2817 MEDORA WAY 2023-12-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

• • The annotated pictures are more for reference as to exactly what the issue is and not a CAD sketched close schematic. The expense of drawing in CAD any existing unaffected areas of the home that have not been altered or affected, when a photo shows what is actually present, is cost prohibitive to the homeowner. This will be something that the homeowner will have to discuss with the permit office as to how much is enough. The ONLY area where design loads were altered (main floor beam separating kitchen and living rooms) was submitted to Structural Design Associates for review and specification. Their work was completed and included. Is it the City of Everett Permit Services position that the entire existing structure be evaluated for structural compliance, even if most of the home has not been altered? 3. Continuing with the previous comment, the plans appear to include undefined corrections, including but not limited to the schedule on Sheet A-5. Many of this item serve to point out deficiencies or present design-level discussion. This is not the purpose of construction drawings. The proposed work should be coordinated between the members of I , and construction level drawings submitted that clearly indicate the proposed work. • The purpose of construction documents is fully understood. The initial task given to the designer was to identify IRC related code deficiencies during the as-built survey and to try and create a pre-existing plan of the structure. The submitted plan succinctly showed the violations and what needed to be corrected. If the City of Everett Permit Services wants that information in a different format, that can happen. Again, a specific list of everything that the permit office deems required (this is NOT a new construction project so don't just send links to general requirements) is needed to proceed. A recorded meeting between the homeowner, contractor/builder, and a City of Everett Permit Services official or inspector would take care of this most efficiently. 4. The submitted documents do not include a clear and concise set of structural plans. Significant structural modifications have been performed (e.g., roof and floor framing, modifying staircase) or are proposed (e.g., modifying exterior walls for new egress windows). Independent comprehensive structural drawings should be submitted to clarify the existing and new work. The annotations to the architectural drawings are not sufficiently clear to review. Note that overlapping and uncoordinated structural information has been submitted. The structural drawings appear to be largely composed of generic information and details that are not clearly related to this project or representative of the construction of this building. A clear set of structural drawings specific to this project should be submitted for review. • The submitted documents were reviewed by Structural Design Associates, a licensed SE/PE in WA state. The structural plans they provided were for the only structural un- 5