20160121105729.pdfCitv of Edmonds ������ � �:
�i��
"LAN REVIEW COMMENTS JAN
BUILDING DIVISION t KIAN l)EPART ENT
(425) 771-0220 y FW6r1(Jl,,
DATE: September 30, 2015 Structural Engineering Response listed below
in highlighted lettering.
TO: AD Shapiro Architects 01/16116
Tony Shapiro
to��; adshipiro�con
FROM: Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner
RE: Plan Check: BLD2015-0639
Project: Pruett addition -proposed ADU
Project Address: 9011 192nd Street S'W'
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.
Resubmittals must be made at the Development Services Department on the 2"d Floor of City
Hall. Permit Center hours are M, T, Th, & F from 8am-4:30pm. The Permit Center is closed
on Wednesdays.
Reviews by other divisions, such as Planning, Engineering, or Fire, may result in additional
comments. Items that recur on this list appear in italics.
General Review Note:
1. During the review of the resubmitted construction documents, changes appear to have been
made to the plans beyond those in response to the earlier plan review comments. Just as
with the changes made in response to plan review comments, all other changes are required
to be `clouded', or otherwise highlighted, and be accompanied by written notes explaining
the change. Otherwise, additional review time is required and possibly additional plan
review fees.
2. All references to fire -resistance rated construction have been removed from the plans as
permitted by a note on the plans indicating the installation of a smoke alarm system where
all required smoke alarms in the accessory dwelling unit and the primary dwelling unit are
interconnected in such a manner that the actuation of one alarm will activate all alarms in
both the primary dwelling unit and the accessory dwelling unit.
On sheet A 101 — Cover Sheet, Code Notes, Vicinity Map, Project Team:
3. Energy Code Data - Note #8 — Clarify the selected WSEC Table 406.2 option `3a'. The
existing structure is noted by the Snohomish County Assessor's office and in the `Scope of
Work'— Note #5 — as being heated hydronically. Option `3a' regards furnace installations.
The response to the plan review comment states: "Note 3a pertains to the master suite
being heated & cooled by electric heat/heat pump system. Note 5 pertains to the
hydronic infloor heating system in the ADU and existing slab on grade areas which will
have a topping slab over R?(sic) Insulation.". 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. In addition, there does not appear to be a corresponding entry for
the installation of a heat pump on the City of Edmonds `Residential Building Permit
Application'. 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 per WSEC Table 406.2.
On sheet A 111 — Main Floor Plan, Window Plan - sheet A 112 — Upper Floor Plan, Window
Schedule — sheet A 201 — East & West Elevations, Window and Door Schedules:
4. Window Schedule
a. Clarify the difference in the number of windows marked `03' proposed to be
installed and of those represented on the plans.
b. Clarify the difference in the number of windows marked `27' proposed to be
installed and of those represented on the plans.
On sheet A 111 — Main Floor Plan, Window Schedule:
5. 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.
General Review Note:
6. Sheets S-1 through S-4 - Provide a signed, dated, stamped seal, or facsimile thereof, for the
non -prescriptive structural designs prepared or overseen by a registered design professional
per IRC R301.1.3, IBC 107. 1, and RCW 18.08.370.
RESPONSE: SEE ATTACHED STAMPED DRAWINGS
On sheet S-2 — Upper Floor — and sheet S-3 - Roof Level:
7. Clarify the required minimum 6x 12 `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 over
spanned and fail in bending.
RESPONSE: MINIMUM EXISTING BEAM REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN
REMOVED. NEW PSL BEAM WILL BE INSTALLED. SEE PLAN ON S2
AND S-3
Page 2 of 3
On sheet S-4 — Structural Details:
8. Detail #1 -Indicate on the plans the minimum required width of the foundation wall to guide
proper construction and inspection. The response to the plan review comment states:
Footing width dimension of 1'4" has been added to the framing plan. Footing width
was, and still is, indicated at 1-4". There still does not appear to be an indication on the
plans of the required minimum foundation wall width.
RESPONSE: THE FOUNDATION WALL (STEMWALL) WIDTH OF 6 INCH
HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE PLAN S-2
Page 3 of 3