20160927105532.pdfSeptember 23, 2016
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5T" AVENUE NORTH
EDMONDS, WA 98020
,',U111ANG UEPIAK1 Ebil'
RE: PLAN REVIEW COMMENT RESPONSE LIST AND PLANS RESUBMITTAL FOR:
PERMIT #: BLD2016-0850
PROJECT ADDRESS: 8401 MAIN STREET
BRIDGE ANIMAL REFERRAL CENTER
The following attachments are included in this re -submittal:
- Revised Permit Plan sheets* dated 9/16/16
(3) Copies
- Comment Response Letter
(1) Copy
- Department Plan Review Comment Letters
(1) Copy
- Letter from Owner Re: Medical Waste Disposal dated 9-21-16
(1) Copy
toyHo
architects
Sheets included for resubmittal: A0.00, A1.00, A2.00, A3.11, A3.20, A4.00, A6.00, A6.01, S1.1, & S2.1.
Building Comment Responses (Plan Review Letter dated 8/15/16):
1. SheetAO.00— Please see notes below.
2. SheetA1.00— Door 18 swing has been reversed.
3. SheetA1.00— Additional exit sign has been added in the back room area. Exit sign proposed at
Door 19 has been re -positioned to have better visibility from back office area.
4. SheetA1.00— Drawing has been clarified to show new work relating to note CP -04.
S. 517eetA6.01— See detail 8/A6.01. Horizontal assembly callout has been changed to UL L524.
6. Sheet 52.1— Please see notes below.
Planning Comment Responses (Plan Review Letter dated 7/22/16):
Item #1 — Dog Run Fence, See sheet A2.0. Dog run has been re -positioned so that proposed 4'-0"
fence is outside 20'-0" setback line.
Item #2 — Exterior Lighting. See sheet A2.0. Proposed exterior wall packs have been identified at
back of building.
Item #3 — Sound Mitigation: Proposed ICU area is part of Phase 2 permitting and construction and
is not part of the scope for this project. CUP conditions as agreed to by the City of Edmonds will be
part of Phase 2 construction.
Fire Pr!g ton Comment Responses (Plan Review Letter dated 8/2/16):
1. Acknowledged.
2. Refer to Note SP -25 on Site Plan, sheet A2.00. Fire Lanes shown on west and south sides of
building.
3. Refer to Note RP -13 on Roof Plan, sheet A3.20, and notes on South Elevation, sheet A4.00.
Wa vsr er are -Treatment Comment Responses (Plan Review Letter dated 7/8/16):
Item #1— Please refer to attached letter from owner.
Item #2 — There is no cover for the dog run, nor will there be a drain. New artificial turf will be
installed over existing soil.
Item #3 — Acknowledged. Please refer to attached letter from owner.
Item #4 — Acknowledged.
This is the end of our responses to Department Plan Check Comments.
CITY OF EDMONDS PLAN REVIEW COMMENT RESPONSE LIST
#BLD2016-0850 — 8401 MAIN STREET, BRIDGE ANIMAL REFERRAL CENTER
Page 1 of 2
Note regarding §pit i'ng coListr!j!3lon tyl2g, gndBuilding i :w carnm+a r & AL6: As
has been documented in earlier communications with the City of Edmonds, it is our contention that the
previous building construction type change allowed by the city for this property from type III -B (a.k.a.
"III -N" — the original construction type as documented on original construction drawings) to type V-A was
made erroneously, and that some construction details called out on previous approved plans meant to
bring the building into conformance with type V-A construction were never completed or were not even
possible to construct. Therefore, we believe the building is currently not actually construction type V-A,
and that requests made by the city to bring the building into conformance with the current building code
and type III -B construction (where there may be existing non -conformities due to various reasons) as a
result of the owners ofliclal request to "change back" from V-A to III -B construction is unfair and
excessive.
We believe this existing building still most closely adheres to type III -B construction — the original
construction type — with some non -conforming aspects due to code changes or advances in technology
over time. The scope of this project does not include additions or any major changes to the primary
structural framing (either lateral or gravity) of the building. We would argue that the proposed scope of
work is not making the existing building any less safe than it currently is, and is in fact making it more
safe by proposing a less hazardous occupancy (from the previous 'A' occupancy as a gym to a proposed
'B' occupancy as an office).
Building comment response #1: As the existing rear setback dimension of the building is less
than 15'-0" (indicated by a recent survey) even though original construction drawings clearly indicate the
intention was to build to a 15'-0" setback, we contend this is an existing non -conformity of the building.
And since no work is being proposed at this rear wall, we do not believe the owner should be required to
upgrade the wall to current code by constructing a parapet, as requested by the city. The potential
additional costs associated with constructing a new parapet would be approximately $50,000, so this is
not an insignificant addition to the project scope.
Building comment response #6: The project scope is being revised from the original submittal.
Structural columns in the front ("South") are being replaced not with steel, but with like -for -like
replacement glulam columns. The purposes of the column replacement are for repair purposes only due
to dry rot conditions; this is a safety concern. The existing glulam columns do not have 2 -hour fire
protection and are therefore an existing non -conformity. Per 2012 IBC section 3405 repairs, we believe
the owner should be allowed to replace them for repair purposes without having to provide upgraded fire
protection. Having to provide additional fire protection on these columns will force the owner to also
have to completely replace most of the existing insulated glazing units in the front wall since they would
no longer fit in between the columns. This additional scope would be an approximate increase in costs
by $150,000.
We respectfully request that the City of Edmonds review these issues and responses again to try and
work with our client to come to a tenable solution. Our client is eager and excited at the prospect of
opening her new business at this location in a revitalized building.
Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions or comments regarding our responses.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
FREIHEIT & HO ARCHITECTS, INC., P.S
CITY OF EDMONDS PLAN REVIEW COMMENT RESPONSE LIST
#BLD2016-0850 — 8401 MAIN STREET, BRIDGE ANIMAL REFERRAL CENTER
Page 2of2
City of Edmonds Project #BLD2016-0850 9-21-16
Bridge Animal Referral Center
8401 Main Street
Re: Wastewater PreTreatment Division Plan Review Comments
Medical Waste Deis osal for Bridge Animal Referral Center:
The disposal of medical waste & pharmaceuticals and their components are regulated by federal and
local regulations or laws. Understanding which regulations apply to you may depend on your type of
business, your volume of waste, and the specific type of wastes. Stericycle's programs are designed to
meet the regulatory requirements that apply to you and the pharmaceutical waste you generate. We
have developed simple pharmaceutical programs that help you identify your controlled substance
wastes, hazardous wastes, and other drug wastes to make sure that each is disposed of properly.
The Environmental Protection Agency under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
mandates proper disposal of any drug that meets the criteria for being a hazardous waste.
Other pharmaceuticals that are not currently regulated under RCRA are often called non-RCRA
hazardous pharmaceuticals. Best management practices encourage the disposal of pharmaceuticals that
are non-RCRA hazardous waste by incineration at a facility permitted to accept non-RCRA hazardous
pharmaceuticals.
These pharmaceuticals should not be placed into red bags or sharps containers as these may be treated
by methods other than incineration. Segregation (separation) of these items into a dedicated non-RCRA
pharmaceutical container, marked for incineration, helps to ensure proper disposal. All of our
chemotherapy and trace chemotherapy is placed in yellow containers which is incinerated twice in this
process.
Additionally, California Department of Public Health requires the segregation and incineration of
affected waste pharmaceuticals that are not federally regulated under Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). These must be incinerated at a medical waste treatment facility.
We use both the red and yellow containers for medical waste at Veterinary Cancer Specialty Care and
will continue to do so with Bridge Animal Referral Center. We have a solid record of compliance and
have had an account with Stericycle since the inception of our business.
Please check out the following video about the compliance for medical waste and national standard that
Y g C ' i + � lg d r wA9.('n,� 2han�„���'lAuof]A� ;,y 1c wA> ar Vic:/
Steric cle is setting. j7 „ry ,�q