Mr [redacted] did bring in a list of requirements from the City of NampaHe agreed to these conditions and gave us a deposit, as he indicatedIt should also be noted that Mr [redacted] was adamant that the city approved of the location of his proposed shop despite being contradicted by the setbacks on the list of requirements (and our own hesitation based on our knowledge of the setback requirements)He said he would provide further information on the site approval (and his building site in general) but no such information was providedWe were very concerned about the location of the project and we made sure Mr [redacted] knew this The “first design”, as he refers to it, was a preliminary floor plan (sent on 9/15/15) that featured roof trusses made of 4xsteel tubing (which is what Mr [redacted] had requested)This preliminary plan was not for construction (“preliminary” is noted on the sheets) and was just to verify the wall placement and type of construction that Mr [redacted] had discussed with usWhile Mr [redacted] had only discussed the steel tube trusses as part of the roof framing, the purlins were necessary to carry the roof diaphragm and roofing material above the trusses (the trusses were spaced at 9’-4” to 12’-0” apart)It should be noted that we are not always privy to information on where to buy construction materials The next set of drawings (sent 9/21/15) did feature an aerial photo of the property with the location of the proposed shopThe property lines were not shown because Mr [redacted] had said more information about the site was forthcoming (including the approval to build the proposed shop within the setbacks)They also featured a 6” thick concrete slab and a 12” thick turned-down slab (turned down 24” for frost depth)The light-gauge steel studs called out were minimums (providing thicker steel or deeper studs would only improve the integrity of the structure)We did not show the electrical panel in this set, however Then, the subsequent sets of drawings (sent 9/22/& 9/23/15) did have a discrepancy between the foundation plan and detail on sheet The detail calls out a 6” thick slab while the plan calls out a 4” thick slab over 4” of compacted gravel fillAnd we still did not show the electrical panel in this set Note the electrical panel is typically coordinated by the contractor We understand Mr [redacted] was acting as the contractor and owner on this project In hind sight, we should not have agreed to show the project within the setbacks of the property lines without talking to the city directlyBut, as noted above, we had explained to Mr [redacted] the importance of maintaining the setbacks many timesIn addition, the foundation was never just ‘inches compacted gravel’ and the stud sizes could have been up-sized on the plan to whatever size Mr [redacted] wanted, based on supply and/or preferenceHowever, we did complete engineering on a structure that was sound and was what Mr [redacted] had originally requested The revised building size mentioned in the complaint was due to the fact that this structure did not fit within the setbacks as Mr [redacted] was adamant that the city would approve We did receive the $payment after a single call was made and Mr [redacted] agreed that he still owed the remainder of the balance due Resolution: We have written the remainder of the collectable off at this point We do not feel that we have to reduce this fee because we fulfilled the agreement to provide a plan as requested by the client that was buildable other than the setback issue that the client adamantly stated he had coordinated with the jurisdiction We hope this resolution is acceptable to the client Thanks, Shawn R***, PE PERFORMANCE ENGINEERS LLC N Franklin Blvd, Nampa, ID
Mr. [redacted] did bring in a list of requirements from the City of Nampa. He agreed to these conditions and gave us a deposit, as he indicated. It should also be noted that Mr. [redacted] was adamant that the city approved of the location of his proposed shop despite being contradicted by the setbacks...
on the list of requirements (and our own hesitation based on our knowledge of the setback requirements). He said he would provide further information on the site approval (and his building site in general) but no such information was provided. We were very concerned about the location of the project and we made sure Mr. [redacted] knew this.
The “first design”, as he refers to it, was a preliminary floor plan (sent on 9/15/15) that featured roof trusses made of 4x4 steel tubing (which is what Mr. [redacted] had requested). This preliminary plan was not for construction (“preliminary” is noted on the sheets) and was just to verify the wall placement and type of construction that Mr. [redacted] had discussed with us. While Mr. [redacted] had only discussed the steel tube trusses as part of the roof framing, the purlins were necessary to carry the roof diaphragm and roofing material above the trusses (the trusses were spaced at 9’-4” to 12’-0” apart). It should be noted that we are not always privy to information on where to buy construction materials.
The next set of drawings (sent 9/21/15) did feature an aerial photo of the property with the location of the proposed shop. The property lines were not shown because Mr. [redacted] had said more information about the site was forthcoming (including the approval to build the proposed shop within the setbacks). They also featured a 6” thick concrete slab and a 12” thick turned-down slab (turned down 24” for frost depth). The light-gauge steel studs called out were minimums (providing thicker steel or deeper studs would only improve the integrity of the structure). We did not show the electrical panel in this set, however.
Then, the subsequent sets of drawings (sent 9/22/15 & 9/23/15) did have a discrepancy between the foundation plan and detail 2 on sheet 1.0. The detail calls out a 6” thick slab while the plan calls out a 4” thick slab over 4” of compacted gravel fill. And we still did not show the electrical panel in this set. Note the electrical panel is typically coordinated by the contractor. We understand Mr. [redacted] was acting as the contractor and owner on this project.
In hind sight, we should not have agreed to show the project within the setbacks of the property lines without talking to the city directly. But, as noted above, we had explained to Mr. [redacted] the importance of maintaining the setbacks many times. In addition, the foundation was never just ‘4 inches compacted gravel’ and the stud sizes could have been up-sized on the plan to whatever size Mr. [redacted] wanted, based on supply and/or preference. However, we did complete engineering on a structure that was sound and was what Mr. [redacted] had originally requested.
The revised building size mentioned in the complaint was due to the fact that this structure did not fit within the setbacks as Mr. [redacted] was adamant that the city would approve. We did receive the $20 payment after a single call was made and Mr. [redacted] agreed that he still owed the remainder of the balance due.
Resolution:
We have written the remainder of the collectable off at this point. We do not feel that we have to reduce this fee because we fulfilled the agreement to provide a plan as requested by the client that was buildable other than the setback issue that the client adamantly stated he had coordinated with the jurisdiction. We hope this resolution is acceptable to the client.
Thanks,
Shawn R[redacted], PE
PERFORMANCE ENGINEERS LLC
1102 N Franklin Blvd, Nampa, ID 83687
Mr [redacted] did bring in a list of requirements from the City of NampaHe agreed to these conditions and gave us a deposit, as he indicatedIt should also be noted that Mr [redacted] was adamant that the city approved of the location of his proposed shop despite being contradicted by the setbacks on the list of requirements (and our own hesitation based on our knowledge of the setback requirements)He said he would provide further information on the site approval (and his building site in general) but no such information was providedWe were very concerned about the location of the project and we made sure Mr [redacted] knew this The “first design”, as he refers to it, was a preliminary floor plan (sent on 9/15/15) that featured roof trusses made of 4xsteel tubing (which is what Mr [redacted] had requested)This preliminary plan was not for construction (“preliminary” is noted on the sheets) and was just to verify the wall placement and type of construction that Mr [redacted] had discussed with usWhile Mr [redacted] had only discussed the steel tube trusses as part of the roof framing, the purlins were necessary to carry the roof diaphragm and roofing material above the trusses (the trusses were spaced at 9’-4” to 12’-0” apart)It should be noted that we are not always privy to information on where to buy construction materials The next set of drawings (sent 9/21/15) did feature an aerial photo of the property with the location of the proposed shopThe property lines were not shown because Mr [redacted] had said more information about the site was forthcoming (including the approval to build the proposed shop within the setbacks)They also featured a 6” thick concrete slab and a 12” thick turned-down slab (turned down 24” for frost depth)The light-gauge steel studs called out were minimums (providing thicker steel or deeper studs would only improve the integrity of the structure)We did not show the electrical panel in this set, however Then, the subsequent sets of drawings (sent 9/22/& 9/23/15) did have a discrepancy between the foundation plan and detail on sheet The detail calls out a 6” thick slab while the plan calls out a 4” thick slab over 4” of compacted gravel fillAnd we still did not show the electrical panel in this set Note the electrical panel is typically coordinated by the contractor We understand Mr [redacted] was acting as the contractor and owner on this project In hind sight, we should not have agreed to show the project within the setbacks of the property lines without talking to the city directlyBut, as noted above, we had explained to Mr [redacted] the importance of maintaining the setbacks many timesIn addition, the foundation was never just ‘inches compacted gravel’ and the stud sizes could have been up-sized on the plan to whatever size Mr [redacted] wanted, based on supply and/or preferenceHowever, we did complete engineering on a structure that was sound and was what Mr [redacted] had originally requested The revised building size mentioned in the complaint was due to the fact that this structure did not fit within the setbacks as Mr [redacted] was adamant that the city would approve We did receive the $payment after a single call was made and Mr [redacted] agreed that he still owed the remainder of the balance due Resolution: We have written the remainder of the collectable off at this point We do not feel that we have to reduce this fee because we fulfilled the agreement to provide a plan as requested by the client that was buildable other than the setback issue that the client adamantly stated he had coordinated with the jurisdiction We hope this resolution is acceptable to the client Thanks, Shawn R***, PE PERFORMANCE ENGINEERS LLC N Franklin Blvd, Nampa, ID
Mr. [redacted] did bring in a list of requirements from the City of Nampa. He agreed to these conditions and gave us a deposit, as he indicated. It should also be noted that Mr. [redacted] was adamant that the city approved of the location of his proposed shop despite being contradicted by the setbacks...
on the list of requirements (and our own hesitation based on our knowledge of the setback requirements). He said he would provide further information on the site approval (and his building site in general) but no such information was provided. We were very concerned about the location of the project and we made sure Mr. [redacted] knew this.
The “first design”, as he refers to it, was a preliminary floor plan (sent on 9/15/15) that featured roof trusses made of 4x4 steel tubing (which is what Mr. [redacted] had requested). This preliminary plan was not for construction (“preliminary” is noted on the sheets) and was just to verify the wall placement and type of construction that Mr. [redacted] had discussed with us. While Mr. [redacted] had only discussed the steel tube trusses as part of the roof framing, the purlins were necessary to carry the roof diaphragm and roofing material above the trusses (the trusses were spaced at 9’-4” to 12’-0” apart). It should be noted that we are not always privy to information on where to buy construction materials.
The next set of drawings (sent 9/21/15) did feature an aerial photo of the property with the location of the proposed shop. The property lines were not shown because Mr. [redacted] had said more information about the site was forthcoming (including the approval to build the proposed shop within the setbacks). They also featured a 6” thick concrete slab and a 12” thick turned-down slab (turned down 24” for frost depth). The light-gauge steel studs called out were minimums (providing thicker steel or deeper studs would only improve the integrity of the structure). We did not show the electrical panel in this set, however.
Then, the subsequent sets of drawings (sent 9/22/15 & 9/23/15) did have a discrepancy between the foundation plan and detail 2 on sheet 1.0. The detail calls out a 6” thick slab while the plan calls out a 4” thick slab over 4” of compacted gravel fill. And we still did not show the electrical panel in this set. Note the electrical panel is typically coordinated by the contractor. We understand Mr. [redacted] was acting as the contractor and owner on this project.
In hind sight, we should not have agreed to show the project within the setbacks of the property lines without talking to the city directly. But, as noted above, we had explained to Mr. [redacted] the importance of maintaining the setbacks many times. In addition, the foundation was never just ‘4 inches compacted gravel’ and the stud sizes could have been up-sized on the plan to whatever size Mr. [redacted] wanted, based on supply and/or preference. However, we did complete engineering on a structure that was sound and was what Mr. [redacted] had originally requested.
The revised building size mentioned in the complaint was due to the fact that this structure did not fit within the setbacks as Mr. [redacted] was adamant that the city would approve. We did receive the $20 payment after a single call was made and Mr. [redacted] agreed that he still owed the remainder of the balance due.
Resolution:
We have written the remainder of the collectable off at this point. We do not feel that we have to reduce this fee because we fulfilled the agreement to provide a plan as requested by the client that was buildable other than the setback issue that the client adamantly stated he had coordinated with the jurisdiction. We hope this resolution is acceptable to the client.
Thanks,
Shawn R[redacted], PE
PERFORMANCE ENGINEERS LLC
1102 N Franklin Blvd, Nampa, ID 83687