| 2015-09-12 11:39:04 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-805-6724 |
| | |
| | COMMENTS FROM PREVIOUS LIST: |
| | |
| | 1. SEE FBC 107.3.5 FOR MINIMUM PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA. |
| | PLANS ARE TO BE ARCHITECTURAL QUALITY, TO SCALE, |
| | CLEARLY SHOWING SCOPE OF WORK AND LOCATION OF ALL |
| | IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING WINDOW SIZES. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW; GOOD QUALITY PLANS PREPARED BY AN ARCHITECT |
| | WERE SUBMITTED. SEE BELOW FOR NEW COMMENTS ON THE NEW |
| | PLAN PROVIDED (1ST REVIEW FOR ARCHITECT'S PLAN). |
| | |
| | 2. PROVIDE STRUCTURAL DETAILS FOR FRAMING AND STUCCO. |
| | FBC 107 |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW; SEE NEW COMMENTS BELOW. |
| | |
| | 3. FLORIDA STATE OR LOCAL PRODUCT APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR |
| | COMPONENTS AND CLADDING, FAC9N-3. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW; NOT ADDRESSED. PRODUCT APPROVALS ARE TO BE |
| | REVIEWED BY DESIGNER OF RECORD PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL, FBC |
| | 107. |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENTS (FIRST REVIEW FOR PLAN DATED 7/8/15 |
| | PREPARED BY ERIC TREBBIEN, TREB ARC, INC): |
| | |
| | 4. SEE FS481, A BUSINESS LICENSE FROM THE FLORIDA BOARD |
| | OF ARCHITECTS IS REQUIRED TO PRACTICE ARCHITECTURE |
| | THROUGH A COMPANY (TREB ARC, INC) AND THAT BUSINESS |
| | NUMBER IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TITLE BLOCK. YOU CAN |
| | SEE THE STATUTE AND RULE ONLINE: |
| | |
| | HTTPS://WWW.FLRULES.ORG/GATEWAY/CHAPTERHOME.ASP?CHAPTER |
| | =61G1-16 |
| | |
| | PROVIDE LICENSE NUMBER ON ANY SHEETS WHICH ARE REVISED |
| | AS A RESULT OF THIS COMMENT LIST. IF THE COMPANY DOES |
| | NOT HAVE A LICENSE NUMBER, PLEASE APPLY IMMEDIATELY. |
| | PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED WITH PROVISO (PROVIDE LICENSE |
| | NUMBER WHEN ISSUED BY FLORIDA BOARD OF ARCHITECTS). |
| | |
| | 5. THE FIRST APPLICATION FOR THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED |
| | ON 3/17/15, SO FBC 2010 SHOULD BE GOVERNING CODE. A |
| | CHANGE OF CONTRACTOR WAS SUBMITTED ON 7/16/15, AND |
| | PLANS REFER TO FBC 5TH EDITION (FBC 2014). UPON WRITTEN |
| | REQUEST, APPLICANT (ARCHITECT OR CONTRACTOR) CAN, IN |
| | WRITING, REQUEST THAT THE FIRST APPLICATION BE REVOKED |
| | AND THE SECOND APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON 7/16/15 WILL BE |
| | CONSIDERED THE FIRST APPLICATION SO GOVERNING CODE WILL |
| | BE FBC 5TH EDITION. THE APPLICATION DATE WILL BE |
| | CHANGED IN THE SOFTWARE SYSTEM, A NOTE ADDED TO EXPLAIN |
| | THE PERMIT NUMBER / CODE VERSION DISCREPANCY. |
| | |
| | OR, APPLICANT CAN ELECT TO KEEP THE APPLICATION DATE OF |
| | 3/17/15, AND REVISE ALL PLANS TO CORRECT GOVERNING CODE |
| | (WITH APPLICATION DATE OF 3/17/15 THIS SHOULD BE FBC |
| | 2010). |
| | |
| | AS ARCHITECT USED FBC 5TH EDITION FOR DESIGN, ALL |
| | COMMENTS REFER TO FBC 5TH EDITION. |
| | |
| | 6. PLANS ARE TO INCLUDE ALL ITEMS INSTALLED WITHOUT |
| | PERMIT. PLANS STATE THAT EXISTING ELECTRICAL TO REMAIN, |
| | NEW METER ONLY. I WAS UNABLE TO LOCATE AN ELECTRICAL |
| | PERMIT FOR THIS PROPERTY, SO ANY ELECTRICAL WORK DONE |
| | AFTER THE FIRST CONSTRUCTION OF THE STRUCTURES MAY HAVE |
| | BEEN DONE WITHOUT PERMITS. PLANS STATE THAT NO |
| | MECHANICAL WORK IS PROPOSED AND SHALL REMAIN, BUT THE |
| | VIOLATION INCLUDED MECHANICAL AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO |
| | FIND RECORD OF ANY MECHANICAL PERMITS. |
| | |
| | IT IS SUGGESTED THAT A RECORDS RESEARCH REQUEST BE |
| | SUBMITTED ([email protected], [email protected]) TO |
| | ASSIST DESIGNER IN DETERMINING WHAT ITEMS SHOULD BE |
| | INCLUDED IN THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | IF THIS PROPERTY IS CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC, AN EMAIL |
| | FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER WILL BE PUT ON |
| | FILE WITH THIS PERMIT FOR CONFIRMATION (SEE FBC 5TH |
| | EDITION ENERGY CONSERVATION 101.4.2). IF THE STRUCTURES |
| | ARE NOT HISTORIC, AND APPLICANT IS UNABLE TO LOCATE A |
| | PERMIT FOR MECHANICAL INSTALLATION, ENERGY CALCS WILL |
| | BE REQUIRED, FBC 5TH EDITION EXISTING BUILDING 707, |
| | ENERGY CONSERVATION 101.5.1. |
| | |
| | 7. CS1 DESIGN LOAD SCHEDULE, CLARIFY IMPORTANCE FACTOR |
| | 1.21, BUILDING CATEGORY II, NOT CLEAR WHERE 1.21 FACTOR |
| | WAS USED IN CALCULATIONS AND DESIGN. |
| | |
| | 8. SEE PREVIOUS LIST, FLORIDA STATE OR LOCAL PRODUCT |
| | APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR ALL COMPONENTS AND CLADDING, |
| | FAC9N-3, FBC RESIDENTIAL 301. PRODUCT APPROVALS TO BE |
| | REVIEWED BY DESIGNER OF RECORD PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL, FBC |
| | 107. |
| | |
| | 9. SCOPE OF WORK NOT CLEAR. PLANS PROVIDE A SPEC FOR A |
| | ROOF; WAS ROOFING WORK DONE, OR IS ROOFING WORK |
| | PROPOSED? IF ROOFING WORK WAS DONE WITHOUT PERMIT, |
| | INCLUDE THE PRODUCT APPROVAL. A ROOFING PERMIT |
| | APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY A LICENSED ROOFING CONTRACTOR |
| | WILL BE REQUIRED. PLAN SHOULD BE REVISED TO SHOW SCOPE |
| | OF ROOF REPAIR WORK (CANNOT EXCEED 25%). |
| | |
| | IF A NEW ROOF HAS NOT BEEN INSTALLED BUT WILL BE |
| | PROPOSED, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE ROOF SPEC BE REMOVED |
| | FROM THE PLAN AND INDICATE THAT A REROOF WILL BE UNDER |
| | SEPARATE PERMIT. |
| | |
| | 10. PLANS STATE THAT REPAIRS WILL BE DONE "AS NEEDED." |
| | PLANS TO SHOW SCOPE, FBC 107. INDICATE AREAS OF |
| | PROPOSED REPAIR, APPROXIMATE SCOPE. IT IS NOT CLEAR |
| | WHETHER THE ENTIRE OUTSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE IS TO BE |
| | REPAIRED, OR SO MANY AREAS THAT IT IS TOO DIFFICULT TO |
| | INDICATE ALL AREAS, OR IF REPAIR AREA IS LIMITED TO |
| | SMALL AREAS. |
| | |
| | 11. FBC 5TH EDITION EXISTING BUILDING, 702.4, 707.2, |
| | ALL NEW ELEMENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE FBC. DETAIL 01 A3, |
| | BOND BREAK REQUIRED FOR STUCCO, FBC 5TH ED RESIDENTIAL |
| | 703.6.3. ONLY ONE LAYER SHOWN, TWO REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 12. DETAIL 5 A3 DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY STRUCTURAL |
| | INFORMATION AT ALL (MATERIALS, DIMENSIONS, FASTENERS, |
| | ETC). A1 NOTES SPEC "SIMPSON TIES AS SPECIFIED ON |
| | PLAN." NOTHING IS SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN. OTHER DETAILS |
| | ARE NOT SPECIFIC AS TO REQUIREMENTS; FOR INSTANCE, |
| | DETAIL 1 A3 STATES "EXIST SOLE PLATE ANCHORED TO EXIST. |
| | FOOTING AS REQUIRED." THIS IS A REPAIR DETAIL; IS THIS |
| | ITEM (SOLE PLATE) EXISTING OR IS THIS BEING REPAIRED? |
| | REVISE ALL DETAILS TO BE CLEAR AS TO WHAT IS EXISTING |
| | TO REMAIN, WHAT IS A SPECIFICATION FOR REPAIR, AND |
| | FASTENING IS TO BE SPECIFIED. THE PHRASE "AS REQUIRED" |
| | IS NOT CLEAR - AS REQUIRED BY WHO? YOU, CONTRACTOR, |
| | OWNER, INSPECTOR? IS THE PLATE EXISTING AND ADDITIONAL |
| | FASTENERS PROPOSED? WHAT FASTENERS? SEE FBC 107; PLANS |
| | TO SHOW SCOPE AND NATURE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THIS |
| | IS ONE EXAMPLE. REVISE ALL AS APPLICABLE. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
