| 2015-07-24 12:45:19 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-805-6724 |
| | |
| | COMMENTS FROM PREVIOUS LIST: |
| | |
| | 1. REVISE PLAN TO INCORPORATE CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURAL |
| | DESIGN, FBC 2010 RESIDENTIAL 301. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, NOT ADDRESSED. STRUCTURAL CHANGES WERE MADE |
| | IN INK. INCORPORATE THESE CHANGES INTO A SIGNED AND |
| | SEALED PLAN, FBC 2010 RESIDENTIAL 301, FBC 107. THE |
| | STRUCTURAL CHANGES REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE COLUMNS. |
| | |
| | 2. REVISE PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE "FLORIDA GLASS" ROOF |
| | AND WALLS, FBC 2010 RESIDENTIAL 301, FBC 107. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, NOT ADDRESSED. A LETTER WAS PROVIDED WHICH |
| | STATES THAT THE PRODUCT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR USE AS |
| | INDICATED ON THE PLANS. THE PLANS REFER TO 20X20 |
| | SCREEN. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE FLORIDA GLASS PRODUCT |
| | IS THAT IT IS NOT 20X20 SCREEN; IT IS SCREEN WHICH IS |
| | VINYL LAMINATED. |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 3. THE LETTER FROM THE ARCHITECT STATES TWO THINGS: |
| | |
| | A. FLORIDA GLASS IS A VINYL LAMINATED SCREEN WHICH IS |
| | INSTALLED SO THAT IT WILL BREAK AWAY IN HIGH WINDS, AND |
| | |
| | B. IN THE EVENT OF A STORM WHICH EXCEEDS 75MPH, THE |
| | PANELS WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED. |
| | |
| | THE PLAN DOES NOT DEPICT PANELS. NOTHING ON THE PLAN |
| | INDICATES THAT THE SCREEN IS TO BE REMOVED, OR THAT IT |
| | WILL AUTOMATICALLY BREAK AWAY. |
| | |
| | IS THIS A VINYL REMOVABLE PANEL FBC 2010 RESIDENTIAL |
| | 2002.3.3? IF THIS IS THE CASE, REVISE PLAN TO PROVIDE A |
| | DETAIL FOR THE REMOVABLE PANELS, REVISE PLAN TO INCLUDE |
| | THE SIGNAGE REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | PER ARCHITECT, THE PANELS ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE |
| | REMOVED. PLAN DOES NOT SHOW REMOVABLE PANELS. IT IS NOT |
| | CLEAR WHETHER THIS IS DESIGNED TO BREAK AWAY OR TO BE |
| | REMOVED. ALSO THERE IS A REFERENCE TO A HVHZ CODE |
| | SECTION, BUT PALM BEACH COUNTY IS NOT IN THE HVHZ. |
| | DESIGN AND CODE COMPLIANCE ARE NOT CLEARLY |
| | DEMONSTRATED. |
| | |
| | 4. DUE TO THE ADDITIONAL WEIGHT OF THE FLORIDA GLASS, |
| | AS WELL AS THE USE OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN OPAQUE |
| | PRODUCT ON THE ROOF (IT APPEARS THAT WATER AND WIND |
| | WILL NOT PENETRATE THIS BRAND OF VINYL COATED SCREEN), |
| | PROVIDE CALCULATIONS TO SHOW THAT THE ROOF AND WALL |
| | MEMBERS CAN ACCOMODATE THE LOADS. |
| | |
| | ALSO, TO BE CLEAR AS TO DESIGN INTENT, REVISE GENERAL |
| | NOTES WIND INFORMATION TO INCLUDE ENCLOSURE |
| | CLASSIFICATION (OPEN, PARTIALLY ENCLOSED, OR ENCLOSED). |
| | |
| | 5. IF THIS PRODUCT IS REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED BY THE |
| | HOMEOWNER, PROVIDE A LETTER FROM THE HOMEOWNER WHICH |
| | OUTLINES THE PLAN AS TO HOW THIS WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED. |
| | THIS IS BEING REQUIRED DUE TO THE UNUSUAL INSTALLATION |
| | OF THIS PRODUCT ON THE ROOF (TYPICALLY THIS IS USED ON |
| | THE BOTTOM PORTION OF SCREEN WALLS). |
| | |
| | 6. THE PLAN SPECIFIES 20X20 MESH MAX SCREEN. REVISE |
| | THIS TO SPECIFY THE PRODUCT PROPOSED (FLORIDA GLASS) OR |
| | REVISE THE APPLICATION TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN |
| | (20X20 MAX SCREEN). IF WATER CANNOT PENETRATE THIS |
| | PRODUCT, IT APPEARS THAT IT DOES NOT MEET THE 20X20 |
| | MESH MAX REQUIREMENT WHICH WAS SPECIFIED BY THE |
| | ARCHITECT. |
| | |
| | NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION (OR CONFLICTING INFORMATION |
| | PROVIDED) TO DETERMINE CODE COMPLIANCE. |
| | |
| | 7. SEE FLORIDA STATUTE 553.80(2)(C): |
| | |
| | (B) WITH RESPECT TO EVALUATION OF DESIGN PROFESSIONALS' |
| | DOCUMENTS, IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINDS IT NECESSARY, IN |
| | ORDER TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | CODE AND ISSUE A PERMIT, TO REJECT DESIGN DOCUMENTS |
| | REQUIRED BY THE CODE THREE OR MORE TIMES FOR FAILURE TO |
| | CORRECT A CODE VIOLATION SPECIFICALLY AND CONTINUOUSLY |
| | NOTED IN EACH REJECTION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, |
| | EGRESS, FIRE PROTECTION, STRUCTURAL STABILITY, ENERGY, |
| | ACCESSIBILITY, LIGHTING, VENTILATION, ELECTRICAL, |
| | MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND GAS SYSTEMS, OR OTHER |
| | REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED BY RULE OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | COMMISSION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 120, THE LOCAL |
| | GOVERNMENT SHALL IMPOSE, EACH TIME AFTER THE THIRD SUCH |
| | REVIEW THE PLANS ARE REJECTED FOR THAT CODE VIOLATION, |
| | A FEE OF FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPORTION OF THE |
| | PERMIT FEE ATTRIBUTED TO PLANS REVIEW. |
| | |
| | 8. WHEN RESUBMITTING, CONTRACTOR NAME SHOULD BE THE |
| | COMPANY NAME. DOCUMENTS ARE FILED BY THE LEGAL COMPANY |
| | NAME WHO IS THE APPLICANT. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT |
| | IN PLANS BEING MISFILED. I HAVE REVISED YOUR RECENT |
| | RESUBMITTAL FORM TO HAVE "G&D SCREEN" AS CONTRACTOR. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
