Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLD2020-00264 - 07 PLAN REVIEWCodePros, LLC Page 1 of 4 P.O. Box 185 Allyn, WA 98524 CodeProsWA.com November 17, 2020 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Attn: Jodi Adams, Permit & Admin Manager 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Building Permit # BLD20-00264, Lot 4 Bridge View Estate Tracts (821355004) Occupancy Group: R-3/U (IRC Lodging House) Construction Type: V-B, Fully Sprinkled Occupant Load: IRC – N/A Dear Ms. Adams, The construction plans for the new single-family residence/owner occupied lodging house with three guest rooms, and an attached garage have been reviewed for compliance with the 2015 International Residential Code, the 2015 International Mechanical Code, the 2015 Uniform Plumbing Code, and the 2015 Washington State Energy Code, as adopted by the State of Washington, as well as any locally adopted amendments to the codes. The construction plans have been found to be in substantial compliance with the adopted codes, and provided the special conditions identified below are incorporated into the building permit, we recommend approval of the construction documents in accordance with IBC/IRC Sections 107.3.1/R106.3.1. The following special conditions should be made a part of the building permit: 1. Address Posting: Numerals for residential and commercial building addresses shall be conspicuously displayed on a contrasting background and shall satisfy the requirements of Jefferson County Code. Property addresses shall be posted prior to requesting any inspections. If property addresses are not posted upon inspection, inspection may not be approved and a re-inspection fee may be charged and must be collected by the County prior to any further inspections being performed. 2. All Construction: All construction shall meet or exceed all local ordinances and the requirements of the 2015 International Codes as adopted by Jefferson County and Washington State. Occupancy is limited to the approved and permitted classification. Any non-approved change of use or occupancy could result in permit revocation and/or Code Enforcement action. 3. Field Correct: The construction of the permitted project is subject to inspections by the Jefferson County Building Department. All construction must be in conformance with the 2015 International Codes as adopted by Jefferson County CODEPROS CodePros, LLC Page 2 of 4 P.O. Box 185 Allyn, WA 98524 CodeProsWA.com and Washington State. Any corrections, changes or alterations required by a building or fire inspector shall be made prior to requesting additional inspections. 4. Reinspection Fee: All approved plans are required to be on-site for inspection purposes, and work to be inspected shall be complete and ready for inspection. If an inspection is called for and plans are not available on site, or the work is not ready for inspection, approval will not be granted. In addition, a re-inspection fee may be charged by the County prior to any further inspections being performed or approvals granted. 5. Permit Expiration: All permits expire 180 days after permit issuance, or 180 days after the last inspection activity is performed. The Building Official may extend the time for action for a period not exceeding 180 days, upon the receipt of a written extension request indicating that circumstances beyond the control of the permit holder have prevented action from being taken. 6. Final Inspection Required: All building permits shall have a final inspection performed and approved by the Jefferson County Building Department prior to permit expiration. The failure to request a final inspection or failure to obtain final approval prior to expiration will be documented in the legal property records on file with Jefferson County as being non-compliant with the county's ordinances and building regulations and may be referred to the County Attorney for action. 7. Certificate of Occupancy: No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of the building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of the codes or ordinances of the jurisdiction. Certificates presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. 8. Permit Validity: IBC 105.4/IRC R105.4: The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of the building code, or any other code or ordinance of Jefferson County. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the building code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the building official from requiring correction of errors in the construction documents and other data. The building official is also authorized to prevent occupancy or use of a structure where in violation of this code or of any other ordinances of this jurisdiction. 9. Sprinkler Permit Required. A NFPA 13, NFPA 13R, or NFPA 13D (IRC 2904) automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout the building under a separate permit issued by Jefferson County. Complete permit applications shall be submitted with ample time for review and approval, prior to the installation of any component of the required fire protection systems. Fire sprinkler permit final inspection and approval shall be obtained prior to requesting a final inspection. 10. Electrical Permit Required. The electrical system shall be installed under a separate electrical permit issued by the Washington State Department of Labor & CodePros, LLC Page 3 of 4 P.O. Box 185 Allyn, WA 98524 CodeProsWA.com Industries (L&I). Electrical “final” inspections must be approved by L&I prior to requesting a building final. 11. Fire Extinguishers: Fire extinguishers, though not necessarily required under the IRC, would typically be required for a similar occupancy under the IBC. It is therefore strongly recommended that fire extinguishers be provided for this occupancy. Typically, minimum rating of 2-A:10-B:C is utilized. Fire extinguisher placement should be located along a path of egress and spaced such that not more than 75 feet of travel distance exists between any point inside the building and an extinguisher. Extinguishers should be located not higher than 5 feet above the finished floor. 12. Backflow Prevention: Cross connection control devices shall be models approved by the Washington State Department of Health under WAC 246-290- 490. Devices shall be tested by a Washington State Department of Health Certified Backflow Assembly Tester in accordance with UPC Sections 603.1 and 603.3.3 as well as WAC 246-290-490. 13. Engineering or Architecture: Any changes in proposed construction shall be reviewed by the engineer or architect of record and submitted in writing to the Jefferson County Building Department prior to construction. All engineering and/or architectural documents are a part of the approved set of plans and shall remain attached thereto. If documents are removed, or changes are made without approval from the architect or engineer and the Building Official, approval will not be granted, and a re-inspection fee will be charged and shall be collected by the County prior to any further inspections being performed or approvals granted. 14. Geo-Technical Engineering: All requirements and recommendations of the submitted geo-technical engineering report shall be fully complied with. All excavations and fills shall be made in accordance with the geo-technical engineer's requirements. All inspection results or density tests shall be provided to the Jefferson County Building Department prior to requesting any soils related inspections (such as footing or foundation inspections). 15. Soil Bearing Capacity: Assumptions were made in the design of the project in regard to the bearing capacity of the native soils. It is the contractor’s/owner’s responsibility to ensure upon excavation that the soil bearing capacity will satisfy assumptions and provide the necessary bearing capacity. Soils must generally be compacted to 95% Modified Proctor Density in accordance with ASTM D1557. All construction on fill soils shall be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. If footings bear on fill material, a copy of the geotechnical engineer’s report and recommendations shall be provided to the Building Department prior to scheduling any footing or foundation inspection. 16. Plan Review Requirements: The attached Custom Project Checklist and any identified corrections, along with the Energy Code Compliance Worksheet (when applicable) are part of the approved plans and must remain attached thereto. It is the responsibility of the applicant to make the corrections indicated on the plans. Once the plans are marked "APPROVED", they shall not be changed or altered without authorization from the Building Official. All proposed changes to "APPROVED" building plans that affect compliance with the Codes as amended CodePros, LLC Page 4 of 4 P.O. Box 185 Allyn, WA 98524 CodeProsWA.com and adopted, or any other Jefferson County ordinance or regulation, must be reviewed and approved by the Building and Planning Departments prior to construction. Failure to comply and/or removal of attached documents will result in failure of required building inspections. 17. Shear Wall Inspection: Due to the complexity of the shear wall nailing patterns and hold-down requirements contained within the engineered lateral design, a separate shear wall inspection is required for this project. This inspection should be requested and performed prior to the installation of exterior wall coverings, prior to the framing inspection, such that all shear-wall nailing patterns may be observed, and the installation of all required hold-down devices and required straps, etc. are in place in accordance with the engineer's lateral design. 18. Property Lines: All property lines shall be clearly identified at the time of foundation inspection. 19. Sales Taxes: This work is being done in Jefferson County. All sales tax for materials delivered to, or work performed in Jefferson County shall be sourced to Jefferson County. Prior to final approval, a completed supplier/sub-contractor list may be requested by Jefferson County to identify suppliers that delivered materials to the project site, and sub-contractors who performed work on the site. 20. Owner/Contractor: All contractors working in the State of Washington must be registered in accordance with RCW 18.27. There is significant risk and potential monetary liability to a homeowner who uses an unregistered contractor. To obtain information regarding contractor registration requirements and other helpful information for homeowners to protect themselves from un-registered contractors, please visit the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) website at: www.lni.wa.gov/tradeslicensing/contractors . It has been our pleasure to work with you on this project with our mutual desire for safety in the built environment. If you have questions or concerns, please contact CodePros at 360-801-0543, or contact me directly at mbarth@codeproswa.com . Sincerely, Michael J. Barth, M.C.P. Building Code Consultant CodePros, LLC cc:file Digitally signed by Michael J. Barth, M.C.P. Date: 2020.11.17 20:42:53 -08'00' CodePros, LLC Page 1 of 5 P.O. Box 185 Allyn, WA 98524 CodeProsWA.com 3rd Plan Review Comments October 15, 2020 Adrian Smith & Tracy Clark 31 Falcon Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Adrian.smith1@yahoo.com Simon Little Studio STL 1044 Lawrence Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 simon@studio-stl.com Re: Building Permit # BLD20-00264, (TBD) Lot 4 Paradise Bay Rd. PROJECT DATA: Architect of Record: Simon Little Studio STL 1044 Lawrence Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 simon@studio-stl.com 360-640-8814 Engineer of record: Cody R. Hart, P.E. CRH Engineering 817 Metcalf Street, Suite 207 Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284 codyh@crheng.com 360-855-2333 Contractor: G. Little Construction 1210 W. Sims Way Port Townsend, WA 98368 trent@g-little.com 360-385-2020 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Owner-Occupied Lodging House (w/3 guest suites) OCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-B, Sprinkled NUMBER OF STORIES: 2 CODE EDITIONS: 2015 International Residential Code (WAC 51-51); or 2015 International Building Code (WAC 51-50); and 2015 International Mechanical Code (WAC 51-52); 2015 Uniform Plumbing Code (WAC 51-56); 2015 Washington State Energy Code (WAC 51-11R, WAC 51-11C); Dear Adrian Smith, Tracy Clark, & Simon Little, The resubmitted building design documents for the permit referenced above have been reviewed for conformance with the locally adopted codes along with the Washington State amendments. CODEPROS CodePros, LLC Page 2 of 5 P.O. Box 185 Allyn, WA 98524 CodeProsWA.com Essentially original comments 2 through 8 have been resolved. However, plan concerns remain in regard to the proposed structural system. We do not believe the system design is necessarily flawed or otherwise problematic, just that portions have not been justified by calculation (or expressed as such), and furthermore, that final analysis results do not appear to be fully and clearly represented on the plan sheets. As before, this list should not be construed to be an all-inclusive, complete list of each and every item or issue, but should be understood to provide examples of the issues of concern. PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS: Structural: 1. (Original Comment) From a review perspective, I’m having difficulty following the calculations to the proposed building lines as represented on the plan sheets. I typically have no issues following through the “Woodworks” Shearwall calculations. However, the lateral analysis appears to be essentially in two parts, one that addressed the building through lines 1, 6, A and F, and the other which utilizes building lines 1, 13, A and H. The building “lines” do not appear to correspond with the building lines as identified on the structural plan sheets… essentially 1 through 13 and A through E and the other side of the building F through K. This makes it difficult to correlate all shear wall and hold down requirements for the design… which do not necessarily appear to be fully represented on the structural plan sheets. Please clarify. Additionally, in the calculations, there are also several results which indicate that certain design capacities have been exceeded. Again, without correlating this to the design components on the plan sheets, it is unclear how these discrepancies were subsequently resolved by the design engineer. Ultimately, the design also appears to utilize numerous Simpson Strong-Tie Strong Walls, which do not appear to be components within the wall groups analyzed within the calculations. Please clarify. (9/14/2020 Cody Hart, P.E. Response) I believe the attached info should help clarify the question you requested assistance with. Upon review of the attached, you will find the software’s wall label that can be correlated to the building plans label. Also, you are correct the at the left and right portions of the building required individual analysis to accommodate the buildings layout so the attached PDF’s are titles accordingly. Feel free to let me know if there are any further questions. (CodePros’ 2nd Comment – 9/29/2020) Thank you for providing the grids used for the analysis. It is helpful for answering the questions as to what belongs where. Unfortunately, however, it appears that it also confirms that the information presented on the plan sheets does not appear to be consistent with the requirements or conclusions identified in the analysis. For example, hold-downs, in some locations are inconsistent with those calculated, or simply non-existent on the plan sheets. (…and none are shown on the structural foundation sheets.) This can lead to considerable confusion in the field, and an increased likelihood that they will not be correctly included as part of the actual construction. Additionally, as also noted in the original comment, the application of Simpson Strong-Tie Strong Walls does not appear to be addressed within the analysis. Use of the “Strong-Walls” requires that they be assessed for the circumstance, and justified by calculation. On the plans, it appears that the “Strong- Walls” are simply used in lieu of otherwise calculated shear walls, without calculated correlation or analysis. Furthermore, there also still appears to be components within the calculations where the software has concluded that certain design capacities have been exceeded. None of those situations appear to have further analysis, calculations or conclusions to justify or explain away the inconsistencies. It all makes me wonder if perhaps the version of structural plans that we received for review were not the final plans intended for consistency with the calculated design. Attached is a copy of the structural plan sheets which I’m referencing. Please review and ensure that each required structural component is appropriately reflected on the plan sheets, that all shear-walls are fully identified, all hold-downs are appropriately identified (and consistent with the calcs) and finally, that all use of Simpson Strong-Tie Strong Walls are fully justified, clearly shown on the plans, and that the plans include all necessary Strong-Wall installation requirements, including all anchorage details, attachment connections, drag strut connections, etc. (10/2/2020 Cody Hart, P.E. Response) Item 1 Response – Wood Wall and Hold-down Comment: I am writing this email in regards to your comments shear wall and hold-down’s. Upon review of your comments I have deduced CodePros, LLC Page 3 of 5 P.O. Box 185 Allyn, WA 98524 CodeProsWA.com that the only Shearwall and hold-down capacity concerns you could be commenting about are from the left side of the building and along the software’s analysis of wall line 6 with is the common wall line approximately at the middle between the two different portions of the building. Based on my wall line 6 assumption, in response to your concerns, what you are interpreting is not as it appears and in fact, the analysis for this wall line used the loads from the wall line 6 as merely a model and as found under my analysis of the other side of the building, the loads were manually added to complete the design. I am hopeful this explanation resolves what you are looking at but if not, feel free to clarify your question further and I will be happy to work through it with you. Item 2 Response – Simpson Steel Wall Comments In response to your Simpson steel wall (SSW) comments, I am providing the attached supplemental manufacturer information that can be correlated to shear line loads determined in the analysis included in the original calculations to resolve your questions regarding SSW verification. Upon review of the analyzed loads vs. the SSW wall capacities based on height and width (length) you will find the manufacturer capacity limitation have not been exceeded. If you have a question about a specific SSW location vs. its capacity feel free let me know. Additionally, I have included manufacturer SSW installation detailing that was referenced in the construction documents for your convenience that provides additional information that may be of further assistance. Should you have any further questions, feel free to let me know what you are looking for and I will be happy to assist you. CodePros’ 10/15/2020 Comments: Thank you for the continued response. Unfortunately, the earlier structural comments have yet to be fully addressed. What we’re looking for is clear justification of the resultant structural design, where loads are known and resultant reactions are applied through a complete (lateral) load path to the resisting ground. In accordance with IBC 107.2.1 and IRC Section R106.1.1, “Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the building official.” 1. The structural plans must include all necessary components of the design in a clear unambiguous plan set that includes all such structural component requirements such that the contractor and any building inspector can look at the set of plans, for the component of interest at the time, and know and understand all applicable construction requirements applicable to such component. For example, looking at the foundation plan, it should be readily apparent where each hold-down anchor is needed, it’s size and orientation, and any special footing/foundation requirements that may occur at each special component location, such as at the Strong-Wall locations. Plans should fully identify all necessary foundation reinforcement, ties, etc., without the contractor or inspector having to determine if alternate situations might apply... or which detail when several options are provided, may or may not be applicable to the situation or to the particular installation, etc. The foundation plans (and associated, referenced details) need to show all relevant foundation requirements, including all concrete reinforcement requirements, hold-down anchors, anchor bolt requirements, special component installations, etc. Revisions are required. 2. The foundation plan, in at least 9 locations specifies: “Footing per Simpson Strong-Wall Details.” The 4 pages of Simpson Strong-Wall Details recently provided identify numerous options and alternates for the Strong-Wall installations. The foundation plan shall include clear details to instruct the builder (and building inspector) what is required for the specific installation. Please provide specific details, or reference specific details appropriate to the proposed installation (and/or remove any unused superfluous details). CodePros, LLC Page 4 of 5 P.O. Box 185 Allyn, WA 98524 CodeProsWA.com 3. S-2.0. Calculation pages 14 and 24 (PDF sheets 53 and 63) of the left side building, at wall line 1 (also plan line 1) call for HTT4 hold-downs. None are shown on the foundation plans (or on Sheet S-3.0 for the framing plans at the level above). Please clarify and/or correct. 4. S-2.0. Calculation pages 15 and 26 (PDF sheets 83 and 94) of the right side building, at wall line H (plan line G) call for HTT4 hold-downs (at the H-1 shearwall). None are shown on the foundation plans, and, at that wall line, only the hold-downs at the H-3 segment of shearwall are identified on the Sheet S-3.0 framing plan for the floor above. Please clarify and/or correct. 5. S-4.0. Calculation pages 14 and 24 (PDF sheets 53 and 63) of the left side building, at the second floor/roof level, at wall line 1 (also plan line 1) call for CS16 hold-downs. No hold- downs are indicated on the plans at wall line 1. Please clarify and/or correct. 6. S-4.0. Calculation pages 15 and 26 (PDF sheets 83 and 94) of the right side building, at the second floor/roof level, at wall line 1 (plan line 6) call for CS16 hold-downs. No hold-downs are indicated on the plans at wall line 1 (plan line 6). Please clarify and/or correct. This is also the (upper level of the) plan wall line 6 that has lateral loading from both sides of the building, calculated independently for each side, for which the calculations do not appear to combine for a cumulative resultant load. The calculations for the right side, which include the 12.5 foot long shearwall (1-2) above and 18 foot shearwall below, do not appear to include the resultant loads from the left side reactions for shearwall 6-1. (… which is why there remains a concern that the wall line loads could potentially exceed the capacities of the shear-walls and hardware expressed). This is essentially why the calculations must be provided and clarified to justify the final result… both upper and lower… with construction requirements clearly expressed on the plan sheets. In the e-mail response, it is suggested that the loads have been manually added, but no documentation or manual calculations are provided to indicate how or where, or with what result. Please clarify. 7. The WoodWorks Shearwall calculations do not include the segments where Simpson Strong- Walls are used (the calcs appear to utilize single long solid walls - presumably just to calculate overall loads). While I understand that such can be an effective way to calculate the cumulative loads, no additional calculations have been provided to translate those loads into reactions to apply to the Strong-Wall shearwall segments. Nor is there any summary calculation or justification to show the actual loads being restrained by each Strong-Wall segment in order to correlate it to the manufacturer's product information, or determine the extent of the maximum allowable loads per Strong-Wall. Please justify the use of the Strong- Wall solutions. 8. Related to the comment above, the construction plans do not identify all connection requirements, shear transfer connections, drag-struts, etc., that are ultimately required when using the Simpson Strong-Wall panels. The Simpson Strong-Wall product information specifically leaves such connections and utilization factors to the design engineer. No such design calculations or components have been provided or expressed. Please clarify. 9. S-4.0. At least 5 of the 8 Strong-Walls indicated for the roof level framing are shown with the “-STK” designation. Why are second level Simpson Strong-Walls designated as "-STK” According to the Simpson Strong-Wall informational Sheets, the “-STK” designation is for the lower unit of a stacked Strong-Wall Assembly (which comes from the factory with anchor plates for having units above). Please clarify and/or correct. 10. S-4.0. Near Grid D, along Grid 5, at the upper level, there is a SSW24 Simpson Strong-Wall. What does this Strong-Wall connect to? It is shown essentially with a non-specific framed-wall below. Please clarify and/or correct. CodePros, LLC Page 5 of 5 P.O. Box 185 Allyn, WA 98524 CodeProsWA.com 11. S-5.0. Detail 7/S-5.0 appears to conflict with the remainder of the structural design utilizing Simpson Strong-Walls at the garage portal locations. Please clarify the discrepancy and/or remove unused or superfluous details. 12. S-7.0. Detail 6/S-7.0. In general, the Simpson Strong-Wall installations utilize 3/4 Inch or 1" diameter anchors. Detail 6/S-7.0 utilizes a welded ½-inch threaded rod as an anchor for Strong-Walls to the steel beam below. Has the 1/2-inch threaded rod been calculated and justified? Please clarify and/or correct. Unfortunately, the construction plans cannot be recommended for approval for a building permit until all outstanding issues are resolved, and the structural system is clearly and accurately indicated on the plan sheets. To re-submit plans: Please make the required corrections and/or clarifications and submit a revised electronic copy of the plans (.PDF or .DWF) clearly identifying all revisions. Submitted electronically, once approved, the electronic set will contain the approval indications and will be returned to the County electronically for the County record, and a copy will be provided to the applicant/architect in order to print off an official “Approved Site Copy” of the plans to be maintained on- site during construction. Electronic plans may be e-mailed to mbarth@codeproswa.com or instructions and passwords may be provided for me to download the revised plans from a FTP site or similar arrangement, or they can simply be mailed on a CD or flash-drive to the address below. Please also send copies of all correspondence to Jefferson County DCD at dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us and jadams@co.jefferson.wa.us . To aid in the timely review of the revised plans, please detail all corrections and/or revisions in a cover letter, numbered the same as the comments above. Revisions should be marked on the sheets and noted with a cloud surrounding them or some other method to distinguish the changes. Please also be sure to identify if any other changes are made that are not associated with the plan review comments. Design documents and calculations prepared by a registered architect or professional engineer must include the design professional’s original signature, “wet” stamp, registration number and date; as required under WAC 308-12-081 for architects, or WAC 196-23-020 for engineers; or, a “digital signature” as defined by the State of Washington. (See explanatory document at: http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/engineerslandsurveyors/docs/eDocsInterpretiveGuideline.pdf .) If you have questions or concerns about the review comments, please contact me directly at mbarth@codeproswa.com or call me at 360-801-0543. Sincerely, Michael J. Barth, M.C.P. Building Code Consultant CodePros, LLC cc:CRH Engineering G Little Construction Digitally signed by Michael J. Barth, M.C.P. Date: 2020.10.15 15:31:56 -07'00'