3003 W CASINO RD BLDG 40-41 2019-03-21

z�. The_CU-1_is_on the 3rd floor roof as shown on 3M61and the weight_is less that the weight=of thenews _ __ equipment. Sheet 3M61R has the dry coolers weights for AC-5 at 1,050 lbs. and on sheet 1,768 lbs. M523R both these weight are higher than the new at 5901bs. on sheet M523. The new unit is a refer unit does not have water weight of a dry cooler. 6. The ISAT calculations indicate that the AC-5 is supported by a 3-foot tall equipment stand "by others"that is of undefined construction. The construction of this stand and it's ability to support the required vertical and lateral forces should be substantiated. At a minimum,the drawings shall specify the stand as a deferred submittal item and specify the required loading criteria from ASCE 7-10 Chapter 13. The stand is from Liebert part of equipment. What else do we need to address this? Jeff From: Kaylene Nelson<kaylene.nelson@hermanson.com> Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 10:03 AM To:Jeff Schuck<ischuck@hermanson.com> Subject: FW: City of Everett Permit Services: 3003 West Casino Road (M1809-013)-Second Review Kaylene Nelson I Hermanson Company, LLP I Direct 253-796-5838 I Cell 253-359-7147 From: Drew Martin<dmartin@everettwa.gov> Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 9:19 AM To:: Kaylene Nelson<kaylene.nelson@l-ermanson.com> Subject: City of Everett Permit Services: 3003 West Casino Road (M1809-013)-Second Review Kaylene, I reviewed the submittal documents. I have a few questions: 2.Sheet 3M63R indicates an existing AC-5 weight of 1,150 lb,while Sheet M523R indicates 2,750 lb. Note that the former weight is less than the weight for the new unit of 1,450 lb. Please confirm the original weight and the discrepancy. If the new weight is heavier, additional information substantiating the capacity of the supporting framing (i.e., per the original comment)shall be provided. 3.The original comment incorrect assumed the new CU-1 is replacing an existing unit. The new unit is actually located at the Roof per Sheet 3M61,while Sheet 3M61R(referenced in the original comment)shows the Third Floor Plan and does not include an existing CU-1. The original comment shall be addressed. 4. The response does not address the comment. The response states that the new unit is lighter. However,the unit is not replacing an existing unit. The original comment shall be addressed. 6. The ISAT calculations indicate that the AC-5 is supported by a 3-foot tall equipment stand "by others"that is of undefined construction. The construction of this stand and it's ability to support the required vertical and lateral forces should be substantiated. At a minimum,the drawings shall specify the stand as a deferred submittal item and specify the required loading criteria from ASCE 7-10 Chapter 13. Please contact me if you have questions. 3/y/