Response to Building Comments 1.pdfS T E V E N
ij(:r)NA
ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING
Chuck Miller
Edmonds Building Department
Project Name: Pinewood remodel
Permit # BLD2015-0246
PR 0 4 2016
BUILDING E)EPAFTMEW
IT OF" EDMONDS
Chuck, please find the city's comments in italics flowed by our response in bold.
Building Department comments:
1. Clarify the existing square footage and use of the structure where the work is to be done.
There are two structures on the property and the square footage and use noted on the plans
appears to be for the structure built in 1972. The representation of the work appears to be
within the existing single family dwelling built in 1958 and it appears to be the creation of an
additional dwelling unit. If your intention is to create and additional dwelling unit contact
Jen Machuga, Associate planner in the Planning Division -452-771-0220 x1224 or
figs. 'r7r7chygadmond ' agoy Due to zoning restrictions, no dwelling units beyond
those already approved shall be permitted. Nothing in this permit application process shall
be interpreted as allowing or permitting the maintenance of any currently existing illegal
nonconforming or unpermitted building, structure, or site condition which is outside the
scope of the permit application, regardless of whether such building, structure or condition is
shown on the site plan or drawing. Such building, structure or condition may be the subject
of a separate enforcement action
The building square footage is 4752 s.f. of which 90 s.f. is an equipment room the
remaining 4662 s.f. is living area, 1400 s.f. of the living area is to be remodeled. The use
of the structure is multifamily 4 plex as it has been from its original construction in
1972 and as already established by the city of Edmond per Jen Machuga. Some of the
county documents inaccurately list the original build date as 1958 and others confuse
the addresses, but the build date address and original permitted use have all been
established as stated above.
2. Clarify the difference in the square footage of the existing finished area of the basement
noted to be remodeled and that indicted by the Snohomish County assessor. There does not
appear to have been any permits issued for the addition of approximately 272 square feet to
the `existing to be remodeled'.
The existing main/lower floor is 2376 s.f. and no additon has been made to the area. The
existing to be remodeled unit is 1400 s.f. the other unit is 886 s.f. and 90 s.f. is the
equipment room. As already noted the county records are very loose and inaccurate
and conflict themselves in multiple places.
3. Clarify the difference in the number of bedrooms and bathrooms in the structure and that
indicated by the Snohomish County Assessor. The proposed work appears to represent a
larger number of bedrooms and bathrooms than that currently recorded. Provide an `existing
floor plan' for both levels per City of Edmonds `Permit Submittal Requirements'.
Existing floor plans for all four units are now provided. All units are two bedrooms.
Three units have 1 % baths each and one unit has 2'/z baths. As far as what the County
12040 98'h Ave N.E. Suite 102 Kirkland WA 98034 (425) 820-0829 FAX: (425) 820-4820 e-mail:steve@dona-arch.com
assessor lists, again, the county records are very loose and inaccurate and conflict
themselves in multiple places. Case in point I have previously submitted County
Assessor documents to Jen Machunga, two of which pertain to the building in question
and do not agree with each other about the fixture count or the total number of
bedrooms.
On sheets A-2.1 & A-2.3:
4. Eliminate from the plans any references to the construction of a deck that is not included
in the scope of work and not represented on the construction documents.
The references have been removed
On sheets A-2.1 Foundation Plan:
5. Foundation Notes- Note #5- Change the code section from R319.3 to R317.3
The note has been changed
6. Structural engineers notes- Mark `C' -Change the number of anchor bolts to be added from
3 to 5 per the provided structural calculations.
The note has been changed
On sheets A-2.2 Main Floor Plan:
7. Change the location of the proposed work identified I the `Drawing Title', the floor plan
label and the 'Floor Plan Notes' from `Main' to `Basement'
The drawing is already properly labeled. The lowest floor of the building does not meet
the definition of a basement per IRC R202.
8. Window/door Schedule- Mark l- indicate the required safety glazing per International
Residential Code (IRC) R308.4.2
The note has been added.
9. Main (basement) Floor Plan Notes- Note #7- Change the code section from `R319.3' to
R317.3.
The note has been changed.
10. Main (basement) Floor Plan Legend- Change the provided information to reflect that
determined in response to plan review comment 2' above.
No change needed.
IL Main (basement) Floor Plan
a. Change the window mark for the window in the north bedroom from `5' to 7„
The note has been changed.
b. Indicate on the plans the required 100 CFM intermittent (or 25 CFM continuous)
minimum local exhaust for the `Kitchen' pre IRC Table M1507.4
The note has been changed from 75 CFM to 100 CFM.
c. Indicate on the plans (or relocate that indicated in the `Entry') the required 50
CFM intermittent (or 25 CFM continuous) minimum local exhaust for the `Laundry'
pre IRC Table M1507.4
The note has been moved.
b. Clarify the representation of what appears to be two water heaters in the closet of
the north bedroom. Unless directly vented or electrical appliances are installed, there
are very specific installation requirements that do not appear to be evident in the
proposed construction.
There are two water heaters, which are electric, venting is not required.
On sheets A-2.3 Upper Floor framing Plan:
12. Upper Floor Framing Notes
a. Note #3- Eliminate the provided information or change it to reflect that found in
the Engineers Notes' on the same sheet.
The note has been removed.
b. Note #5- Eliminate the provided information or change it to reflect thatfound in
the `Engineers Notes' on the same sheet.
The note has been removed.
13. Upper Floor Framing Plan
a. Clarify the difference in the spacing of the existing floor joists and that required by
the referenced one-hour fire -resistance rated floor/ceiling assembly- GA File No. FC
5120.
The note on the plan has been changed to not conflict with GA file No FC 5120.
b. Indicate on the plans the orientation of and support for the floor joists over the
`Entry' and `Den' to guide proper review, construction and inspection.
Existing framing is now shown for that area.
On sheets A-4.1 Assembly/Construction Details:
14. Detail 2/A4.1- Occupancy Separation Wall and Ceiling Assembly Details- Remove the
word `min. (minimum) ' in the sentence describing the attachment of the resilient channels to
the wood joists. It is not present in the Gypsum Association- Fire Resistance Design Manual'.
The note has been removed.
Please feel free to call, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Steven Dona Architecture,
Scott Tholen