11108 EVERGREEN WAY ALEM MARKET 2022-11-17

• • Drew Martin From: " Drew Martin Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 1:58 PM To: payanbrothers@gmail.com Subject: City of Everett Permit Services: 11108 Evergreen Way, Suite E (M2111-080) - Second Building Intake Review Attachments: M2111-080_IR-1.pdf Hello,Aurelio. We have reviewed the revised drawings. However,the drawings have not sufficiently addressed the previous intake review comments. In addition,the response letter does not provide sufficient responses clarifying if and how the comments have been addressed. The previous intake review is attached. The following additional commentary is provided to supplement the previous comments;these comments do not replace the previous comments. 1. The following should be addressed in addition to the original comments: a. The plans do not include a roof plan showing the framing type(s),size(s), spacing, orientation,and the mechanical unit placement. Note that based on the apparent location and orientation of the new equipment, and the presumed bearing walls below, the framing span direction shown in the sections on Sheet 1 are not correct. In addition,the plans appear to indicate modifications to the roof framing, either by adding additional joists(i.e., sections show joists at non-typical spacing at the duct penetration points), demolition parts of existing joists, or both. b. Additional supplemental framing appears to be indicated in the mechanical drawings. Modifications to the roof structural cannot be submitted as part of the mechanical application and require a separate building permit application; alternatively, building modifications may be submitted as a revision to the approved building permit for this project. See additional comments below regarding the roof evaluation. Building drawings to modify the roof framing must be sealed and signed by a WA-licensed professional engineer. c. The project appears to include minor supplemental structural framing, including but not limited to cutting new openings and blocking the roof sheathing. This should be shown. d. The drawings indicate "new curbs". Details should be provided. 2. The construction of this wall is not specified in the architectural drawings and should be verified to be non- combustible. A minimum reduced clearance is still required per the mechanical code and should be specified. 3. The hanger detail is indicated as a nondescript"metallic support in-situ construction" and appears to attach to the sheathing with wood backing. This connection is not sufficiently clear and does not appear structurally adequate.The note for the plywood to "#2" is not clear;fasteners between the plywood and joists do not appear to be provided. A revised detail providing a clear load path should be provided. 4. The 18-inch clearance dimensions for the hood and the extension of the wrap above all combustible roof materials, including new curbs, is not specified. 5. This comment does not appear to be addressed. 6. The new mechanical units will add more than 5%additional load to the roof structural. An evaluation of the load path by a structural engineer is required. As stated above,the orientation of the roof framing appears to be incorrect. A narrow band of framing(e.g.,four roof joists)will support the hood,fan, and MAU, adding a minimum estimated load of 1,000-lbs in addition to existing dead, snow, and mechanical unit loads. Calculations sealed and signed by a WA-licensed professional engineer are required. I �