Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> Drew Martin <br /> From: Drew Martin <br /> Sent: Wednesday,July 14, 2021 2:11 PM <br /> To: Charlie Apel <br /> Subject: City of Everett Permit Services: 1818 Holbrook Avenue (B2106-064) - First Building <br /> Intake Review <br /> Attachments: 1818 Holbrook Avenue.pdf <br /> Hello, Mr. Apel. <br /> Your application has been received and a permit set up. However,the submitted documents are not sufficient <br /> for us to perform a review at this time. See also comments from the Planning Department emailed on <br /> 07/13/2021. Revised construction-level documents need to be submitted for review. Information is attached <br /> to provide guidance. Preliminary comments are provided below to assist in revising the drawings, but these <br /> are not intended to provide a comprehensive review. <br /> 1. The house at 1818 Holbrook is subject to code enforcement action under file number CE21- <br /> 0361. Multiple unpermitted conditions were identified that do not appear to be addressed in the <br /> submitted construction drawings. A record of the unpermitted work is attached for your <br /> convenience. The revised submittal documents should include a response letter indicating how each <br /> of the identified unpermitted conditions has been addressed. Note that additional unpermitted <br /> conditions should also be addressed regardless of whether they are included in the attached record. <br /> 2. Continuing with the previous comment, the submitted drawings are generally intended to show <br /> structural modifications. Separate architectural drawings should be provided shown conditions and <br /> changes to the building. These are necessary to clarify the use of all spaces in the house, including <br /> removing unpermitted features (i.e., second kitchen) and returning non-habitable spaces (e.g., south <br /> portion of the basement level) to their original condition unless permitted to comply with the current <br /> code. <br /> 3. Continuing with the previous two comments, the drawings do not accurately show the existing <br /> conditions of the building. For example, the exterior door and window at the southeast corner of the <br /> basement level are not original construction;this was verified through photo-documentation before <br /> and after non-permitted work was performed. All unpermitted work should be shown as new <br /> construction. Work to return the house to its originally permitted condition should similarly be shown <br /> as new. <br /> 4. The plans include architectural changes. For example,the existing window opening will be infilled on <br /> the south side of the Main Level per Sheet S-6; insulation is required. Other requirements include but <br /> are not limited to adding a new guard along the deck. All non-structural work should be included in <br /> the architectural drawings. <br /> 5. The proposed structural work is not clear. The drawings have been prepared with non-standard <br /> drafting conventions, typically using blocking and solid lines, that do not clearly distinguish the building <br /> elements. Existing and new elements are not clear. Revised structural drawings that clearly show the <br /> intended construction should be submitted for review. <br /> 6. Continuing with the previous comment, the drawings do not clearly distinguish between existing and <br /> proposed conditions. For example, Sheet S-5 appears intended to show the existing main floor layout <br /> with demolition specified, while Sheet S-6 appears to show the new main floor layout. The plans are <br />