Loading...
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