20060720140848.pdfo ��o City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
Fst t g90 (425) 771-0220
DATE: June 2, 2006
TO: Phillip Lehn
FAX: 425-745-8949
FROM: Ann Bullis, Assistant Building Official
RE: Plan Check: 05-135tl .._.
Project: Bradely SFR
Project Address: 16234 72nd Ave W
During review of the above noted project, it was found that the following information, corrections,
or clarifications are needed. Please respond in writing to each of the comments below, including
where the changes can be found on the plans. Please resubmit 2 sets of revised plans/calcs to Marie
Harrison, Permit Coordinator.
1. Response to letter dated 5/10106 item 1: For clarification, as you may recall only one complete
set of construction plans was submitted to the Permit Coordinator on March 17, 2006 and was
sent to the City's consultant for review. The second set submitted by you on March 17th was
incomplete and missing the sheets noted in my plan review comments dated April 3, 2006.
After receiving my April 3rd plan review comments you admitted when speaking with me at the
counter that you mixed up the sheets when you were resubmitting on March 17th. The City did
not lose the sheets. No delays were initiated or caused by the City on this matter. Regardless,
the plans submitted May 10th did contain all sheets and are currently under review by City staff.
2. Response to letter dated 5/10/06 item 2: For clarification, as noted in my e-mail to you dated
4/21/06, Sheet A14 would be reviewed during the next full resubmittal which was received May
10, 2006.
3. ok
4. Contact the Engineering Division regarding trash collection areas.
5. ok
6. ok
7. A smoke detector has been provided outside of the master bedroom, however a smoke detector
is required in the master bedroom (it was shown on the previous submitted plans but is missing
from the May 10, 2006 plans).
8. ok
9. It is acknowledged that soils will be exported from the subject property and not placed on
adjacent properties. Engineering Division will review.
10. ok
11. Rockeries are still under review by the Engineering and Planning Divisions
12. Response to letter dated 5110/06 item 12:
• Contact Steve Bullock, Planner for this project, for Critical Area definitions and decision for
the subject property.
• No City official supervised the preparation of the plat maps as noted in your letter.
• Specifically indicate what alleged property recorded description is wrong as noted in your
letter.
• City Engineer policy dictates when rockeries are subject to peer review. The peer review
portion of the policy has been revised since my April 3rd comments, however your
application will be reviewed under the revised policy (not the policy of your vested
application) since it may be beneficial to the applicant. The plans and details that you have
submitted for rockery construction will be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering
Divisions to determine if peer review will be required based on the current rockery policy.
Previously, peer review was mandatory for such rockeries. Engineered plans for rockery
eonsiruction z&e still required in the policy.
• As you have indicated, you have redesigned the rockeries to meet minimum setback
requirements. The Planning Division will review for zoning compliance.
• Regardless of your perception of your discussion with Steve Bullock, the requirement for
peer review for rockeries is established by City Engineer policy and is not discretionary
• Rockery permit, construction and peer review information is readily available and detailed in
the City public handout entitled Rockery Permit Submittal Requirements, which was
provided to you with my April 3`d comments.
• Your statement that you are confident the proposed rockeries will be safe and peer review
would be unnecessary is not relevant. As stated previously, the City Engineer policy
establishes when peer review is required.
13. ok
14. ok
15. ok
16. Response to letter dated 5/10106 item 16: As required in the City's Single Family Residential
Permit Submittal Requirements handout, one of the plot plans must be no larger that 8 %2 x 14
for microfilming purposes with the scale no larger than 1 "=20'. The 8 % x 11 plot plan
submitted May 10th has been reduced to a much smaller scale than V"=20' and will not
microfilm well. Please revise to meet the 1 "=20' scale as previously requested.
17. Response to letter dated 5110/06 item 17: Please also inform the owner that a separate permit
will be required for the future solar collectors.
18. In reviewing the Special Inspection Agreements, you have included Tom St. Louis, a Rastra
representative and distributor, as the special inspector for the Rastra walls. This would be a
conflict of interest per IBC 1703.1. Please verify that Mayes Testing will be doing the Rastra
wall special inspections in accordance with IBC 1704, or submit qualifications and signed
special inspection agreement for a different special inspector for Building Official approval.
19. Revise note 11 on the cover sheet to include areas outside each sleeping room in the immediate
vicinity of the sleeping room, and all smoke detectors must be interconnected. IRC R313
20. Sleeper floor system shown on Sheet A13 must be pressure treated.
21. Clarify stud spacing for bearing walls which will be 24" o.c. in accordance with IRC Table
R603.2(5), and shear walls per structural plans/calcs.
22. Provide manufacturer's specifications and information for the drain waste heat exchanger shown
on Sheet M2.
Page 2 of 3
In response to the second to last paragraph of your letter dated 5110106, you note that your drawings
will continue to change as your design continues to evolve. You are required to submit changes to
the City for review and approval. During the plan review process, after the 3rd review is complete,
plan review changes are $170 per review. After a permit is issued, revisions to approved plans are
charged at $50 per hour for each reviewing division. Contact Marie Harrison for the target review
date for the plan revisions you submitted late yesterday. Also, what "theater and stage" are you
referring to for this residential use?
Page 3 of 3