1033 TEMPLE DR 2023-10-31 - Laserfiche WebLink

From: Drew Martin Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 12:34 PM To: Jonathan Rempel Cc: Willard Williams; Grace Pollard Subject: City of Everett Permit Services: 1033 Temple Drive (B2006-005)-Second Building Review Good afternoon,Jonathan. I have performed an initial review of the resubmitted plans for this project. Unfortunately, I am not able to complete the review at this time. The plans appear to only be partially developed and do not provide sufficient clarity or detail to indicate the proposed work. In addition,the house as shown does not appear to match the existing conditions. In lieu of a second review letter, I am providing a brief list of my observations to supplement the original review comments. These do not need to be addressed directly. The plans should be revised and an updated response to the original review comments should be provided. Note that the responses provided to the review comments were similarly not sufficient to clearly indicate how all comments were addressed; a response was not provided for multiple comments. Here is a brief list of my observations: A.The plans generally do not provide a clear and constructible set of drawings. B.The plans do not delineate between the existing and new construction. C.The plans are not aligned on Sheet A1.6 versus Sheet 5200. The relationship between the levels is not clear. D.The plans do not appear consistent with the existing condition. Notable differences include but are not limited to: 1.The sections on Sheet A1.5 shows the roof ridge on the wrong side of the house. See also Sheet A1.8 which appears to show the ridge on the correct side. 2.The sections on Sheet A1.5 show a retaining wall on the east side that does not appear to exist. 3.The plans indicate the lower level is daylit on the east side, but photography shows the structure as buried. See also Section 2/A1.8 which is not consistent with Sheet A1.5. 4. Photography shows that the existing house has an unfinished 8-foot tall foundation structure about 10 from the building and open to the street. This is not shown on the plans, and is not consistent with the new foundation shown on Sheets S200, which only extends about 6 feet from the existing south building face. 5.The isometric view on Sheet A1.5 shows two dormers that are note existing. 6. Photography shows a building extension on the south side at the main level. This is not indicated for demolition in the plans. E.The walls, roof, and floors in Section 2/A1.8 are filled solid black. The construction is not clear. The provided clearance for the Basement level is not clearly shown. F.The furring construction at the Basement level is not clearly shown in Sheets A1.6 and A1.8. G.The plans on Sheet A1.6 appear to show new concrete window wells. The information is not adequate for their construction. Details do not appear to be provided in the structural drawings. The center window appear to be wider than the well. H.The windows in the well do not appear to satisfy the egress dimensions requirements. I.The extend floor at the Ground Floor in Plan 1/A1.6 is not insulated.