20080623102252.pdfDATE: June 23, 2008
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425)771-0220
TO: Valerie Sargent
Webber Thompson Architects
FROM: Ann Bullis, Assistant Building Official
RE: Plan Check # 2007-0686
Proj ect: Point Edwards Building 10
Project Address: 50 Pine Street
During re -review of the plans for the above noted project, it was found that the following
information, clarifications or changes are still 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. Previous item 3: Remove exit signage and emergency lighting from door 307 and added
to doors 301 and 302 for exiting from the parking garage. The response Ietter stated
that this was changed, but the plan was not updated to show this information. 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 113 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).
See. attached comments from the City's consultant
June 22, 2008
Ann Bullis, Plan Reviewer and ECEIV
EC-
Assistant Code Official JUN 23 2008
Development Services Department
121 5th Avenue North, Second Floor SUOING DEPMMM
Edmonds, Washington 98020 GtY of FDMONDS
Dear Ann Bullis:
This is 5th recheck of the Nonstructural and Structural Portions plan review of:
Project Name: Port Edwards Condominium Building # 10
Plan Review Ne: 1118-3078 (Your Plan Check Number is 2007-0686)
T looked again at STs. Sargent's new set of revised plans and cover letter dated i ne 2.0'h
in reply to the June 13, 2008 4"' Recheck comments: Many of the outstanding
comments were addressed and. plans changed, but the central. issue of tyle of
construction and allowable area reinains unsolved.
GENERAL COMMENTS
4.. Building enclosure system architect's statement. These were supposedly sent to you
already
Tune 20`h Resubmitted Plans comment 1 am assuming that you have these.
5 & 6. SI 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 20`h Resubmitted Plans comment. .Ditto.
NONSTRUCTURAL COMMENTS
3a. Justification of the types of construction as allowed by the 1BC.
Tune 20" Resubmitted Plans comment .Ms. Sargent is w7ing to justify the
building now as a mixed occupancy but persists in considering it as I"Ype 11.1-B
construction despite what .I. wrote in Y.ny June 1 ,h letter. .1. ayn not sure what to do,
except to repeat my questions. 1f she addresses them one by one, 1 am hopeful
that she will finally see she can't justify it to that type of construction.
1. Section 602.3, normally requires Type TTT-B exterior wall construction to be
of noncombustible materials (not wood, including fire -retardant studs
without a certain specific exception)?
2. That section goer on to allow within the buil.din�, just inside of the Nvalls,
to be of any type of construction.
3. Eire -retardant treated lumber is combustible, not incombustible --- it bums
slower than normal wood for about 30 minutes — after that it's like nornnall
Port Edwards Condo Building # 10
P.R. # 1118-307, (City PR " 2007-0686)
June 22, 2008; Recheck # 6
Page 2 of 3
4. The studs and presumably the plywood and top and bottor n plates within the; wall
cavi. _ are all that are allowed to be combustible. Everything else including any
floor that intrudes into the cavity= goes back to the normal. Type 111-B exterior wall.
construction, i.e., noncombustible material.
5. Plus the walls have to be of 2 -hours fire resistive construction for at least t1.ie
bearing walls.
G. The crest of the wall construction has to be of noncombustible materials — it
could be of steel studs, for instance — including the exterior and interior finishes
(despite the very thin paper to protect the gypsum, wallboard and sheathing is by
definition, noncombustible.)
?. Floor and roof construction are not allowed to be Within the wall cWvities at the
floor lines unless they too are of noncombustible construction.
S. 'Then the exterior finishes of the walls meed to be addressed. Section 1405.=1 still
has rules for the wood veneer .in Type :III construction; i.e., it would have to be 1"
thick over a noncombustible gall membrane—As shown now, see Sections ori
Sheets A8.xx sheets, it are only thin Cedar Shingles.
9. T am enclosing a copy from the ICC IBC Commentary to shorn how the classical
I11 --B construction is intended (iny personal copy is from the 20001BC, but
nothing has changed for this section in the subsequent two other editions.)
10,The discussion about joints in exterior walls somehow mitigating
But I highly urgeV1s. Sargent to try again to see, using separate'Type V -1 -hour
consauction throughout allowable values this time and looking at the building as a
mixed occu . anc will work (not lumping all area into the R-2 category since the S-2 has
nearly twice as much allowable area). See Section 506 and take the separate actual net
floor areas per floor per occupancy and add the two fractions together. That is, take the
allowable area for the garage (based on. the S-2 category-) and. a separate allowable value
for the apartments (but based on the R-2 value tunes 3 and divided by four for a per
floor value) and ignoring the basement which is obviously okay, and finally summing up
the individual. floors to make sure they are all less than 1.00.
The exterior walls can go back to 1 -hour construction (which was never changed, but
the way, oil the plans)
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!!)
Port Edwards Condo Building # 10
P.R. # 1918-307, (City PR # 2007-0686)
June 22, 2006; Recheck # 6
Page 3 of 3
June 20 Resubmitted Plan comments: The engineer shows that sh.r-inkage will
accumulate to be 1.7. This amount of shrinkage has to be accommodated in the
rigid plumbing piping, drains, and plumbing vents, bathtub wad water closet
connections at floors, the storm drain connections and perhaps other utilities,
discontinuities between the concrete construction next to and under the wood
construction causing distress. How will this be done?
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 20 Resubmitted Plan comment. Qkay, this has changed to a deferred
submittal and can be accepted.
Means of Egress Comments
1. Stairway # 2 has gate barriers to the lower stories.
June 20 Resubmitted Plan comment. Okay, this has been solved.
6. Site stairways and ramp details. I didn't receive Sheet L3.1 and can't check it out.
June 20 Resubmitted Plan comment. Qkay, this has been solved.
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. The dimensions need to be reviewed and modified if they are to comply.
June 20 Resubmitted Plan comment. This one was not addressed and. still. needs
to be.
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. ®kms, this has been solved.
AX41-1 U40
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