| Date |
Text |
| 2007-03-01 17:30:09 | BUILDING REVIEW FOURTH CHECKLIST: |
| | 1- ENGINEER NEEDS TO COORDINATE ALL DRAWINGS, DETAILS, |
| | CALCULATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS. DRAWINGS ARE |
| | CONFUSING. |
| | *DETAILS DON'T MATCH. |
| | **THERE ARE DIFFERENT DESIGN PRESSURES SHOWN ON |
| | DRAWINGS 1 AND 6 AND ON SEPARATE DESIGN PRESSURES |
| | CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED. |
| | ***HURRICANE SHUTTERS NOTES DON'T MATCH INSTALLATION |
| | SCHEDULE INFORMATION.SHUTTERS INSTALLATION SPECS ARE |
| | NOT REQUIRED TO BE PART OF THE DRAWINGS. THIS |
| | INFORMATION IS PROVIDED IN THE SHUTTERS INSTALLATION |
| | SCHEDULE AND PRODUCT APPROVAL. |
| | ****SECTION 2/A1: HOW ISTHE 16" FOOTER 12" BELOW |
| | GRADE IF SECTION SHOWS 6" ABOVE GRADE?. |
| | *****FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS ARE CONSFUSING AND NOT |
| | MATCHING.FLOOR PLAN ON DRAWING #2 CALLS FOR STEP NO |
| | REQUIRED AT NEW MASTER BEDROOM, WHILE SHOWING A 7" |
| | STEP. ALSO, SEE FINISHED FLOR ELEVATION SHOWN ON PLANS |
| | AND ON SURVEY. |
| | ******SECTION 2/A7 CALLS FOR CONNECTOR HTSM20 TO |
| | SUPPORT 2X12 JOIST TO EXISTING WALL.PROVIDE COMPLETE |
| | DETAIL SHOWING INSTALLATION. THIS DETAIL DOESN'T WORK. |
| | |
| | *******HOW IS R30 INSULATION INSTALLED ON 2X12 JOIST |
| | TO ALLOW CROSS VENTILATION?. |
| | ********NOTES FOR FLAT ROOF NAIL ENHANCING MAKE NO |
| | SENSE.ROOF ZONES WERE INVERTED.ZONE 1 SPECIFIES |
| | MORE NAILS THAN ZONE 3 AND INFORMATION SHALL BE THE |
| | OTHER WAY AROUND. AND, NUMBER OF ROWS IS NOT CLEAR. |
| | *********ACCORDING TO THE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS, THERE A |
| | SOME WINDOWS THAT NEED TO BE SPECIFIED WITH SAFETY |
| | GLASS AS REQUIRED BY SEC. R308.4 2004 FLORIDA |
| | RESIDENTAIL CODE. SEE MASTER BEDRO**OM WINDOW, FAMILY |
| | ROOM WINDOW, EXISTING BEDROOM WINDOW AND FAMILY ROOM |
| | WINDOW. |
| | ********SECTION 2/A1 DOESN'T MATCH FOUNDATION PLAN. |
| | ***********FLOOR PLAN CALLS FOR SINGLE HUNG WINDOW AT |
| | KITCHEN AREA, WHILE WINDOW SCHEDULE CALLS FOR FIXED |
| | WINDOW.NEED MATCHING INFORMATION. |
| | |
| | THESE ARE JUST A FEW ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE COORDINATED |
| | AND REVISED. ENGINEER TO REVIEW COMPLETE SET OF PLANS |
| | AND COORDINATE ACCORDINGLY.THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME |
| | PLANS ARE DENIED.ONE COPY OF PLANS WILL BE RETAINED |
| | IN THIS OFFICE TO BE SEND TO THE FLORIDA BOARD OF |
| | PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS FORREVIEW. |
| | |
| | 2- PROVIDE ENERGY CALCULATIONS AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER |
| | 13 FBC 2004. |
| | |
| | 3- NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT HAS NO DESCRIPTION FOR |
| | GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT. COMPLETE |
| | INFORMATION AND RE-RECORD THE NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. |
| | |
| | 4- STORM SHUTTERS: |
| | *NO CLEAR WHAT TYPE OF ANCHOR WILL BE USED. SEE STORM |
| | SHUTTERS DRAWINGS AND CLEARLY IDENTIFY SPECIFIC |
| | ANCHOR. |
| | **OPENIG SIZE DOESN'T MATCH PLANS. |
| | ***DESIGN PRESSURES DON'T MATCH PLANS. |
| | ****SHUTTER SPAN IS WRONG. IT CAN'T BE THE SAME SIZE OF |
| | THE OPENING. ALSO, THEEDGE DISTANCENEED TO BE |
| | CONSIDERED. CLARIFY WHY USING 5" AS EDGE DISTANCE. |
| | *****ENGINEER TO REVIEW AND APPROVE IN WRITING STORM |
| | SHUTTERS PRODUCT APPROVAL, NOT SIGNING AND SEALING. |
| | |
| | 5- ENGINEER TO REVIEW AND APPROVE IN WRITTING (NOT |
| | SIGNING AND SEALING) ALL PRODUCT APPROVALS AS REQUIRED |
| | BY SEC. 106.3.3 CITY AMENDMENTS TO FBC 2004. SOME OF |
| | THE PRODUCT APPROVALS SAY REVIEWED, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY |
| | WHO REVIEWED AND APPROVE IT. NEED TO BE CLEAR WHO |
| | REVIEWED AND APPROVED THEM. |
| | |
| | 6- ENGINEER SEPARATE CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED: |
| | *ALL THESE CALCULATIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED. ONLY THING |
| | THAT WAS REQUIRED WAS THE RAS 117 CALCULATIONS FOR FLAT |
| | ROOF NAIL ENHANCING AT PERIMETER AND CORNER AREAS. REST |
| | OF CALCULATIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED. BESIDES, SOME |
| | CALCULATIONS DON'T MATCH INFORMATION SUBMITTED ON |
| | PLANS. |
| | **WHY USING 20SF AS TRIBUTARY AREA? |
| | ***FIRST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 4 OF SUBMITTED CALCULATIONS |
| | STATES THAT GENERAL LIMITATION #7 ONLY APPLIES TO ZONE |
| | 3. THIS IS WRONG. GENERAL LIMITATION #7 APPPLIES AT ALL |
| | TIMES WHEN THE DESIGN PRESSURES OF SELECTED FLAT ROOF |
| | SYSTEM IS LOWER THAN DESIGN PRESSURES REQUIRED TO BE |
| | RESISTED AT ALL ROOF AREAS. IN THIS CASE NEED TO |
| | PROVIDE NAIL ENHANCING FOR ZONE 2 AND ZONE 3. REVISE AS |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | ****ALSO, ON PAGE 4 OF SUBMITTED CALCULATIONS IS NOT |
| | CLEAR HOW MANY ROWS ARE REQUIRED.CLEARLY IDENTIFY |
| | SPACING AT THE LAP AND HOW MANY ADDITIONAL ROWS ARE |
| | REQUIRED. SEE PAGE 28 OF NOA 03-0501.02 SUBMITTED FOR |
| | PROPER WAY OF SPECIFYING FASTENER SPACING AND ROWS |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 7- PROVIDE PRODUCT APPROVAL AS REQUIRED BY DCA RULE |
| | 9B-72 FOR: |
| | *FIXED WINDOWS. SEE PLANS. |
| | **SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS.PRODUCT APPROVAL SUBMITTED WAS |
| | SUPERSEDED BY DADE COUNTY PRODUCT APPROVAL DIVISION. |
| | SEE ATTACHED COPY OF CURRENT NOA. ENGINEER TO REVIEW |
| | AND APPROVE THIS NEW NOA. |
| | |
| | 8-ENGINEER TO PAY PLAN REVIEW FEES AS REQUIRED BY SEC. |
| | 553.80(2)(B) FLORIDA STATUTE. SEE ATTACHED COPY. |
| | |
| | JULIO GOMEZ |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | (561)805-6712 |
