20080623093643.pdfof E� City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: June 16, 2008
TO: Valerie Sargent
Webber Thompson Architects
FROM: Ann Bullis, Assistant Building Official
RE: Plan Check # 2007-0686
Project: Point Edwards Building 10
Project Address: 50 Pine Street
During review of the plans for the above noted project, it was found that the following
information, clarifications or changes are needed. Please provide written responses to each
comment as to how it has been addressed, and where changes can be found on the plans. Please
submit revised plans/documents to Marie Harrison, Senior Permit Coordinator.
1. The safe dispersal area must be a minimum of 50 feet from any portion of the building,
including decks. Please revise and show 50 foot dimension. IBC 1023.6
2. Previous item 1 still outstanding: The "L" sheets refer to the architectural and structural
plans and gives no detail, Sheet A2.1 refers to the structural plans, and Sheet A1.1 only notes
that this is a design -build stair. Dimensioned construction details must still be provided.
Handrails are required on both sides of stairways/ramps with handrail extensions at top and
bottom, and returned handrail ends, also include width, rise, run, landing sizes, etc.
3. Follow-up to previous item 2: 2 exits are required from the Level 3 parking garage (Sheet
A2.5) with exits spaced apart a minimum of 1/3 the overall diagonal dimension of the garage.
The plan shows C305 and C307 as the required exists which do not meet this separation
distance. Please revise. If door C301 will be the 2"d exit, then door C302 must also swing in
the direction of travel (dimension width of egress travel at corridor when door is in the open
position per IBC 1005.2).
4. Previous item 5 still outstanding: Special Inspection Agreements (geotech and structural)
must be submitted for this building prior to permit issuance.
5. Previous item 6 still outstanding: General contractor must provide signed Contractor
Responsibility Statement perm IBC 1705.3 prior to permit issuance.
Port Edwards Condo Building " 10
P.R. # 9918-307, (City PR # 2007-0686)
February 13, 2008; Recheck # b
Page 1 of 4
June 12, 2008
Ann Bullis, Plan Reviewer and
Assistant Code Official
Development Services Department
121 5th Avenue North, Second Floor
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Dear Ann Bullis:
This is 5th recheck (including e-mails) of the Nonstructural and Structural Portions plan review of:
Project Name: Port Edwards Condominium Building 410
Plan Review Ns: 1118-307B (Your Plan Check Number is 2007-0686)
I looked at Ms. Sargent's notes and revised playas dated June 09, 9-008 for the reply to our
February 17, 2008 comments. The following; recheck comments shown in red. are my
further discussion some issues that need to be revised.
GENERAL COMMENTS
3. Location of garage exhaust outlets/outside-air inlets. She showed one interior shaft in the
garage on 10WIA2.2, but not any inlets that I can see on the exterior elevation plans. Also, the
one exhaust vent proposed seems incorrect for Levels 1 and 2 garages. I just don't see how
one exhaust fan can pull all the contaminated air out of the garage at Grid 20 on Level 10W,
when there is nearly 300' of garage to the East of it. The inlets would have to be large to help
this and need to be on the A3.X Sheets.
„ une 09 Resubmit comment Although the garage plans have a date of June 03 on
them. I stili don't see how the lame quantity of makeup air -will be provided
especially in the long Level. 2 garage and the large Level 3 garage. I am hopeful they
can show it now or that they solve it before the construction begin,-, to avoid costly
extras.
4. Building enclosure system architect's statement. These were supposedly sent to you already
Awe 09 Resubmit comment.• You wrote that you will be following; up on this one
before the permit is issued.
5 & 6. Sl and General Contractor forms. Point Edwards, LLC is supposed to be supplying them.
So, I am assuming that you have them or will get them.
`Tune 09 Resubmit comment You also wrote that you will be following up on this
one before the permit is issued as well.
NONSTRUCTURAL COMMENTS
3a. Justification of the types of construction as allowed by the IBC.
-tune 09 Resubmit comment. Ms. Sargent studied the issue and came to the
conclusion that the building could be built as to 'l'�,pe III -B construction and .that it
would solve all the issues I brought up in my last letter on the. subject. I looked at:
the consequences of her thesis for any unusual. issues with. that. idea.
After considerable study, I find that awhile the idea could work, it won't work in this
situation since she may not have looked close enougla at all the details the code
.requires for such construction.
She cites Section 602.3, which. gives the details of Type III construction and states it
has exterior walls that are of noncombustible material and the building's interior
can be of anew material. Such exterior walls are typically concrete, masonry, and steel
and any floor levels hang off those walls, not penetrate into there. But the provisions
do indeed allow some limited amount of wood in the exterior walls.
Ho-wever, wood is limited to be: (a). of fire--retardant-treated. wood framing that
complies with Section 230.3.2; need to be {b). within exterior wall assemblies; and
(c). only, allowed where walls are not required to be protected to more than 2 -hours.
She needs to note first that such FR'I` wood is not considered as "noncombustible"
in any way. And for the R-2 and S-2 occupancies, 'I"able 601, in fact, specifically
requires any bearing walls to be a taainimum of 2 -hours, which requires much more
protection than shown than she has designed for. I looked for a statement of what
that type of treated wood is, but couldn't find it on the plans. Maybe the
specifications have been revised, but I didn't get any copies
Nevertheless, her thesis fails to comply with Section 602.3 for a number of reasons,
the main one of which is because her design uses platform framing with horizontal
wood framing; piercing into the exterior wall lines on the upper floors of the building
above the concrete construction. See Sheets A5.xx.
Further details also need to be revised to work the way she implies: Assuming that
FRI"-protected walls studs are protected on the exterior with a noncombustible
material such as exterior gypsum sheathing, Section 1.405.4 still has rules for the
wood veneer in Type III construction; viz., it would have to be 1" thick over a
noncombustible wall membrane. As shown now, see Sections on Sheets A8.xx
sheets, .it are only thin Cedar Shingles shown.
I also sant: you an interpretation from the 2006 ICC Nonstructural Interpretation
Manual, where it unequivocally states that you can't just put FRT Studs lvith.in a
Type. V-A construction and state that it is a Type TTI -B construction. Essentially, that
is what she has done.
Now, may I repeat what I had in Recheck 4 4, and that is she should .rely- on the fact
that the code does allow in Section 504.2, c" -hick even 'f" .I)e V-A construction can
allow 4 -stories of Group R-2, even if it only uses the NFPA 1.3R sprinkler
provisions. I stated that they would have had to change the code they used, the 2003,
but I made an error and realize that this provision was in the 2003 IBC; too. Because
of the reorganizations of Chapter 3 that happened in the 2003 IBC, I thought that
this provision only shoved up in the 2006 TBC.
She should reread the ads -ice I gave her to see if she can make: it all work but, she
needs to remember two Points:
a). She can not take the allowable area of the Group R-2 times 4 stories, even
though she twill only be able to claim the allowable area for of one sto. r times
three and only three, but to be shared among those 4 stories in the section oil
mixed occupancies, Section 506..
b). She can subtract out the total width of the exterior walls from exterior finish to
the inside face of the interior finish to calculate the floor area as defined In
Section 1002 for "Gross area."
Construction Comments
3h. Calculation for wall stud shrinkage. This was not something the architect should "note." The
shrinkage needs to be calculated and will require mitigation measures such as slip joints or
other plumbing connections. The amount of shrinkage per floor (note that it accumulates as
you go higher in the building has to mitigated now using WWPA's Dimensional Stability
Technical Guide for provisions!!)
June 09 Resubmit comment Nothing was submitted or )ustified for this issue.
Perhaps she can consult the structural engineer to help with that calculation..
6. Elevator shafts hoistway venting. The note she puts on Sheet A7.2 is not sufficient. The
section I gave gives the criteria to determine it and that has to be added as a minimum clear
area value.
June 09 Resubmit comment- She needs to reread Section 3004.3 to calculate "vent area"
correctly.
Means of Egress Comments
1. Stairway # 2 has gate barriers to the lower stories.
June 09 Resubmit comment. I can't find that any changes were made.
6. Site stairways and ramp details. 1 didn't receive Sheet L3.1 and can't check it out.
June 09 Resubmit comment I couldn't find any revisions on that sheet in order to
verify the pathway details.
EXTRA commENT. Since this building is now going to be a 4 -story one, Section 3400.2
.requires that at least one of the elevators is able to accommodate ambulance stretchers.
"I'he dimensions need to be reviewed and modified if they are to comply.
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
Foundation and Concrete and Wood Framework Comments
4. Slab on grade reinforcement. There needs to be enough weight available to be able to resist
the uplift at this location.
June 09 Resubmit comment I don't think I made myself clear enough. I was
assuming that the slab shown on Detail 6/S4.2 would be providing ex-tra weight to
resist the uplift from the hold down as the slab may, not have; SUfficielit weight.
Therefore, it v ould have to be reinforced. and connected to the other slab to hold
together enough of the slab to achieve enough of the weight needed.
CLOSING
The designers should revise the plans and specifications and resubmit revised sheets. Thank you
for the opportunity to be once more of service.
Sincerely,
Jerry J. Barbera, P.E.
Construction Codes Consultant