Loading...
2015-1019 Jantz addition-remodel2 - LaFon.pdf City of Edmonds PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BUILDING DIVISION (425) 771-0220 DATE: October 28, 2015 TO: Warren LaFon warrenlafon@earthlink.net FROM: Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner RE: Plan Check: BLD2015-1019 Project: Jantz addition-remodel Project Address: 547 Dayton Street 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. 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. General note: 1.Provide Washington State Energy Code (WSEC)/Northwest Energy Efficiency Council (NEEC) compliance forms for the following work: a.Building envelope b.Mechanical c.Lighting The requested information could not be found among the resubmitted construction documents. On sheet A-1.0: 2.General Notes a.Note #1 – Change on the plans the International Building Code (IBC) version from ‘2006’ to ‘2012’. No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents. b.Note #7 – Clarify the reference to IBC 717.4.3 Exception. That section cannot be found in the currently adopted code. No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents and a clarification was not provided in the response letter to the plan review comments. c.Note #29 – Change on the plans the IBC Table reference from ‘508.3.3’ to ‘508.4’. No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents. d.Note #29 – Clarify the note “Per Table 508.3.3 (sic), there is no required separation between occupancy B & S-2 all areas of the building will be sprinklered.”. It does not appear to reflect the requirements of the applicable IBC Table 508.4 requirements found in the currently adopted code. No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents and a clarification was not provided in the response letter to the plan review comments. 3.Project Data a.Occupancy – Change on the plans the occupancy classification from ‘Group S2 – Parking’ to ‘A-3’ to reflect the proposed work to be completed under the currently issued permit BLD2014-0634. No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents. b.Construction Type – Change on the plans the number of stories from ‘2’ to ‘3’ to reflect that permitted per IBC 504.2 and proposed in the submitted construction documents. No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents. c.Occupant Load – Change on the plans the area of the ‘Main Floor’ to reflect the proposed work to be completed under the currently issued permit BLD2014-0634. No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents. d.Occupant Load – Change on the plans the calculated occupant load of the ‘Main Floor’ to reflect the proposed work to be completed under the currently issued permit BLD2014-0634. No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents. e.Occupant Load – Indicate on the plans the occupant load of the ‘Third Floor’ proposed in the submitted construction documents. No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents. f.Occupant Load – Total Occupants – Indicate on the plans the re-calculated total incorporating the responses to review comments ‘3.d’ and ‘3.e’ above. No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents. g.IBC - Change on the plans the IBC version from ‘2006’ to ‘2012’. No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents. h.Codes - Change on the plans the referenced code versions from ‘2006’ to ‘2012’. No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents. i.Mech. Exhaust From Parking – Change on the plans the required minimum exhaust airflow ventilation rate to that of International Mechanical Code (IMC) Table 403.3 or eliminate the provided information to reflect the proposed work to be completed under the currently issued permit BLD2014-0634. The response to the plan review “Mechical (sic) will change to office.” comment states: The information provided on the original/resubmitted construction documents appears to regard a different portion of the structure than the proposed third story office. Page 2 of 3 On sheet A-2.1: 4.Detail 5 – Proposed Office Plan a.Indicate on the plans the required 1-hour fire-resistance rated (with exposure from both sides) exterior wall construction for the north and west walls per IBC Table “Office will have 602. The response to the plan review comment states: sprinklers.” IBC Table 602 regards the fire-resistance rating requirements for exterior walls based on fire separation distance. The installation of fire sprinklers already required for the existing and proposed portions of the building by other applicable codes does not eliminate the need for the required fire-resistant rated construction of the exterior walls. b.Clarify the indicated dimension ‘¾” (inches)’ at each end of the north exterior wall. ‘Plan Notes’ #1 states: “Do not scale drawings.” and the indicated wall length does appear to reflect the anticipated construction. No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents. c.Indicate on the plans the required means of egress illumination for the proposed office and the exit access stairway per IBC 1006.1. The response to the plan review See plan for existing stair lights.” comment states: “No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents. d.Provide a note on the plans indicating the required door hardware that has a shape that is easy to grasp with one hand and does not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist to operate per ICC A117.1-2009 section 404.2.6. The response See plan note #6.” to the plan review comment states: “No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents. On sheet A-2.2: 5.Detail 1 – Penthouse Floor & Exist. Roof Framing – Indicate on the plans the minimum required framing members to be used to construct the ‘double joist @ rim’ to guide proper See attached installation and inspection. The response to the plan review comment states: “ structural notes.” No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents and the information in the provided structural calculations does not appear to address the concern noted in the plan review comment. 6.Detail 2 – Penthouse Roof Framing Plan – Provide ‘stamped’ lateral calculations supporting the design of the proposed shear walls. The response to the plan review See attached structural notes.” comment states: “No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction documents and the information in the provided structural calculations does not appear to address the concern noted in the plan review comment. Page 3 of 3