Loading...
2015-0224 Neuman SFR2 - Greenwalk.pdf City of Edmonds PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BUILDING DIVISION (425) 771-0220 DATE: May 29, 2015 TO: Steve Barnes sbarnes@cornerstonearch.com FROM: Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner RE: Plan Check: BLD2015-0224 Project: Neuman SFR Project Address: 390 Sunset Avenue N During a review of the plans by the Building Division for the above noted project, it was found that the following information, clarifications, or changes are needed. A complete review cannot be performed until the revised plans/documents, including a written response indicating where the ‘clouded’ or otherwise highlighted changes can be found on the revised plans, have been submitted to a Permit Coordinator. Reviews by other divisions, such as Planning, Engineering, or Fire, may result in additional comments. Items that recur on this list appear in italics. On the Residential Building Permit Application Form A: 1.Fuel Gas – Provide the ‘BTUs’ for the water heater, boiler, and fireplace to guide proper installation and inspection of the required gas piping sizing. The response to the plan review comment states: “gas equipment will require 254,000 BTU”. While sufficient for determining the demand at the meter, it provides no guidance for the demand on each of the segments supplying the separate appliances (and the reason for the data entry fields on the application). Provide on the application, or on the plans, the demand for each of the fuel-gas appliances. On sheet AC1 – General Notes: 2.Energy Notes: a.Note C – Update the required maximum tested air leakage rate to that of the currently adopted code, and change the code section from ‘105.4’ to ‘401.3’. b.Note F – Update the information regarding the option selected to achieve the minimum additional energy credits per the currently adopted code. The selected WSEC Table R406.2 option, ‘5b’, requires the installation of a tankless water heater (currently the only water heating appliance with an ‘EF’ of 0.82) that typically utilizes 180,000 + BTU/h. The remaining 74,000 BTU/h (see review note #1) appears to be a bit low for the remaining appliances. On sheet A2.1 – First Floor Plan General Notes: 3.Mechanical Notes - Note E – Indicate on the plans the required minimum number of fasteners to guide proper installation and inspection. The response to the plan review comment states: “this needs to be done as a part of the mechanical permit”. This is the mechanical permit (and the plumbing permit as well). Typically, when a project requires more than one permit, to the extent practically possible, the permit coordinator shall issue one document coordinating all of the approved permits per ECDC 15.00.040.D. 4.First Floor Plan: a.Change the section callout for the west-most both section line s identified as ‘2/A4.1’ to that reflecting the represented spaces. The response to the plan review comment states: “fixed section callout’. The noted callout was not changed and another callout was changed. Three sections now have the same callout. On sheet A2.2 – First Floor Plan Window Types (sheet name should be changed to properly identify the represented work): 5.Second Floor Plan: a.Change the section callout for the west-most section line identified as ‘2/A4.1’ to that reflecting the represented spaces. The response to the plan review comment states: “Section callout has been corrected.”. No change was observed on the resubmitted sheet. Two sections have the same callout. b.Clarify the dimension given for the width of the sliding glass door in the west wall of the ‘Great Room’. It appears to be different than that listed in the ‘Door Schedule’ and represented on sheet ‘A3.1’ – West Elevation. On sheet A3.1 – Exterior Elevations Stair Details: 6.Guard Detail – Indicate on the plans the required guard construction to prevent the passage of a 4 inch sphere per IRC R312.1.3. The response to the plan review comment states: “Guardrail notes have been added to the plans.”. Notes were added to the ‘North Elevation’ and ‘West Elevation’ for the construction of the steel and glass guards represented. However, The ‘Guard Detail’ (above the ‘Stair & Railing Details’ still has dimensions and notes that do not meet the requirements of IRC R312.1.3. The allowance for construction limiting a 4-3/8” sphere is for balusters (repetitive vertical in-fill elements between the top and bottom rails/supports). On sheet A4.1 – Building Sections: 7.Section 2 – Building Section - Clarify the difference in the representation of the lower level spaces and of that anticipated by the section line callout on sheet ‘A2.1’. The response to the plan review comment states: “Information has been corrected.”. No change was observed on the resubmitted sheet. Page 2 of 4 On sheet A6.2 – Roof Details: 8.Detail 10 – Unvented Ridge – Clarify the callout to detail ‘8/A1.2’ for the required installation of the ‘Z-closure’ used for the attachment of the ridge cap. No such detail could be found on sheet ‘A1.2’. On sheet S1 – Structural Notes Foundation Details: 9.Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 – Foundation Detail(s) and Thickened Slab Edge Detail – Clarify the difference in the required footing and bottom of wall reinforcement specified and that noted in the ‘Foundations’ notes on the same sheet. The response to the plan review comment states: “Structural notes have been changed.”. No change was observed on the resubmitted sheet. On sheet S2 – Foundation Plan Details: 10.Details A & B – Braced Frame Detail(s) a.Clarify the reference to detail ‘3A/S2’ for the required construction of the ½ inch plywood sheathing over 2x6 T&G decking. There does not appear to be a detail ‘3A’ on sheet ‘S2’. The response to the plan review comment states: “Details A & B, detail callouts has been corrected.”. No change in ‘Detail B’ was observed on the resubmitted sheet. b.Clarify the reference to detail ‘2/S2’ for the required construction of the 4x6 above roof deck over each truss cantilevered to support overhang. The referenced detail does not appear to correspond to the work identified. The response to the plan review comment states: “Details A & B, detail callouts has been corrected.”. No change in ‘Detail B’ was observed on the resubmitted sheet. 11.Details A & B – Braced Frame Detail(s) - Clarify the difference in callout for the 4x6s to be used to support the overhang and of that noted to be used in detail ‘2’ on sheet ‘S4’. 12.Foundation Plan – Clarify the difference in the dimension given for the distance between the ‘centers’ of the vertical elements of the braced frame – HSS 6x4-1/2 – and of that noted in detail ‘B’. Accounting for the width of the member, it appears to be different and could affect the layout of other elements of the structure. On sheet S3 – Second Floor Framing Plan/Details: nd 13.2 Floor Framing Plan a.Clarify the callout for the 4x10s DF #2 over the center of east-most ‘Bedroom 1 2’ to be used to support the loads from the floor framing above. They It appear s to be over spanned and fail s in bending. It appears that one of the beam callouts did not get changed. b.Clarify the callout for the 4x102s DF #2 over the west-most ‘Bedroom 1’ to be used to support the loads from the floor framing above. They appear to be over spanned, and fail in bending, and deflect beyond that allowed per IRC Table R301.7. While the size of the beams has been changed and they no longer deflect beyond that permitted, they still appear to fail in bending. Page 3 of 4 On sheet S4 – Roof Framing Plan/Details: 14.Roof Framing Plan a.Clarify the reference to detail ‘8/S4’ for the required construction of the 2x6 8 rafters over the north second floor deck. The referenced detail does not appear to correspond to the work identified. The response to the plan review comment states: “Callout has been corrected.”. No change was observed on the resubmitted sheet. b.Clarify the reference to detail ‘9/S4’ for the required construction of the 2x8 rafters over the north second floor deck. The referenced detail does not appear to correspond to the work identified. 15.Detail 9 – Roof Overhang Detail – Clarify the difference in the required ‘backspan’ of the roof rafters specified and that represented on the ‘Roof Framing Plan’ on the same sheet. The placement of the ‘wood truss’ appears to dictate the available length. The response to the plan review comment states: “Back span of framing members are shown on the details.”. The placement of the east-most ‘wood truss’, with its ‘face’ at approximately 3 feet 2 inches (38 inches) from the edge of the east wall, appears to leave less than the required backspan of 48 inches noted on the detail. Page 4 of 4