Laserfiche WebLink
° � R���sch, Nash & H�t� <br /> Arehitects, P.S, <br /> July 27, 2009 � ��3q��_�3� <br /> Mr. Ruben Sanchez <br /> Project Coordinator <br /> Facilities/Property Management <br /> City of Everett <br /> 3101 Cedar Street <br /> Everett, WA 98201 <br /> RE: Everett Senior Activity Center, Phase II <br /> City of Everett Plan Check No. B0907-034 <br /> City of Everett EPS Permit Review Comment Letter Dated July 24, 2009 <br /> Dear Ruben: <br /> As discussed this morning, the two matters that are addressed in the City's July 24, 2009 letter <br /> had been previously discussed and fully resolved with the City's permitting review authorities. <br /> Devin Saylor, Senior Associate and code specialist in our office had discussed these specific <br /> matters with Tony Lee and Megan Haley on February 9, 2009. The City's determination was <br /> that no accommodation is needed for a stretcher size elevator cab due to the fact that each of <br /> the two levels is accessible by grade. Emergency response vehicles have direct access to <br /> both levels. There is as well an internal 1:12 ramp between the levels that could provide for <br /> access in some unlikely eventuality that one grade level access was rendered inaccessible. It <br /> was further determined that there is no shaft enclosure requirement due to non-separated use <br /> between floors for what will be a fully fire sprinklered building. <br /> We had been careful to resolve this matter with City officials early on in the design process so <br /> that we could be assured that we could pursue the most cost effective way to provide the <br /> retrofit elevator for the existing facility, as needed to meet the City's programming requirement. <br /> As currently designed, the elevator shaft is specifically positioned and sized to fit between <br /> concrete beams within a limited area of existing flat slab concrete floor deck. Our structural <br /> consultant had advised that a larger hoistway opening or an opening in any alternative location <br /> within the existing building footprint would cost the City an additional $60,000.00 for re-framing <br /> structure, due to the precast plank construction of that existing flooring. <br /> The further determination that the hoistway is not required to be constructed as a shaft <br /> enclosure precludes the need for fire protection rating for the elevator machine room door. <br /> If the City review authorities wish to revisit their February 2009 determinations then we would <br /> welcome an opportunity to meet with all parties to discuss it further so as to achieve the <br /> correct resolution for this life safety matter. <br /> // ,� <br />