Laserfiche WebLink
-Drew Martin <br /> From: Drew Martin <br /> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:27 PM <br /> To: Caleb widen <br /> Cc: Alex Byrd <br /> Subject: City of Everett Permit Services:2310 Virginia Avenue (B2302-115) - Second Building <br /> Review <br /> Good afternoon, Caleb. <br /> An initial review of the revised documents has been received. However,the drawings are not sufficiently developed to <br /> perform a comprehensive review. Many comments, notably but not limited to the structural comments, are not <br /> sufficiently addressed. The drawings have a number of deficiencies and inconsistencies that need to be <br /> addressed. Some supplemental comments are provided below, itemized to the original comments; all original <br /> comments are still valid regardless of whether or not supplemental commentary is provided (unless noted otherwise <br /> below). Some responses are not sufficiently clear(e.g., response to Comment 5,etc.) and should be revised. Note that <br /> while some comments may not require additional action (noted below if applicable), a complete response letter should <br /> still be provided. The original review with these supplemental comments should be reviewed again and the design <br /> revised accordingly. I also discussed this project with the Planning reviewer;the revised drawings should not be <br /> resubmitted prior to receiving additional commentary from her. <br /> General <br /> 1. The submitted construction drawings do not appear to be complete and have significant omission and <br /> inconsistencies. Issues include but are not limited to: <br /> a. Much of the drawings are illegible due to unclear drafting, poor reproduction, and small print. Legible drawings <br /> are required to be submitted. <br /> b. The drawings have portions that are not to-scale. For example,the deck detail on Sheet 7 appears to use at <br /> least two completely different scales within the same detail;this is not standard practice. The drawings should <br /> be appropriately scaled. <br /> c. The reference point for the overall building height is not clear. <br /> d. The drawings include inconsistent or unclear design intent. For example, page 10 includes Details#1 and#2 for <br /> the foundation construction. While neither are referenced in the plans, it is presumed that Detail#1 is <br /> intended. However,the actual intended construction is not clear. This is compounded by the building <br /> elevations not clearly showing the finished floor height for the first floor. All details should be applicable to the <br /> project and appropriately referenced. <br /> e. Continuing with the previous comment,the details on page 9 represent typical details that have not been <br /> specifically selected for this project and may not apply. The drawings should be revised accordingly. <br /> f. The floor plans are not consistent with the window and door placement. The plans lack dimensions to specify <br /> the locations of these components. Note that the second floor shows a door accessing the deck in the elevation, <br /> but a window in the plan. <br /> g. Continuing with the previous comment,the dimensions are also necessary to specify the minimum braced <br /> walls. Note that as shear wall schedule has been included on page 9. Shear walls are an engineered system and <br /> require a licensed professional engineer. It is presumed the design will comply with braced wall design as noted <br /> in the structural comments. Otherwise,drawings sealed and signed by a professional engineer licensed in the <br /> state of Washington are required per RCW 18.43. <br /> h. The intended construction of the roof trusses is not clear. The roof is anticipated to be potentially vaulted;this <br /> may conflict with wall height limited per IRC Section R301.3. The porch roof is not consistently shown between <br /> 1 <br />