20050801.pdfDATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY E.�..--/�� ��%jjJJ%� / ) ZIP TELEPHONE
NAME
PERMIT EXPIRES
PERMIT ,�,�►,
NUMBER
JOB r -UITE/APTd
ADDRESS 7�:IF
✓J ' J �r
PLAT NAMEISUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO LID NO
LID FEE $
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP Approvml ❑
RW Permit Requited ❑
Street Use Permit Required ❑
EXISTING _ PROPOSED Inspection Required ❑
Sidewalk Required ❑
REQUIRED DEDICATION FT underground ❑
VI it"juand 13
METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO, OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED
YES O NO 13 Z
E
W
nuur�o as REMARKS - W
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE z
W
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
NAME /+ �' N
`• ` \�� �L✓� C� ✓ ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY OATS
ADDRESS
1 L 18 f SS 1= kc
FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE w
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE zLLgS7
G✓cWA 9go8 a
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE HECKED 8,Y VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADBq INSPECTION SEPA
y ^ / REQ'D COMPLETED EXEMPT
I�,c.Z � �C.I •� �� � � 7 d5 YES �
CAN ZONE SIGN AREA HEIGHT
PROP RTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. `^//
4111 1 WAIVER D (/ �+_ ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLO �D POSED
STUDY D I I
❑ NEW ❑ RESIDENTIAL ❑ PLUMBING / MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS'(FT) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT UR SIDE REAR t7
❑ COMMERCIAL ❑ COMPLIANCE OR �z i
ADDITION ❑
MIXED USE CHANGE OF USE i
PARKING LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DA7 g
REh10DEL El MULTIFAMILY ❑ SIGN REDID PROVIDED �- M
❑.REPAIR El GRADING CYDS E3fEIJCE X FT.) REMARKS
❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ OTHER
GARAGE ❑ CARPORT E3 RETAINING ROCKERY WALL FIRE ALARM FIRE LER
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
fyawa?oc� , `o� .O CO�TRUCTION CO E OCCUPANT
T wII I�GJiI I
GROUP
NUMBER NUMBER OF �l
OF S DWELLING UNITS `( PE
SPECIAL INSPECTION CONSULTANT OCCUPANT
STORIE
1V REQUIRED ILS YES LOAD
RC^OI%/A r;0rrI GEOTECH REPORT m
`, �" BY:
�X 1 !� ElWa6� 1 �1`� G STRUCTURAL DESIGN
`` BY:
cJ►Ji^o �l S C�1e r �t�V�. r TGW VALUATION
i $ I
Description FEE Description FEE
Plan Check Stale Surcharge
HEAT SOURCE LOT SLOPE% VESTED DATE
Building Permit City Surcharge
PLAN CHECK NO: Plumbing Base Fee
. / ZQ3 I I I
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO Mechanical
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC
E DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Grading
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
eEngr. Review
u PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5)
PERMIT. LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6)
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION Engr. If1SpeCllOn
In •APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit
III IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
E EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt #
1 ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY "
= FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT, ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
j DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscape Insp. Total Amt: Due
0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.*El j
Recording Fee Receipt #
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF This application is not a permit until signed by the
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18:27. OF,FICI S SIGNA E ATE
SIGNATURE OWNER OR EN DATE /GNE % (425) ' /r ^) c r
L2 • 771 -0220 Phi BY "( DATE
ATTENTI N EXT. 1333
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- ORIGINAL - FILE YELLOW - IN PECTOR
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED, UBC109 I IBC110 I IRC110. PINK -OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR
10104 PRESS HARD YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
9
•
06/21/05 12:59 FAX 206 254 2571 WJA, PLLC Z002
1 11111
M E M O RAN D U M
�asnhluntuu. Qlnucl
PROJECT Senior Center Elevator - Edmonds PROJECT NO.: 04078
DATE: 21 June 06
ATTENTION: David Gebert
COMPANY: City of Edmonds
TOTAL PAGES: 3
FROM: Lou Ernst Z
O
SUBJECT: Construction Requirements for Elevator at Senior Center n
m
COMMENTS:. .-�
ISSUE NO, 1A: Requirement for Vestibules with Fire Doors at Elevators. G
m0
�n
Plan Check #05-193, comment #3, states: "The elevator opens Into a fire rated corridor and must meet O C
the requirements of WAC 51=50-707.14.1 to protect the path of travel:' -�
WAC 51-50-707.14.1. states: "Elevators opening into a fire -resistance rated corridor as required by
mZ
Section 1
016.1 shall be provided with an elevator lobby at each floor containing such a corridor. The > Z
lobby shall separate the elevator the corridor by fire partitions and the required opening411
t bees shall have at least one means of egress complying with Chapter. 10. and
protection. Elevator lobbies
011
other provisions within this code."
The key component of this requirement is that,it ONLY app
lies. to elevators that open into CORRIDORS
that are.required to be rated, by section 1016.1 of the 2003 In
Building Code (IBC). It appears m m
i
ATED CORRIDORS at the. Sen
that there are NO Rior Center into which the elevator opens on either,
0c
floor. If the elevator does not open into a rated corridor, then neither the WAC. nor the IBC requires it to C
j co
be separated by a vestibule with rated doors. C tn.
R z 0.
rt
second floor, the elevator opens directly into an alcove, which is part of the
raced stairway at r m
On the �.
space. This space has access to two exits: One is directly into (what appears to ) ;
the west end of the space. The other exit is via a corridor that is located. at the east end of the space:
Passage through this corridor provides access to another stairway. If the. elevator opened into this
separated from the corridor, would be required. y=
corridor, then we would agree that a vestibule/lobby,
P ` Z
On the first floor, the elevator opens into an alcSIMI
ove that is a part of the. lobby of the facility. Again, this is
is lobby 0)
Th
not a rated corridor, nor does it appear. that it heeds to b X maxim travel to an "exit' (2 00 feet) Z.
travel from a series of adjoining rooms. However, them O
specified by Table 1015A of the IBC does not appear to be exceeded in this configuration
These adjoining MI
n
rooms all have exit access which passes through the mnine neral lprohibits is exit accessifrom one space m
allowed by Section 1013.2 of the IBC. Section 1013. 9
being through an "intervening room". However, Section 1013.2 DOES ALLOY) spaces to. exit through
adjoining rooms, "where such adjoining rooms or areas are accessory to the area served; are not a
high -hazard occupancy and provide a discernable path of travel egress" Lobbies of buildings are
considered to be accessory to the main function of the building,
required by either the IBC or by
Separation of the elevator is the current situation does not appear to be
the WAC amendments to the IBC.
COPY: Jim Roberts, City of Edmonds
Brian Moll, WJA
WJA DEs10N Cow,eonAnvE 1738 FOURTH Ave S, surra A M rT► E, WA 98134 r 206.254.2670 F 206.254.2671
WJADC.0
06/21/05 13:00 FAX 206 254 2571 WJA, PLLC Z003 �.
City of Edmonds
Gebert Memo 060521
Page 2 of 3
ISSUE NO. 18: Requirement for Vestibules with Fire Doors at Elevators.
As a separate Issue, the IBC does not require upgrading of all components of a structure. toul
the current
or
building code standards. Section 3403.1 of tof the code for new he IBC states: dctonst constions or ruction. Additions or alterations to any b ations shall
structure shall conform to the requirements
not
structure
made to an existing building or structure which will cause the existing building or structure to be in Z
violation of any provisions of this code," O
However, Section 202 of the IBC defines and Addition as "An extension or Increase in the floor area or
m
height of a building or structure." And defines Alteration as "Any construction. or renovation to an existing
structure other than repair or alteration:' Section 202 defines Repair as 'The reconstruction or renewal of
any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance" �. _
vquipM
M0
By these definitions, it appears the replacement of the elevator ement falls into the category of O
"repair", or the reconstruction and/or renewal of the equipment. O C
Yes the replacement equipment MUST meet the requirements of the current codes. But the IBC does not
-t r
=m
awl
require upgrading of areas outside the equipment involved. As mentioned in our meeting on 17 June 05, m z
replacement of the elevator equipment does not require upgrading of the Senior Center's overall ADA
even if elevator lobbies. were required in a new construction with this configuration y Z
accessibility. Likewise.,
(and as noted above, t does not appear that lobbies would be required), the simple act of replacing the
rr
equipmCA
ent does not trigger a code requirement that the area outside. the shaft be modified.
O m
mn
A similar situation could arise if the Senior Center decided to replacelrenovate/repair its
mechanical/HVAC equipment. Such a replacement would NOT trigger a complete upgrade of the building m
envelope to. current Building CodelEnergy .Code standards: —
cCA
M
n
ISSUE NO.2: Fire Alarms
Specific devices are "
not called out in the documents. However, .the specifications, paragraph 1.01 X
Summary e
of Work, item 1p, forth job states: Provide. fire service features to comply. with code:' Whilit e
the contractor would not have been able to anticipate a Building Department requiremnt far'a vestibule
and thus an additional smoke detector on each level outside the vestibules, the contractor should have Z
detector on each level should have been part of the initial cost
included the base system and one .i
proposal from all contractors bidding on the job.
Z
O
-i
n
ISSUE NO.3: Structure Height m
There is nothing in the specification which precludes the bidding contractors. from providing a telescoping
system, if their manufacturer's standard, non-telescopatgelesco ingsystem ir.(system sot cinhe enlly unstable ation within the nd
shaft. Syske Hennesey disagrees with the assertion that P
would be inappropriate at the Senior Center. This issue should have some additional exploration before
the Center and the City of Edmonds commit to raising the height of the elevator shaft. As noted ti the
manufacturer rep at the meeting on 17 June 05, the concern about the height of t is tie ft o NOT tied to
the overrun space required by the code. Rather, all concern about the height is tied to the specific
equipment proposed to be provided by this manufacturer. �•
I'
WJA DESIGN COLLABORATIVE 1736 FOURTH Ave. S., SUITE A SEATTLE, WA 98134 T 208.254.2570 F 206.254 2571
.
WJADC,COM
.✓ 41/1J1. L�,/'�,� :moi/Z el-<4
�/
MEMORANDUM TO FILE
Date: June 27, 2005
To: Dave Gebert, City Engineer
From: Jeannine L. Graf, Building Official
Z
Subject Applicable provisions of the International Building Code that,govern Elevators
in response to WJA Memorandum dated June 21, 2005 M
rn
Regarding the Senior Center elevator; where the WJA consultant has referenced IBC 3403.1 Existing Buildings N �.
or Structures as his basis for not requiring the installation of the corridor lobby (reference Building' Division v m
comments dated May 20; 2005), the provisions of 1I3C 3001.1 specifically, relating to elevators and conveying m C
systems is more restrictive and prevails. IBC 3001.1 states `this chapter governs the design,. construction, n
OC
installation, alteration and repair of elevators and conveying systems and their components.' Section 3002.1 of —t r:.
this chapter requires that hoistway enclosures have a fire resistance rating not less than that specified in Chapter m rn '•> .
6 and be .constructed in accordance with Chapter 7, and openings in hoistway enclosures shall be protected as p_
required in Chapter 7,rSection 707.14..1 states that elevator openings into a fire -resistance -rated corridor shall Z
I
be provided with an elevator lobby at each floor containing a corridor.
In researching the approved plans for the .1977 senior center building addition/remodel, section 3,308(d) of the.
1973 edition of the Uniform Building Code (code in effect at the time of construction) required a one hour rated
corridor leading from the stairway to the exterior of the building. The existing elevator currently opens into, this rn
Co
fire rated corridor thus repair or alteration work associated with the new elevator must complete this protection 0
and either open into a one-hour rated elevator lobby or, meet one. of the exceptions (such as the additional n m
hoistway doors) as provided in the code.
j M n: .
r
The IBC Commentary for Chapter 30 Elevators and Conveying Systems states that compliance with the
requirements of this chapter provides for life safety and promotes public .welfare. It states that this chapter is
intended .to be used as a. minimum life -safety standard by architects, engineers, insurance companies'r rD
manufacturers and contractors and as standard safety practice for owners and managers of buildings where } zRai
! `
equipment covered by this chapter is installed and used:
Architects must be very cautious in applying provisions of the IBC to. a building built under the. UBC.. The z
codes are very different in philosophy. The UBC relied heavily on "passive fire protection" to help insure O6=4
occupants to safely exit a building, while the IBC relies heavily on "active fire protection Passive fire I rn
protection is the use of fire resistive construction, such as fire barriers, fire walls, smoke barriers, corridors, and
exit passageways to protect occupants, while active fire protection is the use of an automatic sprinkler system
and fire alarm systems. For example, if this building were built today, a fire sprinkler system and automatic fire
alarm system would be required. Therefore, selectively using less restrictive sections of the IBC which reduce
the "passive fire protection" to warrant an exiting system. in a UBC building is not the intent of the code and
could. ultimately provide less protection to the occupants than intended by the code.
I
As Building Official for the City of Edmonds my original decision stands the provisions of IBC Section ( "
707.14.1 shall be imposed on this project.' I
i
City of. Edmonds cQ Development Services Department
I`