2016-1366 Beach Walk Apts 2- PWF Arch.pdf
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE:June 14, 2017
TO:GBH Holdings, LLC
glennhci@msn.com
FROM:Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner
RE:Plan Check: BLD2016-1366
Project Address: 303 Edmonds Street
Project: Beach Walk Apartments
Scope: Construct 9-unit multi-family residential structure – R-2 occupancy group –
VB construction - 45 occupants - NFPA-13R sprinkler system required– mechanical,
plumbing, fire sprinkler, fire alarm, under separate permits
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 not completely resolved that recur on this list 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 Review Notes:
1.Unresolved - The unique and specific nature of the work necessary to complete your project
requires special inspection per IBC 1704. A City of Edmonds ‘Special Inspection and
Testing Agreement’ (see attached) for the following work will need to be completed and
returned prior to permit issuance:
Soils/Backfill
Structural Steel Bolting/Welding
The response to the earlier plan review comment states: “I added the requirement for the
special inspections on sheet A1.0, item 5 under General Notes. ”. A completed City of
Edmonds ‘Special Inspection and Testing Agreement’ must be returned prior to permit
issuance.
2.Unresolved - Provide as part of a complete permit application submittal a copy of the
‘Condominium Sale Prohibition Covenant’ recorded in the real property records of
Snohomish County or building enclosure design documents required per Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) 64.55. The response to the earlier plan review comment states:
“ Attached is the “Condominium Sale Prohibition Covenant” as requested. ”. The signed
and notarized form must be recorded in the real property records of Snohomish County prior
to the installation of any components of the building enclosure.
On sheet C4.1 – Water and Sewer Plan:
3.Resolved – The size of the proposed water meter to meet the demand of the plumbing
fixtures per Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) Table 610.4 and of the required automatic
sprinkler system per International Building Code (IBC) 903.2.8 has been specified on the
plans.
On sheet A1.01 – Project Data:
4.Resolved – The floor areas on the following plans have been changed to reflect that
determined using the specified ‘occupant load factor’ gross floor area (see definition – IBC
Chapter 2) per IBC Table 1004.1.2:
a.Level 2 Occupancy and Exiting Plan
b.Level 1 Occupancy and Exiting Plan
5.Building Code Summary
a.Resolved - The equation reference regarding single-occupancy multistory buildings
has been changed from ‘5-1’ to ‘5-2’ by the plans examiner.
b.Resolved - The indicated floor areas for the following have been changed on the
plans:
Level 1 proposed floor area
Level 2 proposed floor area
Level 3 proposed floor area
Total proposed floor area
c.Resolved - Code Notes – Note 1 – The required fire-resistance rated walls along
gridlines ‘I’ and ‘J’ have been indicated on the plans.
6.Resolved - Occupancy & Exiting Notes – The indicated number of occupants for the
following have been changed on the plans:
a.Level 3 occupant load
b.Level 2 occupant load
c.Level 1 occupant load
On sheet A1.02 – Site Plan – Planter Details:
7.Resolved - Site Plan – The location of the ‘imaginary line’ between the two buildings
required to determine the respective fire-resistance rating(s) of the exterior walls based on
fire separation distance per IBC Table 602 has been indicated on the plans. The placement
Page 2 of 11
of the line will require alterations to portions of the existing structure that do not comply
with IBC 705.5 and 705.8 to be completed under a separate permit. Those alterations must
be completed prior to the construction of any vertical elements of the structure to be
completed under this permit.
On sheet A1.03 – Level 1 Floor Plan:
8.Level 1 Floor Plan
a.Resolved – The type and locations of the system and equipment used to heat the
interior spaces per IBC 1204.1 has been indicated on the plans.
b.Resolved - The required 1-hour fire resistance rated construction for the walls
enclosing the ‘Storage’ area under the interior stairway per IBC 1011.7.3 has been
indicated on the plans.
c.Unresolved - Clarify on the plans the size of the windows/doors specified in the
following locations:
Gridline ‘2’, between gridlines ‘C’ and ‘I’.
Gridline ‘3’, between gridlines ‘B’ and ‘C’.
The areas for each appear to be greater than the maximum allowable area of
exterior wall openings per IBC Table 705.8, Unprotected, Nonsprinklered (UP, NS).
The response to the earlier plan review comment states: “The windows along
gridlines 2 and 3 have been reduced in size to comply with the 25% limitation in
IBC Table 705.8. The noted allowable area (25%) is only for ‘Unprotected,
Sprinklered (UP,S)’ in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with IBC 903.3.1.1. The proposed automatic sprinkler system
is noted as ‘NFPA Type 13R’ per IBC 903.3.1.2 on sheet ‘A1.01’ – Building Code
Summary – and therefore limits the allowable area of unprotected openings to 10%.
d.Unresolved - Clarify on the plans the size of the windows specified between
gridlines ‘2’ and ‘8’. The area may be greater than the maximum allowable area of
exterior wall openings per IBC Table 705.8, Unprotected, Nonsprinklered (UP,NS)
for the fire separation distance determined in response to plan review comment ‘7’.
The response to the earlier plan review comment states: “The windows along
gridline J have been reduced in size to comply with the 15% limitation in IBC
Table 705.8 for the portion of the wall that is 3’-2” from the imaginary property
line. The noted allowable area (15%) is only for ‘Unprotected, Sprinklered
(UP,S)’ in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in
accordance with IBC 903.3.1.1. The proposed automatic sprinkler system is noted as
‘NFPA Type 13R’ per IBC 903.3.1.2 on sheet ‘A1.01’ – Building Code Summary –
and therefore prohibits any unprotected openings for the proposed fire separation
distance determined by the proposed placement of the imaginary line.
On sheet A1.04 – Level 2 Floor Plan – Penetration Details:
9.Level 2 Floor Plan
a.Resolved – The type and locations of the system and equipment used to heat the
interior spaces per IBC 1204.1 has been indicated on the plans.
b.Resolved - The requirement for water heater pan drains per UPC 507.5 has been
indicated on the plans.
Page 3 of 11
c.Resolved - The required 1-hour fire-resistance rated wall construction to
atmospherically separate the exit access stairway serving two stories (Level 1 and
Level 2) from the remaining story (Level 3) as allowed per IBC 1019.3, Item 1 has
been indicated on the plans.
d.Resolved - The required raised character and braille exit sign adjacent to the door
‘marked ‘4070A’ per IBC 1013.4 has been indicated on the plans.
e.Unresolved - Clarify on the plans the size of the windows/doors specified in the
following locations:
Gridline ‘2’, between gridlines ‘C’ and ‘I’.
Gridline ‘3’, between gridlines ‘B’ and ‘C’.
The areas for each appear to be greater than the maximum allowable area of
exterior wall openings per IBC Table 705.8, Unprotected, Nonsprinklered (UP, NS).
The response to the earlier plan review comment states: “The windows along
gridlines 2 and 3 have been reduced in size to comply with the 25% limitation in
IBC Table 705.8. The noted allowable area (25%) is only for ‘Unprotected,
Sprinklered (UP,S)’ in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with IBC 903.3.1.1. The proposed automatic sprinkler system
is noted as ‘NFPA Type 13R’ per IBC 903.3.1.2 on sheet ‘A1.01’ – Building Code
Summary – and therefore limits the allowable area of unprotected openings to 10%.
f.Unresolved - Clarify on the plans the size of the windows specified between
gridlines ‘2’ and ‘8’. The area may be greater than the maximum allowable area of
exterior wall openings per IBC Table 705.8, Unprotected, Nonsprinklered (UP,NS)
for the fire separation distance determined in response to plan review comment ‘7’.
The response to the earlier plan review comment states: “The windows along
gridline J have been reduced to comply with the 15% limitation in IBC Table
705.8 for the portion of the wall that is 3’-2” from the imaginary property line.”.
The noted allowable area (15%) is only for ‘Unprotected, Sprinklered (UP,S)’ in
buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance
with IBC 903.3.1.1. The proposed automatic sprinkler system is noted as ‘NFPA
Type 13R’ per IBC 903.3.1.2 on sheet ‘A1.01’ – Building Code Summary – and
therefore prohibits any unprotected openings for the proposed fire separation
distance determined by the proposed placement of the imaginary line.
10.Unresolved - Wall Penetration Details - Indicate on the plans the required ceiling radiation
dampers installed at the ceiling line in ‘Unit 301’ or duct construction per IBC 717.5.4, Item
3 and International Mechanical Code (IMC) 607.5.3 where the downstream ducts penetrate
the fire-resistance rated wall assembly between the units. The response to the earlier plan
review comment states: “Note is modified for the duct penetration in the Wall
Penetration Details specifying the code reference, as well as that all such
appurtenances are to be as specified in the mechanical permit documentation.
Generally speaking these details are intended to give just minimal guidance to the
mechanical engineer, who will be responsible for the design of the ductwork and
penetration protections. The code reference (IBC 717.5.4, Item 1) added to the detail
appears to regard duct penetrations of corridor walls constructed as fire partitions. As
clarified by the other added note, the required fire-resistance rated wall assembly to be
penetrated by the proposed duct installation is of that between the units and not that of the
corridor. A reference to either IBC 717.5.4, Item 3 or IBC 717.5.4, Item 4 would appear to
apply to that represented on the original plans submitted. Additional plan review note
regarding the design of the mechanical systems: It has been the experience as a reviewer
Page 4 of 11
of project proposals for building, mechanical, and plumbing code compliance, that clear
communication regarding the desired placement of equipment/appliances, locations of
inlets/outlets, and the aesthetics of the installation affecting the design of mechanical and
plumbing systems falls first on the project architect/designer. Concerns such as headroom,
soffits, chases and other architectural elements associated with the typical installation of
those systems are rarely mentioned in their respective codes. Once the determination is
made regarding where the system and its components are to be located (to achieve/maintain
desired aesthetics), the respective mechanical/plumbing engineer/contractor will determine
how they need to be installed.
11.Resolved - Horiz. Penetration Details - The required ceiling radiation dampers installed at
the ceiling line where the fans/ducts penetrate the ceiling of the fire-resistance rated
floor/ceiling assembly per IBC 717.6.2, Item 2 and IMC 607.6.2 have been indicated on the
plans.
On sheet A1.05 – Level 3 Floor Plan:
12.Level 3 Floor Plan
a.Resolved – The type and locations of the system and equipment used to heat the
interior spaces per IBC 1204.1 has been indicated on the plans.
b.Resolved - The requirement for water heater pan drains per UPC 507.5 has been
indicated on the plans.
c.Unresolved - Clarify on the plans the size of the windows/doors specified in the
following locations:
Gridline ‘2’, between gridlines ‘C’ and ‘I’.
Gridline ‘3’, between gridlines ‘B’ and ‘C’.
The areas for each appear to be greater than the maximum allowable area of
exterior wall openings per IBC Table 705.8, Unprotected, Nonsprinklered (UP, NS).
The response to the earlier plan review comment states: “The windows along
gridlines 2 and 3 have been reduced in size to comply with the 25% limitation in
IBC Table 705.8. The noted allowable area (25%) is only for ‘Unprotected,
Sprinklered (UP,S)’ in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with IBC 903.3.1.1. The proposed automatic sprinkler system
is noted as ‘NFPA Type 13R’ per IBC 903.3.1.2 on sheet ‘A1.01’ – Building Code
Summary – and therefore limits the allowable area of unprotected openings to 10%.
d.Unresolved - Clarify on the plans the size of the windows specified between
gridlines ‘2’ and ‘8’. The area may be greater than the maximum allowable area of
exterior wall openings per IBC Table 705.8, Unprotected, Nonsprinklered (UP,NS)
for the fire separation distance determined in response to plan review comment ‘7’.
The response to the earlier plan review comment states: “The windows along
gridline J have been reduced to comply with the 15% limitation in IBC Table
705.8 for the portion of the wall that is 3’-2” from the imaginary property line.”.
The noted allowable area (15%) is only for ‘Unprotected, Sprinklered (UP,S)’ in
buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance
with IBC 903.3.1.1. The proposed automatic sprinkler system is noted as ‘NFPA
Type 13R’ per IBC 903.3.1.2 on sheet ‘A1.01’ – Building Code Summary – and
therefore prohibits any unprotected openings for the proposed fire separation
distance determined by the proposed placement of the imaginary line.
Page 5 of 11
On sheet A1.06 – Roof Plan:
13.Resolved - Roof Plan – An alternative for the required parapet construction along gridlines
‘I’ and ‘J’ for the fire separation distance determined in response to plan review comment
has been proposed on the plans.
On sheet A1.07 – South & West Elevations – Awning Detail:
14.Resolved - South Elevation and Detail 1 – Existing Building Awning - The representations
of/references to work on the ‘existing’ structure required to be completed under separate
permit have been eliminated from the plans.
15.Resolved - West Elevation – The indicated location of the duct terminations for ‘Level 1’
‘Level 2’ have been eliminated from the plans – see also plan review comment #10 –
‘Additional plan review note regarding the design of the mechanical systems’.
On sheet A1.08 – North & East Elevations:
16.North Elevation
a.Unresolved - Clarify on the plans the size of the windows/doors specified between
gridlines ‘B’ and ‘I’. The areas for each appear to be greater than the maximum
allowable area of exterior wall openings per IBC Table 705.8, Unprotected,
Nonsprinklered (UP, NS). The response to the earlier plan review comment states:
“The windows between gridlines B and I have been reduced in size to comply
with the 25% limitation in IBC Table 705.8. Notes showing the calculations for
each floor are added. ”. The noted allowable area (25%) is only for ‘Unprotected,
Sprinklered (UP,S)’ in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with IBC 903.3.1.1. The proposed automatic sprinkler system
is noted as ‘NFPA Type 13R’ per IBC 903.3.1.2 on sheet ‘A1.01’ – Building Code
Summary – and therefore limits the allowable area of unprotected openings to 10%.
b.Resolved - The indicated location of the duct termination for ‘Level 3’ nearest
gridline ‘C’ has been eliminated from the plans – see also plan review comment #10
– ‘Additional plan review note regarding the design of the mechanical systems’.
17.East Elevation
a.Resolved - The callout for the required parapet construction between gridlines ‘2’
‘8’ has been changed to that required for the fire separation distance determined
in response to plan review comment ‘7’.
b.Unresolved - Clarify on the plans the size of the windows specified between
gridlines ‘2’ and ‘8’. The area may be greater than the maximum allowable area of
exterior wall openings per IBC Table 705.8, Unprotected, Nonsprinklered (UP,NS)
for the fire separation distance determined in response to plan review comment ‘7’.
The response to the earlier plan review comment states: “The windows between
gridlines 2 and 8 have been reduced to comply with the 15% limitation in IBC
Table 705.8 for the portion of the wall that is 3’-2” from the imaginary property
line. The distance to the imaginary property line shown on the site plan is
shown here as well, to clarify the permitted use of the unprotected openings
shown. The noted allowable area (15%) is only for ‘Unprotected, Sprinklered
(UP,S)’ in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in
accordance with IBC 903.3.1.1. The proposed automatic sprinkler system is noted as
Page 6 of 11
‘NFPA Type 13R’ per IBC 903.3.1.2 on sheet ‘A1.01’ – Building Code Summary –
and therefore prohibits any unprotected openings for the proposed fire separation
distance determined by the proposed placement of the imaginary line.
On sheet A1.09 – Building Sections AA, BB – Lobby Elevations:
18.Resolved - Detail 6 – 1-Hour Corridor Floor/Ceiling – The field testing in accordance with
ASTM E 492 to verify the required ‘impact insulation class’ (IIC) rating of not less than
‘45’ for the specified floor/ceiling assembly per IBC 1207.3 is no longer required due to the
change of the proposed floor framing of ‘Bedroom 2’ in ‘Unit 303’ over the closets below
made in response to plan review comment ‘34’ – see also plan review comment ‘40’.
On sheet A1.10 – Building Sections CC DD – Kitchen Elevations:
19.Building Section DD
a.Resolved - The callout for the required parapet construction along gridline ‘I’ has
been changed on the plans to that required for the fire separation distance determined
in response to plan review comment ‘7’.
b.Resolved – The note specifying the ‘typical non-rated exterior wall’ construction
criteria along gridline ‘I’ has been changed on the plans to that required for the fire
separation distance determined in response to plan review comment ‘7’.
On sheet A1.11 – Building Sections EE FF – Details:
20.Resolved - Building Section EE - The callout for the required parapet construction along
gridline ‘I’ has been changed on the plans to that required for the fire separation distance
determined in response to plan review comment ‘7’.
21.Building Section FF
a.Resolved - The callout for the required parapet construction along gridline ‘J’ has
been changed to that required for the fire separation distance determined in response
to plan review comment ‘7’.
b.Resolved - The note specifying the ‘typical non-rated exterior wall’ construction
criteria along gridline ‘I’ has been changed to that required for the fire separation
distance determined in response to plan review comment ‘7’.
c.Resolved - Structural calculations supporting the required 1-hour fire resistance
rating of the ‘exposed glu-lam’ - specified as a 6-3/4x18 24F-V4 GLB on sheets
‘S2.2’ and ‘S2.3’ have been provided and a note specifying the required additional
tension lamination have been added to the plans.
22.Detail 2 – 1-Hour Parapet & Wall Detail
a.Resolved - The indicated footnote for IBC Table 721.1(2) – Item Number 15-1.14
has been changed from ‘l’ to ‘q’ on the plans.
b.Resolved - The specified construction criteria for the 1-hour fire resistance rated
wall appears to meet that for walls with a fire separation distance of less than or
equal to 10 feet must be rated for exposure to fire from both sides per IBC 705.5.
23.Resolved - Detail 3 – 1-Hour Party Wall Detail – The wall construction criteria represented
in the detail has been changed on the plans to that specified in the description below the
detail and GA File No. WP 5508.
Page 7 of 11
24.Resolved - Detail 4 – 1-Hour Interior Wall Detail – The wall construction criteria has been
changed on the plans to that specified in GA File No. WP 3246 to meet the required ‘STC’
rating of not less than ‘45’ for the specified wall assembly per IBC 1207.2.
25.Unresolved - Detail 5 – 1-Hour Floor Detail – Clarify on the plans the references to ‘UL
’ and ‘GA File No. FC 5407’ supporting the specified construction criteria of the fire-
resistance rated floor/ceiling assembly. ‘UL L570’ cannot be found in the Underwriters
Laboratories ‘Fire Resistance Directory’ and t T he construction criteria of ‘GA FC 5407’
found in the Gypsum Association ‘Fire Resistance Design Manual’ appears to be quite
different than that specified on the plans, including its estimated ‘STC’ of ‘35-39’. Provide
on the plans a listed assembly, reflecting the construction materials specified on the
structural sheets and the floor finishes specified on sheets ‘A1.14’ and ‘A1.15’, that meets
the required ‘IIC’ of not less than ‘50’ (or ‘45’ if field tested) in accordance with ASTM E
492. The response to the earlier plan review comment states: “Detail 5 description is
revised to reflect listed assemblies having an STC rating of 61 and an IIC rating of 59.
Also included with this letter are referenced documents showing similar assemblies.”.
There only appears to be a reference on the plans to fire-resistance rated floor/ceiling
assembly ‘UL Des L570’. The construction criteria, specifying materials and their
installation, listed prior to the reference to the assembly in the detail appear to be quite
different than that required to construct ‘UL Design No. L570’. In addition, the listing for
‘UL Design No. L570’ does not appear to include testing that meets the required ‘IIC’ of not
less than ‘50’ (or ‘45’ if field tested) in accordance with ASTM E 492. The additional
documents showing ‘similar assemblies’ and proposed as meeting the requirements of IBC
711 and IBC1207.2 must be incorporated into the proposed plans and be referenced as
applicable to guide proper review, construction and inspection. Any referenced assembly
must be noted on the plans and be constructed exactly as specified/allowed in the listing,
including the use of proprietary materials and of those required/allowed (including floor
finish materials – see sheets ‘A1.14’ and ‘A1.15’) to meet the required ‘STC’ and ‘IIC’.
There are no provisions for combining or substituting the required components from various
assemblies to create a ‘hybrid’ assembly.
On sheet A1.12 – Schedules, Details:
26.Resolved - Detail 1 – Stair Section – The specified installation of gypsum wallboard at the
various locations reflect that determined in response to plan review comments ‘18’, ’22.b’,
‘23’, ‘24’, and ‘25’ has been added to the plans along with clarifying comments by the
plans examiner.
27.Door Schedule
a.Resolved - The required minimum fire protection rating of 20 minutes for the doors
‘marked’ ‘2668B’, ‘3068A’, and ‘4070A’ per IBC 716.5.3 has been indicated on the
plans.
b.Resolved - The required smoke and draft control for the doors ‘marked’ ‘2668B’,
‘3068A’, and ‘4070A’ per IBC 716.5.3.1 has been indicated on the plans.
c.Resolved - The requirement that the ‘electronic lock control’ system noted for the
door ‘marked’ ‘3670’ meets the specifications listed for IBC 1010.1.9.9 has been
indicated on the plans.
Page 8 of 11
On sheet A1.14 – Level 2 Floor Finish Plan:
28.Resolved - Level 2 Floor Finish Plan – The wording “…and that reflect that required
meeting the ‘IIC’ per IBC 1207.3.” has been added to the end of the note on the plans
“Verify materials, patterns, and transitions…”.
On sheet A1.15 – Level 3 Floor Finish Plan:
29.Resolved - Level 3 Floor Finish Plan – The wording “…and that reflect that required
meeting the ‘IIC’ per IBC 1207.3.” has been added to the end of the note on the plans
“Verify materials, patterns, and transitions…”.
General Structural Review Note:
30.Resolved – The response from the engineer regarding the wall lengths for many of the shear
walls listed on sheets ‘2.17’ and ‘2.18’ of the provided structural calculations and the
locations of the holdowns that appear to be different than that represented on the
architectural and structural sheets and that would result from ‘typical’ framing practices has
addressed the concerns of the plans examiner.
On sheet S2.1 Foundation Plan:
31.Resolved - Foundation Plan – The response from the engineer regarding the minimum
required ‘widened’/isolated footing to support the point load below the converging ends of
the beams over the windows and doors along gridline ‘7’ at gridline ‘G.6’ has addressed the
concerns of the plans examiner.
On sheet S3.1 – Foundation Details:
32.Resolved - A detail, and a reference to it on sheet ‘S2.1’ – Foundation Plan, reflecting that
found in the provided geotechnical report – Geotech Consultants, Inc. – JN 16335 – dated
August 16, 2016 – ‘Plate 5’ – regarding the required measures for overexcavation beneath
footings for the structure has been provided on the plans.
On sheet S2.2 – Second Floor Framing Plan:
33.Second Floor Framing Plan
a.Resolved – The response from the engineer regarding the difference in the
represented placement of the holdown ‘marked’ ‘5’ – HDU4 – along gridline ‘5’ and
of the location specified on sheet ‘2.18’ (wall ‘marked’ ‘7’) of the provided
structural calculations and suggested on sheet ‘A1.03’ – Level 1 Floor Plan has
addressed the concerns of the plans examiner.
b.Resolved - Callouts for the holdowns ‘marked’ ‘4’ – HDU2 – along gridlines ‘J’ and
‘I’ and specified on sheet ‘2.18’ (walls ‘marked’ ‘23’ and ‘25’) of the provided
structural calculations have been added to the plans.
Page 9 of 11
On sheet S2.3 – Third Floor Framing Plan:
34.Third Floor Framing Plan
a.Resolved - The specified floor joists between gridlines ‘D’ and ‘G’ from gridline ‘1’
to ‘3.1’ have been changed on the plans to that represented on sheet ‘A1.09’ –
Building Section BB – and specified in detail ‘5/A1.11’.
b.Resolved – The response from the engineer regarding the difference in the callouts
for the holdowns ‘marked’ ‘2’ – MST 48 – along gridline ‘8’ and of that specified on
sheet ‘2.18’ (walls ‘marked’ ‘4’ and ‘5’) of the provided structural calculations has
addressed the concerns of the plans examiner.
c.Resolved – The response from the engineer regarding the difference in the
represented placement of the holdown ‘marked’ ‘1’ – MST 37 – along gridline ‘5’
and of the location specified on sheet ‘2.18’ (wall ‘marked’ ‘7’) of the provided
structural calculations and suggested on sheet ‘A1.04’ – Level 2 Floor Plan has
addressed the concerns of the plans examiner.
d.Resolved - Callouts for the holdowns ‘marked’ ‘1’ – MST 37 – along gridlines ‘J’
‘I’ and specified on sheet ‘2.18’ (walls ‘marked’ ‘23’ and ‘25’) of the provided
structural calculations have been added to the plans.
On sheet S2.4 – Roof Framing Plan:
35.Resolved - Roof Framing Plan – The response from the engineer regarding the difference in
the represented placement of the holdowns ‘marked’ ‘1’ – MST 37 – along gridlines ‘1’ and
and of the locations specified on sheet ‘2.18’ (walls ‘marked’ ‘10’ and ‘11’) of the
provided structural calculations has addressed the concerns of the plans examiner.
36.Resolved - Roof Framing Plan Notes – A note similar to sheet ‘S2.3’ – Floor Framing Plan
Notes – Note 7 – regarding laminated ‘multiple ply’ beams has been added to the plans.
On sheet S4.2 – Floor Framing Details:
37.Resolved - Detail 6 – Holdown Section at Cantilever – The response from the engineer
regarding the specified ‘pre-bent strap’ – MSTC48B3 has addressed the concerns of the
plans examiner.
Additional plan review comments regarding resubmitted construction documents:
On sheet A1.03 – Level 1 Floor Plan:
38.Level 1 Floor Plan
c.Clarify on the plans the ‘callout’ to the window ‘marked’ ‘4’ in the west wall of the
‘Living’ space of ‘Unit 101’. It does not appear to correspond with that noted for
that ‘mark’ on sheet ‘A1.12’ – Window Schedule.
d.Clarify on the plans the ‘callout’ to the window ‘marked’ ‘3’ in the west wall of the
‘Living’ space of ‘Unit 103’. It does not appear to correspond with that noted for
that ‘mark’ on sheet ‘A1.12’ – Window Schedule.
Page 10 of 11
On sheet A1.04 – Level 2 Floor Plan – Penetrations Details:
39.Level 2 Floor Plan
a.Clarify on the plans the ‘callout’ to the window ‘marked’ ‘4’ in the west wall of the
‘Living’ space of ‘Unit 201’. It does not appear to correspond with that noted for
that ‘mark’ on sheet ‘A1.12’ – Window Schedule.
b.Clarify on the plans the ‘callout’ to the window ‘marked’ ‘3’ in the west wall of the
‘Living’ space of ‘Unit 203’. It does not appear to correspond with that noted for
that ‘mark’ on sheet ‘A1.12’ – Window Schedule.
On sheet A1.09 – Building Sections AA, BB – Lobby Elevations:
40.Detail 6 – 1-Hour Corridor Floor/Ceiling – Eliminate from the plans the last sentence, added
in response to plan review comment ‘18’. As noted in the response to plan review comment
‘18’ and due to the change of the proposed floor framing of ‘Bedroom 2’ in ‘Unit 303’ over
the closets below made in response to plan review comment ‘34’, there are no concerns
regarding the applicability of IBC 1207.3 in the areas referencing the detail.
Page 11 of 11