| Date |
Text |
| 2011-02-01 10:33:00 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL, BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | 561-805-6724 [email protected] |
| | FBC FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2007 |
| | FBC R FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2007 RESIDENTIAL |
| | |
| | COMMENTS FROM PREVIOUS LIST: |
| | |
| | 1. AS AN ARCHITECT SIGNED AND SEALED THE STRUCTURAL |
| | REPAIR, PLEASE SHOW HOW THIS IS INCIDENTAL TO HIS |
| | PRACTICE OF ARCHITECTURE, FS481. |
| | |
| | PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME AT YOUR CONVENIENCE IF |
| | YOU NEED ASSISTANCE OR CLARIFICATION. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, LETTER FROM ARCHITECT DATED 12/3/10 IS |
| | ACKNOWLEDGED (INCLUDES PHOTOCOPIED EXISTING BUILDING |
| | CODE 506.2.2.1 WITH LANGUAGE REGARDING DESIGN |
| | PROFESSIONAL HIGHLIGHTED). PLEASE NOTE THAT THE |
| | BUILDLING CODE IS BASED ON THE ICC CODE, A NATIONAL |
| | BASE STANDARD. LAWS & RULES GOVERNING DESIGN |
| | PROFESSIONALS WILL BE SPECIFIC TO EACH STATE, AND THE |
| | BASE CODE DOES NOT EXEMPT STATUTORY REQUREMENTS FOR |
| | LICENSING. ARCHITECT'S LETTER STATES THE EVALUATION WAS |
| | PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FS 471.03. SEE FLORIDA |
| | STATUTE 471.003(3). THIS FLORIDA STATUTE STATES: |
| | |
| | (3) NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER OR |
| | OF ANY OTHER LAW, NO LICENSED ENGINEER WHOSE PRINCIPAL |
| | PRACTICE IS CIVIL OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, OR |
| | EMPLOYEE OR SUBORDINATE UNDER THE RESPONSIBLE |
| | SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OF THE ENGINEER, IS PRECLUDED |
| | FROM PERFORMING ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES WHICH ARE PURELY |
| | INCIDENTAL TO HER OR HIS ENGINEERING PRACTICE, NOR IS |
| | ANY LICENSED ARCHITECT, OR EMPLOYEE OR SUBORDINATE |
| | UNDER THE RESPONSIBLE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OF THE |
| | ARCHITECT, PRECLUDED FROM PERFORMING ENGINEERING |
| | SERVICES WHICH ARE PURELY INCIDENTAL TO HER OR HIS |
| | ARCHITECTURAL |
| | PRACTICE. |
| | |
| | SEE FIRST REVIEW, PLEASE ADVISE AS TO WORK PERFORMED |
| | WHICH MAKES THE TRUSS REPAIR DETAIL INCIDENTAL TO THE |
| | PRACTICE OF ARCHITECTURE FOR THIS PROJECT. BASED ON THE |
| | DOCUMENTS PROVIDED, ONLY A STRUCTURAL REPAIR IN THE |
| | ATTIC SPACE IS INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE. |
| | |
| | ALSO PLEASE SEE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH AMENDMENTS TO |
| | THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 1: |
| | |
| | 102.1, WHERE, IN ANY SPECIFIC CASE, DIFFERENT SECTIONS |
| | OF THIS CODE SPECIFY DIFFERENT MATERIALS, METHODS OF |
| | CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS, THE MOST |
| | RESTRICTIVE SHALL GOVERN. WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT |
| | BETWEEN A GENERAL REQUIREMENT AND A SPECIFIC |
| | REQUIREMENT, THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT SHALL BE |
| | APPLICABLE. |
| | |
| | 2. PROVIDE A PLAN WHICH SHOWS LOCATION OF PROPOSED |
| | REPAIRS RELATIVE TO THE STRUCTURE. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, PLEASE ADDRESS. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHERE THE |
| | BROKEN TRUSS IS LOCATED AND WHETHER THE BROKEN TRUSS |
| | AFFECTS OTHER CODE REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS THE TENANT |
| | SEPARATION (FIRE RATED WALL). |
| | |
| | 3. THE LETTER (ROOF TRUSS REPAIR) QUOTES SECTION 506 OF |
| | THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE, WHICH MAKES REFERENCE TO |
| | STRUCTURAL AND NON STRUCTURAL REPAIRS, DANGEROUS |
| | CONDITIONS, SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT, ETC. IT IS NOT |
| | CLEAR WHY THE ENTIRE CODE SECTION WAS QUOTED AS THEY |
| | CANNOT ALL APPLY TO THIS JOB. PLEASE CLARIFY CODE |
| | INTENT. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, A LETTER INCLUDING FBC EXISTING BUILDING |
| | 506.2.2 WAS INCLUDED. EVAULATION AND DESIGN INTENT NOT |
| | CLEAR. SECOND LETTER INCLUDES CODE REFERENCES BUT NO |
| | LANGUAGE IN THE LETTER REGARDING THIS STRUCTURE. THE |
| | LETTER INCLUDES 502.2.2, EXTENT OF REPAIR FOR COMPLIANT |
| | BUILDINGS, AND ALSO 502.2.3, EXTENT OF REPAIR FOR |
| | NONCOMPLIANT BUILDINGS. IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW BOTH APPLY |
| | TO THIS JOB. |
| | |
| | 4. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER OR NOT THE GABLE BRACING |
| | DETAIL WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO RESIST WIND LOADS FBC1609. |
| | THE DETAIL PROVIDED DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE SUFFICIENT AS |
| | IT DOES NOT HAVE ALL COMPONENTS WHICH ARE STANDARD FOR |
| | GABLE RETROFIT. SOME EXAMPLES: SOME COMPONENTS ARE |
| | SHOWN GRAPHICALLY BUT NOT IDENTIFIED, SUCH AS THE |
| | RECTANGLE WHICH SECURES THE DIAGONAL BRACE. LANGUAGE |
| | STATES IT IS "SECURED W/RATED BRACKET" BUT DOES NOT |
| | SPECIFY A CONNECTOR. BRACING AT THE TOP OF THE GABLE IS |
| | NOT SHOWN, BUT IS TYPICAL IN GABLE END REINFORCING AND |
| | RETROFIT. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, DESIGN INTENT NOT CLEAR. PLEASE ADDRESS |
| | COMMENT BY REVISING DETAIL AND PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION |
| | (CALCULATIONS, ETC.). TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH WIND |
| | DESIGN CRITERIA. IF DESIGN INTENT IS TO DESIGN REPAIR |
| | TO WIND DESIGN CRITERIA WHEN THE BUILDING WAS BUILT, |
| | DESIGN CRITERIA IS TO BE STATED AND DEMONSTRATED. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL BRACING APPEARS TO BE NEW, NOT A REPAIR. SEE |
| | FBC EXISTING BUILDING 502.2.3 IN THE LETTER PROVIDED: |
| | |
| | NEW STRUCTURAL MEMBERS AND CONNECTIONS REQUIRED BY THIS |
| | REHABILITATION DESIGN SHALL COMPLY WITH THE DETAILING |
| | PROVISIONS OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, BUILDING FOR |
| | NEW BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR STRUCTURE, PURPOSE AND |
| | LOCATION. |
| | |
| | PLEASE CLARIFY DESIGN INTENT, STATE DESIGN CRITERIA, |
| | AND DEMONSTRATE THAT PROPOSED BRACING COMPLIES WITH |
| | MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 5. DESIGNER IS TO STATE WIND DESIGN CRITERIA. REPAIR IS |
| | TO COMPLY WITH THE WIND DESIGN CRITERIA. |
| | |
| | NOT ADDRESSED. PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| | |
| | 6. PLEASE INCLUDE GABLE HEIGHT ON THE PLAN, FBC1609. |
| | 2ND REVIEW, NOT ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
