2017-0733 Bates addition.pdfCity of Edmonds
OV EDAI 0
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
. ..... BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: June 8, 2017
TO: Eric & Stephanie Bates
STEFFBATES@GMAIL.COM
FROM: Eric Carter, Plans Examiner
RE: Plan Check: BLD2017-0733
Project Address: 18823 94th AVE W.
Scope: Alteration /Addition, Single Family Dwelling, — R-3/u occupancy group — V-
B construction— mechanical and plumbing included
Please be advised that the building plans for the above referenced project have been disapproved
for the purposes of obtaining a building permit. During a review of the plans by the Building
Division for compliance with the applicable building codes, it was found that the following
information, clarifications, or changes are needed. Reviews by other divisions, such as Planning,
Engineering, or Fire, may result in additional comments that require attention beyond the scope of
this letter. Items that recur on this list appear in italics.
A complete review cannot be performed until the revised plans/documents, including a
written response in itemized letter format indicating where the 'clouded' or otherwise
hi2hli2hted chanus 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 and from 8:30am-12pm on Wednesdays.
This building plan review cannot be completed until we receive the following items:
Sheet Al. 1:
The window schedule indicates the U value of the windows to be a .3 0. You have
selected WSEC I A, in order to comply with credit I A the windows must have a U value
of .28 or greater. Please select a different energy credit or change the window U value to
a .2 8 on the plans.
Sheet A4.2:
2. Section BB indicates the proposed concrete slab and fill will be in contact with the
existing wood joists. Any materials that are not decay resistant must be protected. Please
indicate on the plans the means of how you will be protecting the existing structure from
decay.
Sheet S2.2:
3. On gridline 7 at the proposed entry, a post of (3) 2x4's is indicted. These supporting
members appear to be overstressed for the anticipated loads and do not appear to be
supported by a footing of adequate size. Please clarify and change on the plans.
4. The plans and engineering provided indicate a different orientation of the floor joists,
supporting the siting room. This may affect the anticipated loads of item 3. Please clarify
and change on the plans.
Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3