BLD2018-1622 Hwy 99 Edmonds Podium Plan Review PC3.docx REVIEWWC3 Project #:Edmonds Project#: BLD2018-1622121 5th Ave. NEdmonds, WA 98020Phone: (425)771-0220
Attention: Subject: –3rdPlan Review Comments
:
West Coast Code Consultants, Inc. (WC3) has completed the review of the proposed project located in , . This review was based upon the following:Revised building drawingsdated 11/14/19
by studio Meng Strazzara, sealed and signed by Charles Strazzara.OpinionfromSEAOSConFirewall dated 3/21/18CKC Letter-Wood Frame Firewall Detailing letter dated 11/21/19.Hwy 99 - Alternate
Design 2 Hr Fire Wall_SMSletter dated 11/21/19.Hwy 99 - Alternate Design 2 Hr Fire Walldated letter 11/18/19.The , as adopted by , were used as the basis of our review. Specific comments
regarding this project are enclosed with this cover letter. If you have any questions regarding this review, pleasecontact me.
Sincerely,
Attachment: Comments
Plan Review CommentsProject Name:
Location(s):, ,
OCCUPANCY & BUILDING SUMMARY:
Type of Construction
Use
Occupancy Classification
Square Footage
Occupant Load
Risk Category
Building Height
Sprinklers
I-A
Bike Parking
Gym
Lobby
Mech/Utility
Parking
Office
Trash
Mech/Utility
Parking
Ass. R2
Ass. R2
Ass. R2
U
S2
B
U
U
S2
1715ft2
3185ft2
2550ft2
1848ft2
38461ft2
2166ft2
557ft2
2215ft2
41986ft2
18
II
UL story,
UL feet
903.3.1.1
* - Items noted with an asterisk may change as a result of the plan review comments.
OCCUPANCY & BUILDING SUMMARY:
Type of Construction
Use Group(s)
Occupancy Classification
Square Footage
Occupant Load
Risk Category
Building Height
Sprinklers
V-A
Level 1 multi
Lvl 1 Assembly
Level 2 multi
Level 3 multi
Level 4 multi
Level 5 multi
R2
A3
R2
R2
R2
R2
XXft2
XXft2
30805ft2
30805ft2
30805ft2
30805ft2
II
5-story,
70?-feet
903.3.1.1
* - Items noted with an asterisk may change as a result of the plan review comments.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
The submitted documents for the above-mentioned project, as outlined in the cover letter, have been reviewed. The following comments address areas of concern, non-compliance with the
governing code, potential errors, or omissions in the proposed design. The appropriate design professional must address each comment below and submit a written response in addition
to revised plans and calculations if necessary. Please cloud any revisions made to the construction drawings and provide the date of the latest revision on each revised sheet.
GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide additional code rationale to justify building design. The plans appear to be preliminary and will require additional design and review.
General:
- G50. Resolved.
NON-STRUCTURAL COMMENTS:
– NS11. Resolved.
ACCESSIBILITY COMMENTS:
- A7. Resolved.
PLUMBING COMMENTS:
Resolved Building official agreement to limit occupant load.
MECHANICAL COMMENTS:
No comment at this time.
WSEC COMMENTS:
Resolved.
Resolved.STRUCTURAL COMMENTS:
Resolved.
Geotech report:Resolved. Note: Shoring design has been submitted. Review has occurred under separate cover. Please see separate review letter asking for easements or permission to
work within the right of way.
–S18. Resolved.
3rd Review – New Comment
A revision was received into correct area calculations by proposing to construct a 2-hour Fire Wall from the podium level through the 5th floor of the Type V-A structure. The Fire Wall
design is being processedas an Alternate Methods and Materials approval in order to provide continuation of floor diaphragms though the fire-rated wall assembly. The review has been
routed to WC-3 for review. Our findings and results of research have been communicated to the Building Official in order to form the basis for a decision and any forthcoming approvals
for AM&M.
The fire-rated listing information has been confirmed and found to comply with fire-ratingrequirementswiththe exception ofthe joints formed at the diaphragm to wall locations at each
floor. Consideration by the Building Official for this requested alternate will include consideration of the joint at these locations.
Alt. 1:A letter addressing the reason for the alternate was provided for review by the Engineer of Record. The reason stated that detrimentalmovement would occur along the Fire Wall
line if the plywood sheathing was not run continuouslyat each floor line,however, calculations documenting the amount of movement and resulting separation was not submitted. Therefore,it
would be helpfuland would save time to providecalculations in order to provide compelling documentationfor consideration and acceptance of your request for alternate methods and materials.
Thank you.
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact at or by phone at .