Laserfiche WebLink
Ben Monk <br /> From: Ben Monk <br /> Sent: Friday,June 28, 2024 2:25 PM <br /> To: Adam Clark <br /> Subject: B2402-040 Re-Review for New Doorways <br /> Dear Adam, <br /> I am reaching out to update you on the permit submittal status for the responses provided for building permit#62402- <br /> 040 for the new doorways. I am sorry to hear that the engineer has not been willing to respond to the comment letter; <br /> however,the drawings we received appear to have the exact same notes, details, and code references as before. I have <br /> taken another look and attempted to add more specific language to the comments that have not been addressed to help <br /> aid in any confusion—expanding/adding to comments where necessary.An itemized response to the comment letter <br /> indicating how the comments were addressed is required for permit issuance. <br /> General: <br /> 1. The plans submitted do not provide all the relevant building information required by the Everett Commercial <br /> Building Permit Application Checklist including but not limited to the following: <br /> a. The building eenstFuetien typ�- <br /> i. Comment addressed on sheet Al <br /> b.. The eecupaney type Felative to the usage ef the building. <br /> i. Comment addressed on sheet Al <br /> c. Paper size (we prefer submittal documents to be on 22 x 34 but a project of your size can be provided on <br /> an 11 x 17 at a minimum as long as it is legible and not cut-off due to margin issues) <br /> i. Some information on the plans has been cut-off and should be revised. Please ensure all <br /> information on the general notes page (Sheet 1/6) is legible, relevant to the proposed <br /> construction, and includes complete statements. <br /> d. Door schedules, if applicable <br /> i. Please provide a response regarding how this comment was addressed. <br /> 2. The building is a commercial building. Please remove any and all references to the prescriptive method of the IRC. <br /> This building will be reviewed according to the provisions within the 2018 IBC. <br /> a. Comment has not been fully addressed. Please remove IRC references on Sheet 1/6 <br /> Structural: <br /> 3. Please SUPP90 the PFOVided leading values with GaleWlatie% WhiGh FePreseRt the Mate.ria'S te be wied fer <br /> a. Calculations provided are satisfactory. <br /> 4. Please provide calculations validating the new steel-CMU composite lintels provided as the proposed solution <br /> analyzing the structure by utilizing applicable load combinations from Chapter 2 of ASCE 7-16 and evaluating the <br /> capacity utilizing Chapter 21 of the 2018 IBC and its applicable masonry references found in Chapter 35. <br /> a. Calculations may require further rationale explaining how the channel member has similar properties to <br /> the C7x12.25 structural steel member. It appears that 10 ga sheet metal is considerably thinner in all <br /> dimensions than the steel shape approximated in the calculations. <br /> Shall cemply with the pFee isienss A-f T-504S 4Q TMS nnn -A,,,- _SP_cAi .R 2101 fthe IQr <br /> 1 <br />