Laserfiche WebLink
r ' <br /> 1C1V <br /> 2310 Virginia Ave Plan RE-Submittal <br /> Response to Comments AUG 0 7 2023 <br /> CITY OF EVERETT <br /> Permit Services <br /> General <br /> 1. The submitted construction drawings do not appear to be complete and have significant <br /> omission and inconsistencies. Issues include but are not limited to: <br /> a. Much of the drawings are illegible due to unclear drafting, poor reproduction, and small <br /> print. Legible drawings are required to be submitted. <br /> b. The drawings have portions that are not to-scale. For example,the deck detail on Sheet 7 <br /> appears to use at least two completely different scales within the same detail;this is not <br /> standard practice. The drawings should 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 <br /> Details#1 and#2 for the foundation construction. While neither are referenced in the plans, it <br /> is presumed that Detail#1 is intended. However,the actual intended construction is not <br /> clear. This is compounded by the building elevations not clearly showing the finished floor <br /> height for the first floor. All details should be applicable to the project and appropriately <br /> referenced. <br /> e. Continuing with the previous comment,the details on page 9 represent typical details that <br /> have not been specifically selected for this project and may not apply. The drawings should be <br /> revised accordingly. <br /> f. The floor plans are not consistent with the window and door placement. The plans lack <br /> dimensions to specify the locations of these components. Note that the second floor shows a <br /> door accessing the deck in the elevation, but a window in the plan. <br /> g. Continuing with the previous comment,the dimensions are also necessary to specify the <br /> minimum braced walls. Note that as shear wall schedule has been included on page 9. Shear <br /> walls are an engineered system and require a licensed professional engineer. It is presumed the <br /> design will comply with braced wall design as noted in the structural comments. Otherwise, <br /> drawings sealed and signed by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Washington are <br /> required per RCW 18.43. <br /> h. The intended construction of the roof trusses is not clear. The roof is anticipated to be <br /> potentially vaulted;this may conflict with wall height limited per IRC Section R301.3. The porch <br /> roof is not consistently shown between the elevations and plans/sections;the intended <br /> construction overall is not sufficiently developed to review. The notes provided in the drawings <br /> for the trusses to not address the structural comments provided. <br /> i. The drawings do not provide sufficient information for the construction of the deck, <br /> including but not limited to the vertical and seismic attachments required. <br /> j. The drawings do not provide sufficiently detailing and connection requirementsforthe deck <br /> guards. This includes providing adequate framing in the deck to resist the guard loads. <br /> k. The drawings do not include a fastener schedule as required per the structural <br /> comments. The use of proprietary hardware appears necessary at multiple locations but has <br /> not been specified. Drawings have been thoroughly Revised, Hopefully we have addressed all <br /> these to your satisfaction. <br /> C <br />