1122 75TH ST SW CANYON CREEK CHURCH 2021-08-30

� Meg Haley � From: Meg Haley Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:37 AM To: 'Lee@Lee-Kirk.com' Cc: Jim Venturo Subject: RE: Plan review research for CANYON CREEK CHURCH Use of 222, 300, 231, and 212 and update to mechanical permit status Hi Lee, I checked with Tony Lee, the original plan reviewer for the change of occupancy permit in 2005. He agrees that room 222 would stifl require panic hardware, exit signs, and emergency lightin�. Now, or in the future, if the building is sold again, the operable partition taetween room 222 and 212 cauld be opened to the worship space and become part af the exiting as overflow seating space. I think that door leaves shown in plan {no doar number) may have been reversed, based an what we saw in the field yesterday. Raam 300 (as a B occupancy� does not have 75 faat exit travel distance to either existing door, but there is a window in the center that would meet travel distance, if it were converted inta a d�or. Otherwise, tGuo exits will be required from the mezzanine if it is to be used for other than mechanica! purposes, as originally designed. �toom 231 should have an occupant laad by area, based on the use af informal seating: 7 net {chairs onlyj or 5 net {standing space}, for the area in front of the platforrn. The platforrr� and p[atfarm walls wi31 require a building permit, Raom 212 requires an updated egress diagram, since 212A, 212B, and 212C only count as ane exit, since they all converge into a choke paint af corridor 204. This is consistent with the 2005 permit exiting pian, however, a significant occupant load increase has occurred since 2005, far permitting purposes. The stair enclasure being used for possible storage should be shown with ane hour interiar fire partitions and ceilings. These items will be included in the jaint building/fire corrections letter that will be farthcaming, I am hoping next week, at least in draft stage. -------------------------------------- Regarding the mechanical permit, the structural drawing for new framing was missing from the mechanical submitial. The submittal inciuded structural calculations, which referred to new framing. I contacted the structural engineer, who will send the new framing drawings to me by e-mail, so ( can �rint them here to include in the permit. BeSt, Meg �ii�� i131c?d: f`�rchi�[��t '�.t�_, � n�€_�s ..:� � . , ._ w=: . .. , , .. �.,, .. City �� _� r�x�i ; : . .; 5 . � ,:.. �; .�: � . , �-_'� ; � 7 :�:��; � : mhalev@everettwa.�ov From: Lee Kirk [mailto:LeeC�Lee-Kirk.com] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:32 AM To: Meg Haley Subject: FW: Use of room 222 Meg Per below. they don't really utilize that space for anything productive, but I would like to keep it ciassified as a Sunday Classroam to give them Ehat optian in the future. Thanks, L2e