Laserfiche WebLink
• • <br /> Mr. Dennis Stickles <br /> Northwest Handling Systems <br /> Plan Check Number: B2212-049, First Building Review <br /> February 15, 2023 <br /> Architectural <br /> 1. The drawings have been signed by the structural engineer. However, the engineer's seal <br /> includes a note stating the engineer is only responsible for the structural design. The stairway <br /> design is non-structural (i.e., treads, guards, and handrails). The"structural only" note should <br /> be removed, or architectural drawings addressing this portion of the design are required. See <br /> RCW Section 18.08. <br /> 2. The permit application and drawings identify the structure as a "work platform". There is no <br /> such distinction in the building code. Based on a review of the drawings, the platform appears <br /> intended for work uses; the drawings do not show any equipment or otherwise indicate it is <br /> exclusively for supporting and accessing equipment. The structure therefore must comply with <br /> the requirements for mezzanines per IBC Section 505.2. Alternatively, the drawings should be <br /> revised to show all equipment on the platform. The weight(s) of the equipment should be <br /> specified. <br /> 3. The design lof the stairway on Sheet S1 should address the following comments: <br /> a. The stair rise and run do not comply with the maximum 7-inch rise and minimum 11-inch <br /> tread. The stairs should be revised. See IBC Section 1011.5. <br /> b. The height of the platform exceeds 12 feet. A single run of stairs is not allowed per IBC <br /> Section 1011.8. An intermediate platform is required. <br /> Structural <br /> 1. The structural design considers a 125 live load. This is generally associated with light storage. <br /> However, it is understood that the platform is intended to support equipment. The drawings <br /> should specify the type(s) and weight(s) of the equipment instead of an area load. If the loads <br /> are such that an area load is appropriate, additional documentation substantiating this value <br /> should be provided for review. In either case, the load should be specified as a superimposed <br /> dead load. See the definition of"dead load"in IBC Section 202. <br /> 2. Continuing with the previous comment, the extent and location of the equipment is not clear <br /> (e.g., top-mounted, underhung, etc.). The drawings indicate that the platform has a working <br /> surface covering the entire platform area. Depending on the use, a uniform live load <br /> concurrent with the superimposed dead load should be specified. If the live and dead loads are <br /> not concurrent, a loading map should be provided. See IBC Sections 107.2.1and 1607.3. <br /> 3. The platform has been designed as an ordinary steel moment frame. This type of structure is <br /> limited in ASCE 7-16 Section 12.2.5.6. This section generally only allows one-story structures <br /> and limits the roof load. The proposed dead loads on the structure exceed the limits of this <br /> section. Note that if the 125 load represents live loading, a minimum of 25% of this value must <br /> be considered as seismic dead load per Section 12.7.2, in which case the total seismic dead <br /> load still exceeds limits. The lateral system should be revised to another system per Section <br /> 12.2.1. See IBC Section 1613.1. <br /> O3200 Cedar Street 0 425.257.8810 o everetteps@everettwa.gov <br /> Everett,WA 98201 425.257.8857 fax everettwa.gov/permits <br /> Page2of3 <br />