Revision 5 - Building Comments 1.pdfCity of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: March 15, 2019
TO: Alexandra Ziemba
aziemba&studioms. com
FROM: Chuck Miller, Senior Plans Examiner
chuck.miller(&,,edmondswa. gov
RE: Plan Check: BLD2016-1538 — Revision #5 — I" review
Project Address: 10032 Edmonds Way
Project: Westgate Village mixed use
Scope:
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.
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
highlighted changes can be found on the revised plans, have been submitted to a Permit
Coordinator. Only those sheets specifically referenced as follows need to be resubmitted.
Resubmittals must be made at the Development Services Department on the 2nd Floor of City Hall.
Permit Center hours are M, T, Th, & F from 8am-4:30pm and from 8:30am-12pm on Wednesdays.
General plan review note: The fully sprinklered portion of the structure containing levels `P I' and
`L1' and of construction type `IA' appears to comply with all of the provisions to be considered as
nonseparated occupancies per International Building Code (IBC) 508.3. However, from first
submittal to date, the proposal has been to consider the project as separated occupancies per IBC
508.4. For purposes of consistency, the following plan review comments correspond with that
required to maintain separation between each of the classified occupancies. A change in the design
to comply as nonseparated occupancies must be proposed as a revision and be accompanied by
plans corresponding with the allowances/requirements per IBC 508.3.
On sheet A104 — RESIDENTIAL 3 PLAN:
1. Plan 1 — LEVEL 4 — RESIDENTIAL + TERRACE - Clarify on the plans the configuration
of spaces `406' — AMENITY AREA EAST 1 (MEDIA ROOM) — and `406B' — AMENITY
AREA EAST 2 (BUSINESS CENTER) and the separation of the exits serving them. When
completely separated by doors `406C' in the `closed' position, both appear to comply with
IBC 1006.2.1. But when the spaces are open to each other with the doors `406C' in the
`open' position', the configuration of the exit access doorways serving the larger space and
its combined number of occupants does not appear to comply with IBC 1007.1.1— see also
plan review comment `4'.
On sheet A400 — WALL SECTIONS:
2. Section 2 — WALL SECTION THROUGH RETAIL #4 FAQADE — Clarify on the plans the
references to detail/section `3/A805' regarding a portion of the exterior wall construction of
space `L112' — RETAIL #4. There does not appear to be a corresponding sheet among the
construction documents provided to date.
On sheet A601 — DOOR SCHEDULE:
3. DOOR SCHEDULE
a. Clarify on the plans the indicated `Fire Rating' of door `L102B' serving space
`L102' — VESTIBULE. It does not appear to comply with that required to protect the
opening of a fire barrier used to separate occupancies per IBC Table 716.5 — see also
`General plan review note'.
b. Clarify on the plans the indicated `Fire Rating' of door `L109' serving space `L109'
— TRASH. It does not appear to comply with that required to protect the opening of
a fire barrier used to separate occupancies per IBC Table 716.5 — see also `General
plan review note'.
c. Clarify on the plans the indicated `Fire Rating' of door `L436' serving space `L436'
— FITNESS. It does not appear to comply with that required to protect the opening
of a fire barrier used to separate occupancies per IBC Table 716.5 — see also
`General plan review note'.
d. Clarify on the plans the indicated `Fire Rating' of door `L436B' serving space
`L436' — FITNESS. It does not appear to comply with that required to protect the
opening of a fire barrier used to separate occupancies per IBC Table 716.5 — see also
`General plan review note'.
On sheet I-1.4 — AMENITY AREA EAST 1 & AMENITY AREA EAST 2 FINISH PLAN, RCP,
POWER:
4. AMENITY AREA EAST 1 & AMENITY AREA EAST 2 FFE / ELECTRICAL PLAN —
Clarify on the plans the difference in the represented seating and of that corresponding with
the `occupant load factor' used to determine the occupant loads for spaces `406' —
AMENITY AREA EAST 1 (MEDIA ROOM) — and `406B' — AMENITY AREA EAST 2
(BUSINESS CENTER) on sheet `G002' — CODE COMPLIANCE — L4 CODE PLAN. The
barstools and small number of tables and chairs/relatively open space represented in space
`406' appear to warrant a different `function of space', and corresponding `occupant load
Page 2 of 3
factor', to be applied. That represented for space `40613', with the addition of `seating
booths', would also require the occupant load to be recalculated.
On sheet I-1.6 (as numbered in the submittal documents for `Revision 5') — COMMON AREAS
FURNITURE PLANS:
5. Change on the plans the sheet number from `I-1.6' to `I-1.5' .
6. AMENITY AREA EAST 1 & AMENITY AREA EAST 2 HE PLAN — See plan review
comment W.
Page 3 of 3