Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Paul Douglas <br /> 2812 Architecture <br /> Plan Check Number: B1901-015, First Building Review <br /> February 11,2019 <br /> 5. The project involves Level 2 Alterations per IEBC Chapter 8. Accessibility improvements per <br /> IEBC Section 705.2 shall be included in the project. Potentially inaccessible elements <br /> include, but are not limited to, the bathrooms, sidewalk ramps, and parking including <br /> signage and pavement striping. Where the building is made to be less than fully-accessible <br /> per one of the exceptions, documentation substantiating the limited accessibility <br /> improvements shall be submitted for review. See IEBC Section 806.1. <br /> Miscellaneous: <br /> 6. Sheet A2 states in the notes titled"Restroom Calculation"that only one restroom is <br /> required. The note appears to incorrectly reference IBC Section 2902.4 instead of Section <br /> 2902.2. Based on the occupant load and the primary use of the facility, the project does <br /> not meet the requirements for either Exception 2 or 4. The space shall be provided with <br /> separate restroom facilities. <br /> 7. The Floor Plan on Sheet A2 shows a new Wall Type A. The Wall Type notes state that the <br /> wall shall span from floor to ceiling. Details or notes specifying the top and bottom sill <br /> connections to the existing ceiling and slab-on-grade, respectively, shall be provided. See <br /> IBC Section 107.2.1. <br /> Structural <br /> —._ 1._—Structural_calculation_pages 4 and_7_through_9_provide_an_analysis_of the_existing_27"glulam_ _ <br /> beam. Page 4 states that the additional weight of the new mechanical unit will not increase <br /> the negative bending moment, which is not correct. In addition, the calculations appear to <br /> indicate that the actual size of the beam is not known, including calculations for both a 5 <br /> 1/8"and 6 3/4"section; page 7 indicates the former is overstressed. See IBC Sections <br /> 1604.1 and 1604.4. The analysis shall be revised considering the following criteria: <br /> a. The analysis shall consider the actual size of the beam. <br /> b. The analysis shall consider the actual span of the beams north of the 27"glulam beam. <br /> The span dimension shall be specified in the calculations. <br /> c. The analysis shall consider the full weight of the mechanical unit unless the reduced <br /> tributary load is substantiated. <br /> d. The analysis shall explicitly evaluate the negative bending moment in the beam <br /> considering the full loads on both spans to maximize the moment. <br /> e. Continuing with the previous comment, the analysis shall consider the concentrated <br /> loads at the end of the cantilever span from the adjacent existing 31.5"glulam. These <br /> do not appear to te`considered in the—calculations. - <br /> O 3200 Cedar Street O425.257.8800 O everettpw@everettwa.gov /// <br /> Everett,WA 98201 425.257.8882 fax everettwa.gov �/J <br />