2016-1041 Andemariam remodel-addition3 - Cascade Builders NW.pdf
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE:August 2, 2017
TO:Zeke Farnsworth
Cascade Builders NW, Inc.
zekefarnsworth@aol.com
FROM:Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner
rd
RE:Plan Check: BLD2016-1041 – 3 review
Project Address: 8524 Bowdoin Way
Project: Andemariam remodel-addition
Scope: Lower level: Addition to relocate non-AFH bedroom/add
bathroom/additional living space – remodel to enlarge existing bathroom/enlarge
existing kitchen/add second kitchen/reconfigure entry to two AFH bedrooms –
Upper Level: Addition for three bedrooms/two bathrooms/additional living space -
IRC one-family structure/AFH – V-B construction - no sprinkler system required–
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 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
highlighted changes can be found on the revised plans, have been submitted to a Permit
Coordinator.
nd
Resubmittals must be made at the Development Services Department on the 2 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:
Significant changes beyond that in response to the earlier plan review comments have been
made to the plans, requiring the resubmitted construction documents to be reviewed as that
of a new proposal. The following plan review comments pertain only to the construction
documents received and dated ‘Jan 27, 2017’ and thereafter by the City of Edmonds
‘Building Division’.
1.Resolved - The selected options from Washington State Energy Code (WSEC) Table
R406.2 to be used to achieve the minimum number of ‘Additional Energy Efficiency
Credits’ required per WSEC R406.2 have been specified on the plans.
2.Resolved – Continuously operating exhaust fans have been specified on the plans as the
selected method to be used for the required whole-house mechanical ventilation per
International Residential Code (IRC) M1507.3.
3.Partially resolved - Specify on the plans the means to be used to provide the required
heating per IRC R303.9. The response to the earlier plan review comment states: “See
energy credits page 2 of revised plans. ”. The added note indicates the installation of an
air-source heat pump with a ‘HSPF’ of 9.75 as a means of developing a portion of the
‘Additional Energy Efficiency Credits’ required per WSEC R406.2, however it does not
specify if the installation is in addition to an ‘existing’ HVAC system or is intended to serve
the heating needs for the entire structure – none of the equipment is represented on the plans.
If additional HVAC equipment is present, all must meet the requirements of the selected
WSEC Table 406.2 option per footnote ‘b’ to qualify for the credit. If the ‘new’ heat pump
is intended to serve the heating needs of the entire structure, it must be ‘sized’ accordingly –
verify that the ‘BTU/H’ capacity is sufficient for 4300 square feet at the design temperature
of 27 degrees.
On sheet 2:
4.Proposed First Floor Plan
a.Resolved - The required carbon monoxide alarm outside of the sleeping area in the
immediate vicinity of the bedrooms ‘Ex BR #A’, ‘Ex BR #B’, and ‘Ex BR #C’ has
been indicated on the plans per IRC R315.3.
b.Unresolved - Indicate on the plans the required carbon monoxide alarm outside of
the sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedroom ‘Ex BR #F’ per IRC
R315.3. The response to the earlier plan review comment states: “Pg.2 of revised
plans No change appears to have been made on the resubmitted construction
documents.
c.Resolved - The width of the hallway serving bedrooms ‘Ex BR #B’ and ‘Ex BR #C’
has been changed on the plans to meet the requirement of IRC R311.6.
d.Resolved - The required door hardware that shall be openable from the outside when
locked and that shall be operable with one hand and not require tight grasping,
pinching, or twisting of the wrist has been specified on the plans for the doors into
bedrooms ‘Ex BR #B’, ‘Ex BR #C’, and ‘Ex BR #F’ per IRC R325.4.
e.Unresolved - Clarify on the plans the proposed addition of an interior wall
enclosing the ‘Ex Sitting Room’. The resulting space does not appear to meet the
requirements of IRC R304.1. The response to the earlier plan review comment
states: “ The existing dwelling has 3 B/R, Family Rm & Proposed Family Rm –
all of which exceed 120sf. ”. The response does not address the requirement of IRC
R304.1 that, with the exception of kitchens, habitable rooms shall have a floor area
of not less than 70 square feet.
Page 2 of 6
f.Unresolved - Clarify on the plans the represented placement of the sink and shower
in the ‘new’ bathroom to the ‘plan-north’ of the stairs. It does not appear to provide
the required opening for egress from the shower per Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
408.5. The response to the earlier plan review comment states: “The sink has been
repositioned – Pg. 2 of revised plans ”. None of the fixtures, appliances, etc. appear
to be represented on the resubmitted construction documents.
g.Resolved - The minimum required local exhaust rate for the ‘new’ bathroom to the
‘plan-north’ of the stairs per IRC Table M1507.4 has been specified on the plans.
h.Resolved - The specified exhaust rate for the ‘new’ kitchen has been changed on the
plans to meet the requirements of IRC Table M1507.4.
i.Resolved - A detail (3/S-3.0), and a reference to it, for the minimum required
construction of a ‘drag-strut’ to transfer the lateral loads from the ‘north-most’
portion of the ‘plan-west’ shear wall marked ‘1’ on the ‘upper’ level over the ‘Ex
DR’ and the ‘Ex Kit’ through an added ‘beam line’ to the shear walls below has been
added to the plans.
j.Partially resolved - Provide on the plans a detail, and a reference to it, for the
minimum required construction to transfer the lateral loads from the ‘north-most’
‘plan-east’ shear walls marked ‘1’ on the ‘upper’ level over the ‘Pro B/R #1’, the
‘Pro Kit’, and the ‘Pro Family Rm’ to the shear walls below. The response to the
earlier plan review comment states: “See detail 3/S-3.0 ”. While the detail for the
minimum required construction of a ‘drag-strut’ to transfer the lateral loads from the
‘north-most’ ‘plan-east’ shear walls marked ‘1’ on the ‘upper’ level over the ‘Pro
#1’, the ‘Pro Kit’, and the ‘Pro Family Rm’ through an added ‘beam line’ to the
shear walls below has been added to the plans, the referenced to it has not.
On sheet 3(A & B):
General note regarding the provided elevations:
Provide updated elevations of the same ‘scale’ as that utilized elsewhere in the submitted
construction documents. The inconsistency of the given dimensions and of the
representation of the proposed project do not allow for proper review, construction, or
inspection.
5.Front Elevation (sheet 3b) – Resolved – The ‘scale’ and the represented placement of the
proposed second level addition has been changed on the plans to reflect that represented on
sheet 2.
6.Rear Elevation (sheet 3b) - Resolved – The ‘scale’ and the represented placement of the
proposed second level addition has been changed on the plans to reflect that represented on
sheet 2.
7.Left Elevation (sheet 3a) – Partially resolved - Clarify on the plans the element represented
on the ‘plan-east’ (front) of the structure. It appears to be a ‘covered porch’ that is not
represented elsewhere on the submitted construction documents. The response to the earlier
plan review comments states: “See revised drawing page 3 ”. Aside from the increase in
size due to ‘scaling’ of the drawings (and the addition of another sheet to accommodate
them), there does not appear to be any changes on the resubmitted sheet. What appears to be
a gable roof with a 4/12 pitch has been added over the front entry on sheet ‘2’ – Proposed
First Floor Plan, but without any specifications for the minimum required construction to
guide proper construction and inspection.
Page 3 of 6
8.Right Elevation (sheet 3a) – Partially resolved - Clarify on the plans the element
represented on the ‘plan-west’ (front) of the structure. It appears to be a ‘covered porch’ or
an apparent ‘offset’ wall that is not represented elsewhere on the submitted construction
documents. The response to the earlier plan review comments states: “See revised drawing
page 3 Aside from the increase in size due to ‘scaling’ of the drawings (and the addition
of another sheet to accommodate them), there does not appear to be any changes on the
resubmitted sheet. What appears to be a gable roof with a 4/12 pitch has been added over
the front entry on sheet ‘2’ – Proposed First Floor Plan, but without any specifications for
the minimum required construction to guide proper construction and inspection.
On sheet 4:
9.Proposed Foundation Plan
a.Unresolved - Indicate on the plans the ‘type’ of existing foundation for the ‘plan-
’ portion of the structure below the ‘Ex MBR’. Incomplete records of the
existing structure indicate that portion to be a former ‘slab-on-grade’ below a
carport. The response to the earlier plan review comment states: “See page 4 of
revised plans – the ex. slab on grade was undermined during previous
construction (2013) and inspected by Edmonds building inspector. During the
completion of work performed under permit BLD2012-0817, site inspections
revealed deficiencies in the ‘existing foundation’ below each end of a girder truss
installed as part of a change to the roof framing over an ‘existing’ portion of the
structure where the last permitted use was as a ‘carport’, and apparently enclosed
without a permit. Records of the building inspections and revisions to the plans for
the earlier work appear to have addressed the concerns regarding the foundations
below the walls on the ‘plan-north’ and ‘plan-south’ sides of the ‘Ex MBR’ and the
support of the girder truss, however, no record can be found that affirms measures
were taken to address the concerns along the ‘plan-east’ side of the ‘Ex MBR’. The
‘Proposed Foundation Plan’ does not indicate the ‘type’ of existing foundation in the
area of question and does not appear to propose ‘new’ construction in that area to
provide that typically required. ‘Site verification’ by the Building Inspector to
determine the viability of the unaltered ‘existing’ foundation will be required.
b.Resolved - The minimum required ‘widened’ or isolated footings to support the
loads from the columns below the structural element over the ‘Ex Kit’ and the ‘Ex
DR’ have been indicated on the plans.
c.Resolved - The minimum required ‘widened’ or isolated footings to support the
loads from the columns below the structural element over the ‘Pro Family Rm’, ‘Pro
Kit’, and the ‘Pro B/R #1’ have been indicated on the plans.
d.Resolved - A detail, and a reference to it, for the required minimum construction of
‘widened’ or isolated footings provided in response to the plan review comments
above has been provided on the plans.
10.Footing Detail
a.Resolved - The required continuous reinforcement placed at the top of the
foundation wall per IRC R403.1.3.1 has been specified on the plans.
b.Resolved - The specified diameter of the anchor bolts has been changed on the plans
to that noted in the ‘Proposed Foundation Plan’.
Page 4 of 6
On sheet 5 (a & b):
General review notes regarding the provided ‘floor’ and ‘roof’ framing details:
Updated details scaled at ‘¼ inch=1 foot’ incorporating the responses to the various plan
review comments have been provided.
Required structural elements, such as columns/posts, beams, headers, girder trusses, etc.,
noted elsewhere on the plans (such as the floor plans) have been represented on the ‘framing
details’.
Structural calculations for all of the beam, headers, etc. greater than 8 feet long have been
provided.
11.First Floor Framing Detail (sheet 5a) – Resolved - The floor framing member callout has
been changed on the plans.
12. Second Floor Framing Detail (sheet 5a)
a.Resolved - The floor framing member callout has been changed on the plans.
b.Resolved - The minimum required structural element(s) to support the loads from
‘plan-west’ ends of the floor framing over the ‘Ex Kit’ and the ‘Ex DR’ and the
minimum required columns used to provide support have been specified on the
plans.
c. Resolved - The minimum required structural element(s) to support the loads from
‘plan-east’ ends of the floor framing over the ‘Pro Family Rm’, ‘Pro Kit’, and
‘Pro B/R #1’ and the minimum required columns used to provide support have
been specified on the plans.
d.Roof Framing Detail (sheet 5b) - Unresolved - Indicate on the plans the ‘existing’
roof framing over the ‘plan-west’ portion of the structure. Include the orientation of
the primary elements (trusses/girder trusses/hip-masters/jack-trusses, rafters, ceiling
joists, etc.), the spacing, and the means to be used to provide support where bearing
walls have been removed. The response to the earlier plan review comments states:
“Per architect No change appears to have been made to the resubmitted
construction documents.
e.Roof Framing Detail (sheet 5b) – Resolved - The proposed ‘lower’ roof framing
over the ‘plan-east’ portion of the lower level addition has been indicated on the
plans.
13.Cross Section (sheet 5b)
a.Resolved - The represented elements have been changed to correspond with the
locations of those elements noted elsewhere on the plans.
b.Resolved - The floor framing member callouts for the ‘first’ and ‘second’ floor
framing have been changed on the plans.
14.Detail at Floor Joist (sheet 5b) Unresolved - Clarify on the plans the difference in the
indicated floor joist and of that specified in the ‘First Floor Framing Plan’. The response to
the earlier plan review comment states: “Main floor joists revised. ”. The indicated floor
joist has been changed on the detail, however, the floor joist callout on sheet ‘5a’ – First
Floor Framing Detail has also been changed to different member.
Page 5 of 6
Additional plan review comments regarding resubmitted construction documents:
On sheet 2:
15.Proposed First Floor Plan
a.Indicate on the plans the required smoke alarm in each sleeping room and outside
each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms per IRC
R314.3 in the following areas:
Ex BR #A
Ex BR #B
Ex BR #C
Ex BR #D
Ex BR #E
Ex BR #F
b.Indicate on the plans the required smoke alarm in sleeping room ‘Pro B/R #1’ per
IRC R314.3.
c.Provide on the plans a detail, and a reference to it, for the minimum required
construction of what appears to be a gable roof with a 4/12 pitch that has been added
over the front entry to guide proper construction and inspection.
On sheet 5b:
16.Cross Section
a.Clarify on the plans the difference in the indicated ‘header’ to be used to support the
nd
roof framing loads and of that indicated on sheet ‘2’ – Proposed 2 Floor Plan.
b.Clarify on the plans the difference in the indicated ‘header’ to be used to support the
floor/lower roof framing loads and of that indicated on sheet ‘2’ – Proposed First
Floor Plan.
c.Clarify on the plans the difference in the indicated lower level floor joists and of that
specified on sheet ‘5a’ – First Floor Framing Detail.
d.Clarify on the plans the difference in the indicated ‘R-value’ of the lower level floor
insulation and of that required to comply with the selected WSEC Table R406.2
‘Additional Energy Efficiency Credits’ option ‘1a’ on sheet ‘2’.
17.Detail at Floor Joist - Clarify on the plans the difference in the indicated ‘R-value’ of the
lower level floor insulation and of that required to comply with the selected WSEC Table
R406.2 ‘Additional Energy Efficiency Credits’ option ‘1a’ on sheet ‘2’.
Page 6 of 6