| Date |
Text |
| 2014-01-08 15:08:40 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-805-6724 |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW |
| | |
| | 1. INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN APPLICATION, ELEVATION |
| | CERTIFICATE AND PLAN WERE EXPLAINED IN AN EMAIL. HAVE |
| | ENGINEER REVISE PLAN OR HAVE SURVEYOR PROVIDE |
| | EXPLANATION ON ELEVATION CERTIFICATE TO CORRELATE. |
| | |
| | 3. FROM PREVIOUS LIST, COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED: |
| | |
| | ON THE PLAN, INDICATE METHOD OF COMPLIANCE FOR THIS |
| | EXISTING BUILDING, SEE FBC 2010 EXISTING BUILDING |
| | 101.5. NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO |
| | DETERMINE CODE COMPLIANCE OR TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE |
| | CHECKLIST. |
| | |
| | TODD SCHERR?S RESPONSE EMAIL WAS: ?105.1, NOT |
| | 101.5????? AND THEN EXPLAINS THAT THIS DOES NOT AFFECT |
| | OR ALTER CERTAIN ELEMENTS AND QUOTES FBC 105 REGARDING |
| | WHEN A PERMIT IS REQUIRED. THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS NOT |
| | CLEAR. |
| | |
| | PLEASE READ COMMENT MORE CAREFULLY: ***FBC 2010 |
| | EXISTING BUILDING 101.5*** HAVE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL |
| | ADDRESS THIS COMMENT. A COMPLETE PLAN REVIEW WITH |
| | CORRECT CODE REFERENCES CANNOT BE DONE UNLESS A METHOD |
| | OF COMPLIANCE IS SELECTED. |
| | |
| | 4. REGARDING COMMENT FROM PREVIOUS LIST REGARDING WIND |
| | DESIGN CRITERIA AND FLOOD DESIGN CRITERIA. FBC 1603.1.4 |
| | WAS ADDRESSED BY ENGINEER, BUT OTHER INFORMATION FBC |
| | 1603.1.7 AND 1612.5 WERE NOT ADDRESSED. EMAIL FROM TODD |
| | SCHERR STATES THAT 1603.1.7, 1612.5 ARE NOT APPLICABLE. |
| | DID THE ENGINEER SEE THE FIRST CORRECTION LIST? IS TODD |
| | SCHERER STATING THIS ON BEHALF OF THE ENGINEER? IF THE |
| | ENGINEER FEELS THIS DOES NOT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, |
| | PLEASE HAVE HIM CONTACT ME PRIOR TO RESUBMITTAL. |
| | OTHERWISE, INCORPORATE THE INFORMATION INTO THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 5. PLAN STATES THAT ALL WALLS ARE FIRE RATED. |
| | |
| | SEE OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING THE USE OF A MECHANICAL |
| | DUCT FIRE DAMPER IN A FLOOD VENT AND THE ISSUE OF THE |
| | OPERATION OF THE FLOOD VENT WITH A DAMPER INSTALLED. |
| | NOTE THAT A VENT IS A PROTECTED (INTERIOR) |
| | INSTALLATION, WHERE IN THIS CASE AN EXTERIOR |
| | INSTALLATION IS PROPOSED. THE FIRE DAMPER IS UL LISTED |
| | FOR A SPECIFIC USE. THESE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN |
| | ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | FIRE DAMPERS DO NOT RESTRICT THE PASSAGE OF SMOKE. SEE |
| | FIRE COMMENTS; PROPOSED DESIGN WOULD ALLOW SMOKE TO |
| | PENETRATE THE RATED ELEVATOR SHAFT. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE LETTER STATES THAT VENTS IN THE STAIRWELL AND |
| | ELEVATOR SHAFTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED. ENGINEER?S PLAN |
| | STILL SHOWS VENTS IN THE ELEVATOR SHAFTS. SEE FBC 708 |
| | REGARDING SHAFT ENCLOSURES. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHICH ITEMS |
| | ARE APPLICABLE DUE TO INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION. |
| | |
| | 6. VALUE IS TOO LOW. VALUE IS TO INCLUDE ENGINEERING, |
| | MATERIALS, LABOR, OVERHEAD, AND PROFIT, SEE FBC 109. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE STATES THAT THIS IS NOT INCREASING THE VALUE |
| | OF THE BUILDING. SEE FBC 109, THE VALUE REFERENCED IN |
| | THE COMMENT IS TO BE THE VALUE OF THE PROJECT. |
| | |
| | 7. AS A REVISED ELEVATION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT PROVIDED, |
| | COMMENTS REGARDING EC STILL APPLY: |
| | |
| | SEE ELEVATION CERTIFICATE INSTRUCTIONS, ITEM A5, IF |
| | LAT/LONG COORDINATES ARE PROVIDED BY A SURVEYOR, |
| | INDICATE THE METHOD USED TO DETERMINE THE |
| | LATITUDE/LONGITUDE IN THE COMMENTS AREA OF SECTION D, |
| | PLEASE REVISE. |
| | |
| | |
| | 8. SEE ELEVATION CERTIFICATE, ITEM A8 (C). PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE CALCULATIONS AS TO HOW IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED |
| | THAT THERE ARE 4200 SQUARE INCHES OF NET AREA. THE |
| | LOCATION PLAN SHOWS FIVE DOUBLE VENTS, 152 SI EACH, AND |
| | ELEVEN SINGLE VENTS, 76 SI EACH. |
| | |
| | ALSO PROVIDE INFORMATION AS TO THE CALCULATIONS FOR |
| | EACH AREA WERE DETERMINED. FOR INSTANCE, MAINTENANCE & |
| | BUILDING STORAGE IS SHOWN AS 800 SF/1000 WITH TWO |
| | DOUBLE VENTS. |
| | |
| | 9. PHOTOS PROVIDED APPEAR TO SHOW NEW DRYWALL (CORNER |
| | BEAAD VISIBLE IN MORE THAN ONE LOCATION). IT APPEARS |
| | THAT MORE WORK MAY HAVE BEEN PERFORMED OTHER THAN THE |
| | INSTALLATION OF THE FLOOD VENTS. IF THIS IS THE CASE, |
| | INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE STATES THAT OTHER PERMITS EXIST ON SITE. |
| | PROVIDE THE PERMIT NUMBER FOR THIS WORK. |
| | |
| | 10. SEE OTHER COMMENTS. LIFE SAFETY ASPECT OF THIS |
| | INSTALLATION TO BE EVALUATED. FIRE RATED WALLS TO BE |
| | SHOWN ON PLAN. THE PREVIOUS COMMENT PARTIALLY RESOLVED |
| | BY REMOVING EXIT STAIR VENTS, BUT IT APPEARS THAT THERE |
| | ARE OTHER RATED WALLS (STORAGE, ELEVATOR, ETC.) WHICH |
| | ARE NOT INDICATED ON THE PLAN. FBC 107, MORE |
| | INFORMATION REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 11. FROM PREVIOUS LIST, SEE THE ICC EVALUATION REPORT, |
| | ITEM 4.0, SMARTVENTS ARE DESIGNED TO BE INSTALLED INTO |
| | WALLS FROM THE EXTERIOR SIDE. INTERIOR INSTALLATIONS |
| | SHOWN, PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| | |
| | ENGINEER DID NOT ADDRESS THIS COMMENT. EITHER HAVE A |
| | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SUBMIT FOR ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS |
| | AND METHODS FBC 104.11 OR REVISE. |
| | |
| | ALSO SEE THE INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS ON THE |
| | EVALUATION REPORT, TWO OPENINGS ON DIFFERENT WALLS |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 12. FIRE DAMPERS ARE SPECIFIED BY THE STRUCTURAL |
| | ENGINEER. THIS IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE UL LISTING AS |
| | DAMPERS ARE FOR INSTALLATION INTO AIR DUCTS. ALSO, IT |
| | APPEARS THAT THE FLOOD VENTS WILL NO LONGER BE OPERABLE |
| | IF DAMPERS CLOSE AS A STATIC DAMPER WAS SPECIFIED. SEE |
| | FBC 104.11, ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND METHODS, OR |
| | PROVIDE A PROPOSED INSTALLATION WHICH MEETS THE |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, UL LISTINGS, |
| | AND THE ICC EVALUATION REPORT. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
