2015-0639 Pruett addition-proposed ADU 3- Shapiro Arch.pdf
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: November 4, 2015
TO: AD Shapiro Architects
Tony Shapiro
tonys@adshipiro.com
FROM: Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner
RE: Plan Check: BLD2015-0639
Project: Pruett addition-proposed ADU
nd
Project Address: 9011 192 Street SW
During a review of the plans by the Building Division for the above noted project, it was found that
A complete review cannot be
the following information, clarifications, or changes are needed.
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.
Items that recur on this list appear in italics.
nd
Resubmittals must be made at the Development Services Department on the 2 Floor of City
Hall. Permit Center hours are M, T, Th, & F from 8am-4:30pm. The Permit Center is closed
on Wednesdays.
On sheet A 101 Cover Sheet, Code Notes, Vicinity Map, Project Team:
1.Energy Code Data - Note #8 and #16 Clarify the selected WSEC Table 406.2 option 3a.
The existing structure is noted by the Snohomish County Assessors office and in the Scope
of Work Note #5 as being heated hydronically. Option 3a regards furnace
Energy Code: Revised
installations. The response to the plan review comment states:
building permit application, WSEC Table 406.2 (using options 3a, and 4), and A101
has been updated, to include the heat pump option of the upstairs heating /cooling
system.
As noted earlier, option 3a regards furnace installations, not heat pumps of either
the air-source or ground source type covered by other available options. There does not
appear to be a proposal to replace an existing furnace or install a new furnace for a ducted
system. Option 4 also regards the installation of a furnace to provide the required comfort
heat through a ducted distribution system. The furnace and all ductwork are required to be
located within the conditioned space. AFUE (Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency) is a
thermal efficiency measure of a combustion appliance, such as the furnace selected under
this option, and not an electric heat pump. As with most of the options, the building permit
drawings shall specify the option being selected and shall specify the heating equipment
type and the minimum equipment efficiency of the primary means of providing the required
comfort heat per WSEC Table 406.2. Only option 3d develops credits for a proposal that
benefits only a portion or zone of the structure.
On sheet A 111 Main Floor Plan, Window Schedule:
2.Main Floor Plan Indicate on the plans the required emergency escape and rescue opening
from the sleeping room identified as Bedroom 3 (space 113) that opens directly to a public
way, or to a yard or court that leads to a public way per IRC R310.1. The opening
represented on the plans submitted prior appears to have been omitted or removed. The
Emergency egress from Bedroom 3, room
response to the plan review comment states:
No. 113, is thru (sic) the pocket doors to the anti-room (sic) and then thru (sic) the
exterior man door to the outside back yard. This is an existing condition which is not
being impacted by the construction.
The existing window in the east wall represented on
sheets A111 and A201 of the submittal received on May 22, 2015 is also an existing
condition, and meets the requirements of IRC R310.1 by opening directly to the exterior.
There is no provision for allowing the required emergency escape and rescue opening to be
accessed through an adjacent room or space, or approval to remove the existing window
providing the required egress.
On sheet S-2 Upper Floor and sheet S-3 - Roof Level:
3.Clarify the required minimum 6x12 existing beam to be verified used to support the loads
over the east and west walls of the Kitchen. Using the same loads as those applied to
beams B2-3 and B2-3 in the provided structural calculations, the 6x12s appear to be
Please
over spanned and fail in bending. The response to the plan review comment states:
see attached calculations. 6x12 beam is adequate.
The beam calculations provided in
response to the review comment do not appear to account for the eave/overhang of the roof
or the dead load from the exterior wall above the beams.
Page 2 of 2