HomePlan

Phase 3 · Permits and approvals · Step 3.4

Respond to PP&D correction letters (1-3 cycles typical)

Your designer turns PP&D's review comments into revised drawings and a response letter. Each cycle is 4-8 weeks. Most additions clear in 1-3 cycles; HD/CD or e-zone projects can run longer.

Who
Designer, Architect, PP&D
How long
4-8 weeks per cycle, 1-3 cycles typical
Cost
Included in design fee; PP&D hourly rates apply if review goes long
You end up with
Issued building permit

What a correction letter looks like

After first review, PP&D sends a single correction letter consolidating comments from each reviewing discipline:

  • Zoning — height, setbacks, coverage, allowed floor area, departures.
  • Structural — engineer's calc clarifications, load path, foundation retrofit details.
  • Energy — alteration compliance, air-barrier transition, equipment sizing, ventilation.
  • BES — sanitary sewer and stormwater impact statement.
  • PWB — water service capacity if scope touches it.
  • Tree — preservation plan revisions.
  • Historic (if applicable) — material profiles, window detailing, massing compatibility.

Each comment needs a written response and (usually) a drawing revision.

How long this takes

  • First review: 6–10 weeks after intake.
  • Each correction round: 4–8 weeks (your turnaround + PP&D re-review).
  • Total cycles: 1–3 is typical for an addition with an experienced design team. HD/CD overlays and e-zone reviews are common reasons to go to a second or third round.

How to keep this short

  1. Use a designer with recent PP&D addition permits. Their previous correction letters tell them what current PP&D reviewers ask for.
  2. Turn corrections around fast. PP&D's clock is on them; yours is on you. Two-week turnarounds keep the project moving.
  3. Address every comment, even minor ones. Skipping a comment guarantees it comes back next round.
  4. Resolve substantial-alteration questions in round one. If your scope is near the threshold where existing portions of the house must be brought to current ORSC seismic or energy code, get the designer to state the conclusion explicitly with calculations. Leaving this ambiguous reliably adds a cycle.

When this ends

When the correction letter comes back with no comments, PP&D issues the building permit. You pay the remaining permit fees plus any sub-permit fees still outstanding, and the permit is "issued" — the GC can mobilize.

Go deeper

Optional reading. Skip if you only need the headline.

›How to structure a correction response so the next cycle is shorterThe response-letter format Portland designers use to close corrections in one round instead of three.

The response letter format

When the reviewer re-opens your project, they read the correction letter and then look for the response. If the response is scattered across email threads or buried in sheet notes, the reviewer re-issues the comment. The file should contain a single correction response letter that mirrors the structure of the PP&D comment letter exactly.

For each numbered comment, include three things in order:

  1. The original comment, verbatim. Don't paraphrase — reviewers look for their own wording first.
  2. The response. One of four stock framings:
    • "Revised — see sheet A2.1, detail 4, revision cloud 3." (Most comments.)
    • "Acknowledged — the condition does not apply because [narrow, specific reason]." (Use sparingly; every one of these is a fight you're choosing.)
    • "Clarification added — see general note on A0.0." (For anything a reviewer flagged as "ambiguous.")
    • "See attached calc / memo from [engineer], dated [date]." (For structural or energy comments that need a discipline response.)
  3. A direct pointer to where the change lives: sheet number, detail number, revision cloud number. Never "see revised drawings" — always the exact location.

Revision clouds and deltas

Every drawing change goes inside a revision cloud, with a delta triangle pointing to the revision number in the title block. The title block revision log should match the response letter's revision number. Reviewers scan for that match first; if the delta doesn't match the response, the comment reopens.

What experienced designers do differently on Portland additions

  • They settle the substantial-alteration question in round one. If the project is near the ORSC threshold where existing portions must be brought to current code, the first submittal should explicitly state the calculated alteration value as a percentage of building replacement cost, and the conclusion. Leaving this ambiguous reliably adds a cycle.
  • They front-load existing-conditions documentation. Reviewers ask for verification of existing wall types, existing foundation, existing electrical service, existing window U-factors. A first submittal with photos and an inspection narrative for each major existing condition heads off a cycle of "please verify."
  • They coordinate with BES early. Stormwater requirements for additions can be invisible in the architectural set but trigger a comment from BES every time. Better to have a one-paragraph stormwater note in the first submittal than to chase it across two correction rounds.
  • They pick their fights. One or two pushback comments in the response letter is normal. Five is adversarial and usually costs a cycle.

What to hand the reviewer on resubmittal

  • Revised drawings (full set), with revision clouds and the revision log updated.
  • The correction response letter (PDF).
  • Any new supporting calcs, memos, or product data as separate PDFs (referenced from the response letter by filename).
  • A cover note confirming no scope changes outside the correction comments — reviewers re-scope if they find changes they didn't ask for.

Where this information came from

← Back to project map