Loading...
2019-0183 Mulanax Fire Repairs and Addition DATE: April 4, 2019 TO: Read Ferguson, Architect Pergy_51@hotmail.com FROM: Leif Bjorback, Building Official RE: Plan Check: BLD2019-0183 Project Address: 8307 215th St SW Scope: Fire Repairs/Rebuild, Addition; Plumbing and Mechanical 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. 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. 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. Construction Cost Breakdown 1. Several values given on the construction cost breakdown do not appear to be consistent with the information shown on the plans, and will need to be clarified and coordinated. a. It appears that the cost values for replacement of the existing carport, deck and chimney (all currently removed) are not included. These need to be included in the breakdown, as they were part of the existing structure. b. Hardie plank siding is specified on the elevation sheets, replacing the cedar siding on the entire house; however, the breakdown indicates that 50% is to be retained. Also, it is unclear how the lower level exterior walls will be constructed as P3 and P4 shear walls as shown on the structural plans without the removal of all existing siding. Please clarify and coordinate all design documents. c. Please clarify on the window and door schedules which units are existing-to-remain, and which are new or relocated. It appears that a number of existing windows and doors are designated for re-use in different locations. Please note that existing building elements that are removed from their original locations are considered as City of Edmonds PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BUILDING DIVISION (425) 771-0220 Page 2 of 4 part of the demolished portion of the building, and are to be included in the cost of replacement, whether or not they are to be salvaged and re-used. d. Photographs of the front of the house show that the current entry door and the windows on the lower level do not match the layout shown on either the existing lower floor plan, the proposed lower floor plan or the front elevation. Please coordinate all design documents to accurately depict the current conditions and proposed design. e. The breakdown indicates the removal of 75% of the plumbing, electrical and HVAC systems. In order to enable the eventual verification of this removal, please indicate (generally) on the plans which portions of these systems are to be retained. f. Please add a note in the Notes column indicating what components are included in the ‘other’ category. The building official recalls a discussion at the permit counter wherein this category would capture items such as interior doors and trim, painting, flooring, etc. g. To recap, it appears that adjustments or clarifications need to be made to the following categories within the cost breakdown: siding, windows, doors, deck and carport, chimney, other. If the adjustments result in the removal or destruction of 75% or more of the home (based on replacement cost), the permit for the project will be changed to the category of ‘New Single Family’, and the project will need to meet all City requirements for a new single family home. h. Please provide signatures from both the contractor and the owner on the construction cost form. G-001 2. The building thermal envelope has been designed by REScheck software program; however, this program does not meet the minimum requirements of the 2015 Washington State Energy Code. The design must be altered in order to meet the WSEC. Most notably, (if you use the prescriptive compliance approach) the attic insulation is required to be a minimum of R-49, and the slab perimeter R-10. Please make the corresponding changes to all affected plan sheets. WSEC 402.1.1 3. In the Energy Code Compliance section, indicate the R-values for floors, walls, ceiling/attic and slabs. A-101 4. Modify any windows on the plans to coordinate with changes made in response to item 1c above. A-102 5. Please label each window that is to be a bedroom Egress window. R310 6. Indicate a handrail complying with R311.7.8 at each stair. 7. Indicate the dimensions of stair risers and treads. R311.7.5 8. Locate the carbon monoxide alarm in the immediate vicinity of the bedroom. R315.2.2 9. Indicate the size of window, and whether safety glazing is required, for interior windows ‘W1-2x1’ and ‘W1-2x2’. 10. Provide an exhaust fan in the Master WC. M1507.4 11. Indicate on the plans the cfm capacity for all exhaust fans according to Table M1507.4. 12. Provide a means for makeup air at the laundry. A minimum of 100 square inches is required. Page 3 of 4 13. Due to the fact that the addition is greater than 500 sf, a whole house exhaust system is required. Please indicate which method of compliance is to be used within IRC M1507.3. Indicate on the floor plan the location of all fans and equipment, and the size of the fan complying with Table M1507.3.3(1). S1.2 14. Reference the holddown schedule. The anchor specified for the HDU4 is a ‘rod and nut/washer per 2/S1.2.’ Please change the reference to read: ‘12/S1.2.’ 15. Reference detail 12/S1.2. The embedded rod assembly appears to be similar to Simpson product ‘PAB’ (pre-assembled anchor bolt.) The detail does not appear to meet the dimensional requirements as shown in the Simpson manual for concrete surrounding the lower end of the bolt. Either a. Specify the embedded rod to be a PAB5, and adjust the dimensions of the concrete in the detail accordingly, or b. Consider using a different type of holddown bolt such as an SB or SSTB sufficient to resist the uplift loads that apply, or c. Provide a different design sufficient to resist the uplift loads that apply. S2.0 16. HDU4 holddowns are called out in several locations at the existing foundation stemwall. No details could be found for this retrofit installation. Provide structural calculations and plan details supporting the design of this installation. S2.1 17. Please clarify on the plans the meaning of the circled numbers (3, 4) located near the ends of certain beams. Are these perhaps references to the number of bundled studs within columns under the ends of these beams? 18. A number of floor beams appear to be mis-labeled on the plans when compared to the structural calculations. For example, a. The loading and spans of FB-2 (2 locations) under the kitchen appear to match those of the calculations for FB-3, b. The loading and span of HR-3 under the kitchen appear to match the calculations for FB-4, c. The loading and span of FB-4 under the kitchen appear to match the calculations for FB-5. Please verify and ensure that all beams are properly respresented on this sheet and match their respective design in the calculations. 19. Specify on the plans the model and size of beam hangers to be used at locations where beams hang on other beams, specifically for floor beams under kitchen and deck. 20. Indicate on the plans that all deck beams and deck columns are to be pressure treated. R317 21. Indicate on the plans the proper type of corrosion resistance of hardware and fasteners to be used in contact with pressure treated wood. R317.3 22. Indicate deck beam hangers and brackets to be a minimum of hot dipped galvanized (HDG). R317 and Simpson manual 23. Clarify the proposed use of DF#2 lumber at deck joists DJ1 and DJ2. This comment is meant as an advisory that pressure treated DF#2 lumber is not normally a readily available item and may need to be special ordered. Page 4 of 4 24. Clarify the proposed use of DF#1 lumber at 6x6 deck columns. This comment is meant as an advisory that pressure treated DF#1 lumber is not normally a readily available item and may need to be special ordered. S2.2 25. Provide structural calculations for the HR-1 header over door D202 to account for the load imposed by the girder truss bearing on it. 26. Provide structural calculations for the HR-2 header over window W201 to account for the load imposed by the girder truss bearing on it. S9.2 27. Reference detail 9 ‘Deck/Rim conn.’ It appears that the lag bolt design at the deck ledger is inadequate as shown to support the load imposed from the hot tub. Please provide calculations for this connection, and modify the detail as needed. Also, please specify an appropriate hanger for the double joists at this location. Please let me know if I can be of any additional assistance.