please note that several shear walls have not had their lengths inputted correctly, i.e. on grid two starting at grid B, this shear wall is shown as 3'-8" but it was designed as being 3'-9". Please verify all lengths match the lengths in the Architectural drawings. Please also note that if the projected length method is used to distribute the loads that the projected length must be used when determining the aspect ratio. The projected length estimates the length of wall affective in transferring the lateral load in a specific direction. Please note that this comment applies in the east/west direction as well. It appears there are multiple locations where the shear walls are shown as one length on the Architectural drawings (and on the drawings provided in the calculations), but were inputted with longer lengths in the design spreadsheets. It could be that the structural engineer intended on requiring the longer lengths; however if this was the case it was never picked up in the Architectural drawings. Comment resolved. While the spreadsheet is still not clear, the reviewer was able to performed a more detailed check of the spreadshet to verify the design. WAB - 2/4/2010. LOAD PATH FOR HOLD DOWNS Reference sheets S1.1 and S1.2 of the structural drawings. On sheet S1.2 there are four hold downs on/near grid 1 that do not appear to have a continuous load path to the foundation. Please clarify. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.1.3 and the Anchorage Administrative Code (AAC) section 23.10.104.8. Comment resolved. It appears that the load path has been completed. WAB - 2/4/2010 SHEAR WALL DESIGN Reference the shear wall spreadsheet. Where shear wall aspect ratios exceed 2:1 (but are less than3.5:1), the shear strength of the wall must be reduced by 2*w/H. It does not appear as if this has been done, i.e. for shear wall 1 the load in the wall appears to be 2200 lbs which is 587 lbs/ft. For 8d at 3" O.C. (two sides) the base allowable load is 0.93*490*2 (reduction factor for Hem-Fir*shear capactiy*two sides) = 911.4 lbs/ft. for a 3.75 ft wide wall the reduction would be 2*3.75/13 = 0.577 so the capacity of the wall is 911.4*0.577 = 526 lbs/ft which does not work. Please verify that all walls with aspect ratios great than 2:1 have been designed correctly. Reference IBC table 2305.3.4. Comment resolved. While the spreadsheet is still not clear the reviewer was able to perform a more detailed reviewed to verify the design. WAB - 2/4/2010 HOLD DOWN ANCHOR DESIGN Please provide design of the hold down anchorage per ACI 318-05, Appendix D. Please rememberthat design of anchors is in strength design, and loads used to design the hold downs must be converted to stength levels forces. Comment remains. Reference sketch SK-19. Please indicate a maximum distance from the anchor to the rebar being developed to ensure the rebar can be developed above and below the potential breakout plane(s). Reference ACI 318-05 section D.4.2.1. WAB - 2/4/2010 Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB -2/18/2010 STAPLE SUBSTITUTION Reference the shear wall schedule on sheet S6.0 of the structural drawings. Per note 4, 14 gage staples may be substituted for 8d nails. Please note that 14 gage staples do not have nearly the same capacity as the 8d nails [i.e. for 6" O.C. the capacity of 8d nails is 240 lbs/ft (per IBC table 2306.4.1 assuming Hem-Fir) and for 14 gage staples it isonly 200 lbs/ft (per ICC ES report ESR-1539 table 19 assuming Hem-Fir)]. If a substitution is to be allowed, the shear walls capacity must be with staples. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8, IBC table 2306.4.1 and ICC ES report ESR-1539. Comment resolved. Response accepted. The staple substitution note has been removed. WAB - 2/3/2010 LATERAL LOAD PATH FOR DOUBLE SHEATHED SHEAR WALLS Reference details 5 and 6 on sheet S5.1 and 5, 6, 7 and 8 on sheetS5.2 of the structural drawings. Please note that most of the walls on this project are double sheated. Please provide a detail similar to the referenced details that show the lateral load path for the interior sheathing. Please note that it is not likely that the load call all be transferred to the exterior sheath and then to the wall or foundation below. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Comment remains. Based on the details there will not be enough penetration into the main member to meet theminimum 6*D requirement per note 4 of table 11N of the NDS. 16d common nails are 3.5" long and 0.162" diameter. 6*0.162 = 0.972" minimum penetration. The penetration provided would be 3.5(nail length)-1.5(sole plate thickness)-1.125(plywood floor thickness) = 0.875". Please also note that when designing nails with less than 10*D penetration the design value must be reduced by p/(10*D) where p is the penetration provided and D is the nail diameter. Please also verify that each shear on the schedule indicates the correct nailing of the sole plate. For example, there is no sole plate nailing indicated for shear wall type L so the 16" Max dimension would apply which doesn't seem sufficient for a double sided wall with 8d at 2" O.C. WAB - 2/4/2010 Comment remains. Please note that it still appears that some of the shear walls indicated do not appear to be able to transfer the required loads. For example, shear wall L is indicated for the wall on grid 7 between grids E and F has a detail cut of 6 on sheet S5.2 (as indicated on sheet S1.2). Shear wall L is double sheathed with 8d nails at 2" O.C. Per the original calculations the walls on this grid (walls 15 and 16) have 2.43 kips in each wall. This can be distributed over the full length of the bottom plate provided there is no splice or the splice is near the mid point of the wall so 2*2430/14.167 = 343 lbs/ft. If half of this goes to the inside plywood then the connection of the bottom plate to the sill must resist 343/2 = 172 lbs/ft. The spacing of the fasteners would need to be 130/172 = 0.76 ft or 9" O.C. and not the standard 16" O.C. Please verify that each shear wall has been checked for this connection. WAB - 2/18/2010 Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 3/9/2010 GLULAM SUPPORT Reference sheet S1.3 of the structural drawings. There are 5 1/8X10 1/2 glulam beams near grids 3 and5 running parallel to these grids. It apears that one end of these glulams is supported per detail 11 on sheet S5.3; however it is not clear how the other ends are supported (the ends near grids C and E). Please provide a detail showing how this connection is made. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Comment remains. It does not appear as if details 4 and 5 on sheet S5.4 address this condition. On the north side (grid C), the glulam appears to frame to the side of the HSS column with no beam or column providing support for the beam. On the south side (grid E), it appears the glulam frames over the top of another glulam. There is no indication that there is a 6X6 post installed on top of these beams at either location as indicated in detail 5 on sheet S5.4, and at grid C there is no other glulam framing shown as indicated in detail 3 on sheet S5.4. Please clarify. WAB - 2/3/2010. Comment remains. It does not appear as if the referenced detail addresses all conditions. For the condition at grid C3, there doesn't appear to be a glulam framed into the side of the steel column to extend the wood column from to support the upper glulam beam. This could just be an issue of the beam not showing up on the roof framing plan. Please clarify. WAB - 2/22/2010 Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 3/9/2010 TOP OF STEEL ELEVATIONS Reference sheet S1.3 of the structural drawings. Please provide top of steel elevations for all steel beams on the roof framing plan. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/4/2010 LOAD DEVELOPMENT FOR ROOF BEAM DESIGN Reference the design of the roof beams. Please provide calculations showing how the loads on the roof beams was developed. Please note that the reviewer was not able to verify the loads, i.e. for Roof Girder 1 the deal load appears to be a linearly varying load from 120 lbs/ft to 0 lbs/ft. The tributary width on the highly load endof this beam appears to be approximately 4.25 ft which would mean the dead load was taken as 120/4.25 = 28.3 psf; however in the load development was determined to be 34 psf. The design snow load appears have been taken as 356/4.25 = 83.8 psf. Per the load development only one snow drift load was determined and it had a maximum value of 48.7 psf (when added to the flat roof snow load the total snow load would be 88.7 psf). Please clarify. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/4/2010 ROOF EDGE DETAIL Reference detail 7 on sheet S5.3 of the structural drawings. This detail indicates Simpson RBC clips at 24" O.C. Please provide substantiating data showing this clip has sufficient capacity to transfer the required loads. Please note that diaphragms must be design per ASCE 7-05 section 12.10. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/4/2010 ROOF DIAPHRAGMS Reference sheet S1.3 of the structural drawings. Please clarify the chords for all roof diaphragms. Please ensure the chords are not discontinuous and that they can transfer the required chord forces. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.10. Item resolved. WAB - 2/8/2010 STRUCTURE CONNECTIVITY Reference the roof framing plan on sheet S1.3 of the structural drawings. ASCE 7-05 section 12.12.3 requires that structures be tied together to act as an intergral unit. The roof framing plan has several elevation differences and it is not clear from the drawings how structure is tied together at these locations to ensure the structure deflect as an integral unit. Based on the calculations provided it is expected that this structure deflect as an integral unit; however it is not detailed this way. For example in detail 5 on sheet S5.3 how are the upper and lower roof diaphragms tied together to ensure they deflect together (please note that this is only an example, and this issue must be dealt with at each elevation difference, i.e. details 8 and 9 on sheet S5.3 and details 1 and 3 on sheet S5.4 and there could be others). Please clarify. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. This comment also applies to the 1st floor framing, but not to the extent that it applies to the roof framing plan. On the first floor where reentrant corners occur the diphragm must be tied to the shear wall lines to ensure the structure deflects as an integral unit. Please provide these ties and show they can transfer the loads required by ASCE 7-05 section 12.1.3. Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/8/2010 GABLE WALL Reference detail 3 on sheet S5.3 of the structural drawings. Please provide substantiating data showing the Simpson A35 at 24" O.C. have sufficient capacity to transfer the required loads. Please note that diaphragms and their connections must be designed for the loads required by ASCE 7-05 section 12.10. Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/8/2010 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Reference the structural calculations. Please provide the following: A) Please provide design of the stud walls for the load combinations required by IBC section 1605. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/8/2010 B) Please provide design of the spread footings underneath the columns as required by IBC section 1805.4.1.1. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/8/2010 C) Please provide design of the steel columns as required by IBC section 1605. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/8/2010 D) Please provide design of the out-of-plane anchorage of the concrete walls per ASCE 7-05 section 12.11.2.1 and ensure requirements of section 12.11.2.2 are met (ties continous from chord to chord, subdiaphragm aspect ratios etc). Please note that plywood can not be used as a tie in this application. Item remains. Please note that under a seismic event there is no way of know if the backfill against a wall will be restraining the wall from movement in the direction of the backfill. This is because the ground will likely be moving, and it can not be predicted what level of force will be against the wall. The second part of the response indicates that on the east wall the joists bear on top of the wall. This is not the case per detail 6 on sheet S5.2. The joist are hung from the side of the wall. The third part of the comment references detail 5 on sheet S5.2. Ties must be continuous from chord to chord. If a sub diaphragm is to be used, the aspect ratio of the diaphragm can not exceed 2.5:1, and the sub diaphragm must be designed to transfer the required loads. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.11. WAB - 2/8/2010 Item remains. Per the previous response, detail 5 on sheet S5.2 was modified to include 2x blocking in the first two bays of blocking. This would imply that a subdiaphragm has been created. Based on the floor framing plan, the joists are 16" O.C. This would limit the diaphragm width to 2.5*32 = 80" It is not clear that this requirement is met at the required locations. The subdiaphragm would also have to be designed to transfer the required loads into the continuous ties. Please clarify WAB - 2/22/2010 Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 3/9/2010 E) Reference details 11 and 12 on sheet S5.4. Please provide design of the concrete retaining walls for the load combinations of IBC section 1605 and to meet the stability requirements of IBC section 1806.1. Item remains. Please provide dimension to rebar in the referenced detail. For example for the wall that has 13' retained height, the cover is required to be about 2". Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. WAB - 2/8/2010 Item resolved pending new drawings. WAB - 2/22/2010 F) Reference detail 10 on sheet S5.2. Please provide design of the steel beam to concrete wall connection shown in the referenced detail. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item remains. Reference pages 33a through 33f of the calculations.It doesn't appear as if a tension load has been applied to the anchors due to the eccentricity in the connection (0 kips tension is indicated on sheets 33b and 33f). Please clarify. WAB - 2/8/2010 Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/22/2010 G) Reference detail 8 on sheet S5.3 of the structural drawings. This detail indicates Simpson RBC clips at 24" O.C. Per the Simpson catalog each clip has 375 lbs of capacity so at 24" O.C. this connection is good for375/2=188 lbs/ft. Per the calculations there is 241 lbs/ft shear in the walls and since the wall has no openings this is the load that must be transferred through these clips. Please revise this connection to one that has sufficient capacity or show how the connection as is has sufficient capacity. Please also verify the 10d at 6" O.C. has sufficient capacity to transfer the required forces. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item remains. Per the original calculations the shear load in this wall is 241 lbs/ft (on the page where the scope is listed as "Dome sides"). Please clarify how this is reduced to 89 lbs/ft as determined on page 23a. Please note that the connection should be designed for the controlling case between the story shear and the required diaphragm design shear. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.10. WAB - 2/8/2010 Item resolved. WAB - 2/22/2010 H) Reference sheet S0.1 of the drawings. Please verify that none of the diaphragms are required to be blocked, i.e. provide all diaphragm design (please note that based on the dome sides spreadsheet the shear in the diaphragm that transfer the loads to the shear walls here has 241 lbs/ft of load which can only be developed in an unblocked diaphragm if the plywood is installed as shown in case 1 of IBC table 2306.3.1). Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8 and ASCE 7-05 section 12.10. Item resolved. Response accepted. All diaphragm edges are to be blocked. WAB - 2/4/2010 I) Reference detail 5 on sheet S5.4. Please provide subtantiating data showing the connection at the base has sufficient capacity to transfer the uplift forces generated by the load combinations including wind. Reference IBC section 1605. Item resolved. WAB - 2/8/2010 J) Reference detail 4 on sheet S5.3. Please provide substantiating data showing the sheathing on one side above the shear wall has sufficient capacity to transfer the load to the double sheathed shear wall below. Please also verify the nailing of the roof diaphragm can transfer the required loads into the blocking. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/8/2010 K) Reference detail 11 on sheet S5.3. Please provide substantiating data showing the connection shown can support the required forces. Please verify the gravity load path for these forces (the wide flange beam would have very little capacity in torsion as the end connections of this beam can not support much torsion). Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item remains. Please note that for there to be torsional resistance in the referenced detail, the beam end must have torsional resistance. Please verify that the beam end connections can transfer the required torsional forces. WAB - 2/8/2010 Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/22/2010 L) Reference detail 3 on sheet S5.3. Please provide substantiating data showing the 10d at 6" O.C. has sufficient capacity to transfer the required loads. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/8/2010 M) Please provide design for all hurricane clips. Reference IBC section 1604.9 and 1605. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/8/2010 N) Reference detail 6 on sheet S5.3. Please provide substantiating data showing the 10d at 6" O.C. has sufficient capacity to transfer the required loads. This comment also applies to detail 9 on sheet S5.3. Item remains. The referenced detail is a floor detail, and the response references sheet 23a and item G above whichboth have to do with roof details. Please clarify. WAB - 2/8/2010 Item resolved. WAB - 2/22/2010 O) Reference detail 3 on sheet S5.4. Please provide substantiating data showing the 16d at 16" O.C (both from the roof diaphragm into blocking and bottom plate to glulam). has sufficient capacity to transfer the required loads. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/8/2010 P) Reference details 5 and 6 on sheet S5.5. Please provide substantiating data showing the connection of the dome to the support structure has the capacity to transfer the required loads. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/8/2010 DRAWING REQUIREMENTS Reference the structural drawings. Please provide the following: A) Reference sheet S0.1 of the structural drawings. Please add elevator lateral support to the deferred submittals. Reference AAC sections 23.10.104.8 and 23.10.104.9. Items resolved. The plan reviewer will list this information on the drawings. WAB - 2/4/2010 B) Reference detail 7 on sheet S5.1 of the structural drawings. Please indicate the base plate information in the detail. Currently it appears to reference a schedule that does not appear to exist. Please include anchor information. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item resolved. The detail has been revised. WAB - 2/4/2010 C) Reference sheet S1.2 of the structural drawings. There is a detail cut on grid 2 between grids B and C that references detail 7 on sheet S5.4. This detail does not exist. It appears this should be detail 7 on sheet S5.2. Please clarify. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item resolved. It appears that this detail reference has been corrected. WAB - 2/4/2010 D) Reference sheet S1.1 of the structural drawings. Please provide the top or bottom of footing elevations for the two exterior pads in the plan southwest part of the building. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8 Item resolved. The requested information has been provided. WAB - 2/4/2010 E) Please provide a standardwood beam to wood column connection. Please provide substantiating data that this connection can resist the wind uplift forces where applicable. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8 and IBC section 1605. Items remains. The referenced sketch is a wood beam to wood beam connection. The comment requested a standard wood beam to wood column connection. Please ensure that the connection chosen can support the required uplift forces. WAB - 2/4/2010 Item remains. The response indicates that all wood beam to wood column connections have been specifically detailed. This does not appear to be the case. It appears the special conditions have been detailed, but not the the generic condition such as the glulam beam to 6X6 columns on grids 1 and 7 between grids E and D and D and C. Please provide the requested information. WAB - 2/22/2010 Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 3/9/2010 F) Reference sheet S0.1 of the structural drawings. Under "Structural Sawn Lumber" please provide the required species and grade for wall studs, and remove the reference to conventional construction as this structure does not requirements to use conventional construction. Item remains. This structure does not meet the requirements to use conventional construction. See IBC section 2308 for the limitations of conventional construction. WAB - 2/4/2010 Item remains. Conventional construction per 2308 is limited to wind speeds of 110 mph. Reference IBC section 2308.2.1(4). Since this structure is in the 125 mph wind zone conventional construction is not applicable and can not be used. Conventional construction is also limited in floor-to-floor and floor-to-roof heights as well as dead loads per the same section. WAB - 2/22/2010 Item resolved. The reviewer will inform the MOA Inspector that conventional construction can not be used on this structure. If the contractor uses conventionalconstruction the MOA Inspector will likely require it to be designed by the Engineer of Record and submitted to plan review. WAB - 3/9/2010 G) Reference sheet S1.2 of the structural drawings. There is a W10X17 beam on grid 5 betweengrids E and F that doesn't appear to be supported at the end closest to the elevator. Please clarify. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/4/2010 H) Reference sheet S1.3 of the drawings. Please clarify the requirements for Truss A and Truss B. If there are drift loads on these trusses these loads must be indicated on the drawings. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/4/2010 I) Reference sheet S1.3 of the drawings. There is a glulam beam connected into the side of a steel column on grid 3/E. Please provide a detail showing how this connection is made. Please verify that the connection can support the required wind uplift forces. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8 and IBC section 1605. This also appears to occur at grid 5/E. Item remains. The referenced detail references detail 8 on sheet S5.5. This detail does not appear to exist. Please clarify. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/22/2010 J) Reference detail 3 on sheet S5.4 of the drawings. Please clarify the 6X6 post note and the 2x blocking note in this detail. It appears there shouldn't be a post, and that the 2x blocking note is pointed at the glulam beam. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item remains. Please note that that comment did not question whether the blocking should exist. It questioned the 6X6 post call out, and indicated that it appears that the 2x blocking note was pointed at the glulam instead of the blocking. Please clarify. WAB - 2/4/2010 Item resolved. WAB - 2/22/2010 K) Reference detail 1 on sheet S5.4 of the drawings. Please provide the connection of the ledger to the blocking. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/4/2010 L) Reference sheet S1.3 of the drawings. The detail cut on grid 3 that references detail 8 on sheet S5.3 appears to be in the wrong location. Please clarify. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item resolved pending new drawings. WAB - 2/4/2010 M) Reference detail 8 on sheet S5.3 of the drawings. Please show how the plywood from the lower diaphragm connects at the W21 steel beam. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/4/2010 N) Reference sheet S1.3 of the drawings. There are two 5 1/8X12 glulam beams framing a canopy on the plan south side of the structure. Please provide a connection detail for the glulam beams to the wall. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/4/2010 O) Reference detail 7 on sheet S5.1 of the drawings. Please provide the connection of the HSS column to the base plate. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/4/2010 P) Reference detail 8 on sheet S5.1. Please provide the required leg length on the bent bars in the step footing. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/4/2010 Q) Reference detail 2 on sheet S5.3. Please provide the beam hanger type or provide detail showing information for the hanger if a custom hanger is to be used. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item remains. Please verify that there are nonet uplift forces on the beam as the Simpson LEG hanger is not rated for uplift loads. WAB - 2/4/2010 Item resolved. The response is correct. There does not appear to be a GLB to GLB connection. Please remove thedetail. WAB - 2/22/2010 R) Reference detail 6 on sheet S5.3. Please verify the Simpson H2.5 can be installed on the TJI joist. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item resolved. Respnose accepted. WAB - 2/4/2010 S) Reference detail 8 on sheet S5.3. Please provide the minimum end distance for the glulam to kerf plate connection. Please provide the connection of the kerf plate to the 3/8" bearing plate. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 2/4/2010 Please provide a written response to the comments above and include three copies of additional or revise drawings and one copy of additional or revise calculations. While not required it is extremely helpful to the reviewer if the response includes where in the submittal each item has been addressed. Not providing this information in the written response will lead to longer review times. Please note that additional comments may be generated from the response to the comments.