2015-0530 Fortaleza TI2 - Stantec Arch.pdf
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: August 18, 2015
TO: Fortaleza WL, LLC
harryhosey@gmail.com
FROM: Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner
RE: Plan Check: BLD2015-0530
Project: Fortaleza TI
nd
Project Address: 123 2 Avenue S, #130
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.
The work proposed under this permit application does not include any plumbing or mechanical
work that may be required or associated with the proposed use.
On sheet A-101 Enlarged Floor Plan:
1.Enlarged Plan - Clarify the occupant load factor used for the proposed Salon (100 gross).
Using the common definition, (a large room for entertaining guests), the factor used appears
to result in a lower occupant load than that anticipated for the use of the proposed tenant
space. The floor plan should represent all fixed equipment/furnishings as well as any
proposed seating in each of the spaces per the City of Edmonds Tenant Improvement
Permit Submittal Requirements.
2.Enlarged Plan Clarify the use of the room east (on the plans south using actual compass
The
designation) of the wine storage. The response to the plan review comment states:
room south of the Storage room is at an elevation 3-6 higher than the Storage Room.
This room has an access to the alley on the east side of the building. There are steps
from the landing down to the storage room floor. This is part of the original
construction. The use is not scheduled to be changed.
Aside from the difference in
elevation between that of the room to the south of, and that of the proposed Storage Room
being given, the information in the response can be readily seen on the plans. Indicate on
the plans the use of all spaces, existing and proposed, per the City of Edmonds Tenant
Improvement Permit Submittal Requirements.
3.Enlarged Plan Clarify the representation of a side hinged door in the east wall of the space
referenced in the note above. As originally permitted, there appeared to be a roll-up door in
the existing one-hour fire-resistance rated exterior wall construction per the fire separation
distance requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 5-A. A proposal to
change the opening/door needs to be included in the scope of work and have the proposed
construction method(s) and materials represented on the plans.
4.Enlarged Plan- Justify the use of the sliding door considering IBC 1008.1.2. The response to
The sliding door is an architectural feature of the
the plan review comment states:
Concierge area. It is not a public passage door. When open this door provides a
convenient access from the reception area to the Locker Room. The sliding door is
wood core encased with steel sheets and is typical of other doors originally installed in
the building. The double door from the Concierge to the hallway is an existing door
that was part of the original building construction.
The response to the review comment
does not appear to resolve the following concerns regarding the building code requirements:
a.Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required shall meet the
requirements of IBC 1008.
b.Manually operated horizontal sliding doors are permitted in a means of egress from
spaces with an occupant load of 10 or less per IBC 1008.1.2. Considered separately,
the occupant load of the proposed Concierge could be served by the side-hinged
door in the west wall see also notes 3.f and 3.g below
c.Employee work areas are required to be accessible except when they are less than
1000 square feet in size and are defined by permanently installed partitions, counters,
casework, or furnishings per IBC 1104.3.1 see plan review comment 1 above.
d.Door hardware of doors on an accessible route shall be exposed and usable from
both sides when the door is in a fully open position. In addition, it shall be of a
shape that is easy to grasp with one hand, and not require tight grasping, pinching, or
twisting of the hand to operate per ICC A117.1-2009 section 404.2.6.
e.Door-opening force of sliding doors on an accessible route shall be 5 pounds
maximum per ICC A117.1-2009 section 404.2.8.
f.There appears to be a movable/folding partition wall between the proposed Salon
and proposed Concierge. When the wall is open/retracted, the area of the
combined spaces must meet the life safety requirements (occupant load calculation,
exiting, etc.) of the most restrictive proposed use.
g.The remaining egress doors (the side-hinged double doors in the proposed Salon
and the side-hinged single door in the proposed Concierge) do not meet the
separation distance requirements of IBC 1015.2.1, exception 2. The manually
operated horizontal sliding door cannot be considered because it cannot serve an
occupant load of greater than 10 see note 3.b above. The addition of a side-
hinged door farther south in the west wall of, or anywhere in the south wall of the
proposed Concierge may meet the requirements of IBC 1015.2.1, exception 2.
h.There does not appear to be double doors from the proposed Concierge to the
hallway represented on the submitted construction documents.
Page 2 of 4
5.Enlarged Plan Please specify a listed assembly to provide the fire separation required at
the walls separating S-2 occupancy from B occupancy and from any corridor. Reference
The door between the
IBC Table 508.4. The response to the plan review comment states:
Storage Room and the Corridor will be a 30 solid metal fire rated door mounted in
rolling trucks in a heavy steel track. This door was included in the original
construction as a passage between a conference room and the second floor building
lobby.
The required fire-resistance rated construction of the wall separating the proposed
Storage from the proposed Salon and Concierge appears to be the same as that required
for the existing uses. The integrity of the existing wall will be verified by field inspection.
The door in the existing opening from the proposed Storage to the corridor is currently,
and is represented on the proposed plans, as a side-hinged door. It is, and will remain to be,
required to be a one-hour fire-resistance assembly. The response states that a sliding door,
with a prior use in an area that does not appear to have the same fire-resistance rated
requirements, is proposed to be used for the opening of the proposed Storage into the
corridor. Provide on the plans the listing for the door tested in accordance with NFPA 252
or UL 10B.
On sheet A-201:
6.Detail 2/A-201- Section Provide specifications and/or details regarding the lateral
braces proposed at the top of the cabinets. The response to the plan review comment
See attached drawing.
states: The provided drawings indicate the use of two 3/8-inch
diameter bolts to be placed through a vertical member (2x4?) of each of the rows of
cabinets, connecting them to a horizontal 2x4 placed perpendicular to the rows of cabinets at
12 feet on-center. The lateral forces developed at each of the cabinet connections appear to
be far greater than that able to be resisted by the fasteners listed in the National Design
Specifications for Wood Construction (NDS) Table 11A which do not even list the use of
bolts less than ½-inch diameter. Of additional concern is the cumulative load at each end of
the lateral braces where they connect to the walls of the proposed Storage Room. In
addition to the response to the above, indicate on the plans the required minimum
attachment at each end of the lateral braces. Provide calculations supporting the selection
of the specified fastener(s) and a detail indicating the required installation criteria.
7.Detail 3/A-201 Typ. Cabinet Section Specify the anchors proposed to be used at the
corners of the storage cabinets including the size, material and depth of embedment. The
3/8-in dia, 4-in embedment length concrete
response to the plan review comment states:
expansion anchors will be used.
There appears to be a difference in the anchorage
specified in response to the earlier plan review and of that indicated on the resubmitted
construction documents. Both of the proposals appear to be unable to resist the lateral and
overturning loads anticipated by the specified installation (spacing) and represented
construction. Provide calculations supporting the selection of the specified fastener(s) and a
detail indicating the required installation criteria. A proposal to place thrust blocks or
similar construction to resist lateral forces will also require supporting data and possibly, a
proposal for an alternative method of resisting overturning forces.
Page 3 of 4
8.General note Please provide the anticipated weight of each cabinet within the storage
A fully loaded wine cabinet will
space. The response to the plan review comment states:
1,920 lbs. Floor loading is 183 lbs/sq-ft in a fully loaded condition.
Clarify the
difference in the size of the cabinets suggested by the loading conditions and of that
represented on the provided construction documents. Using the provided weights, each
cabinet appears to be approximately 10.5 sq. ft. Using the provided details, each cabinet
appears to be approximately 7.4 sq. ft. The floor loads from the cabinets also appear to be
greater than that used in the design of the floor as originally constructed. Provide on the
plans the minimum required construction or alterations necessary to support the loads, along
with calculations supporting the selected methods, materials, and their installation.
Page 4 of 4