| Date |
Text |
| 2014-01-16 10:12:18 | 2010 FBC |
| | |
| | DENIED BY BUILDING |
| | |
| | BASED ON THE CITY OF WPB BUILDING DEPARTMENT RECORDS, |
| | THIS STRUCTURE WAS A DETACHED GARAGE APPROXIMATELY 13' |
| | X 22' IN SIZE. THE APPROXIMATELY 5' X 18' AREA WITH THE |
| | BATHROOM AND LAUNDRY ROOM WAS ADDED AT A LATER DATE |
| | WITHOUT PERMITS OR INSPECTIONS. |
| | |
| | 1) THE DESIGN CRITERIA ON SHEET 3 IS INCORRECT. PLEASE |
| | UPDATE IT TO MATCH SHEET 1. 2010 FBC R301.2.1 AND ASCE |
| | 7-10. |
| | |
| | 2) ON SHEET 1 THE BUILDING CLASSIFICATION IS SPECIFIED |
| | AS III B. IF THIS IS REFERRING TO THE TYPE OF |
| | CONSTRUCTION FOR THE STRUCTURE, IT WOULD BE V B PER FBC |
| | TABLE 601. |
| | |
| | 3) THE DESIGN PARAMETERS ON SHEET 3 SPECIFY THE |
| | BUILDING DESIGN AS CAVERED. WAS THIS MEANT TO SAY |
| | ENCLOSED? PLEASE CLARIFY. CITY AMENDMENTS 107.2.1 |
| | |
| | 4) PROVIDE A CONNECTOR SCHEDULE THAT SPECIFIES THE TYPE |
| | AND NUMBER OF FASTENERS, THE ALLOWABLE LOADS AND THE |
| | PRODUCT APPROVAL NUMBERS FOR THE SPECIFIED CONNECTORS |
| | ON THE PLANS OR SUBMIT TWO COPIES OF PRODUCT APPROVALS |
| | FOR EACH OF THEM. DCA RULE 9N-3 AND FBCR 301.1 |
| | |
| | 5) SPECIFY THE ROOF SLOPE ON THE PLANS. THE ELEVATIONS |
| | ON SHEET 5 OF THE PLANS SHOW THAT THE SAME ROOF SLOPE |
| | IS CONTINUED OVER THE BATHROOM AND LAUNDRY AREAS. THE |
| | PHOTO OF THE STRUCTURE ON SHEET 1 OF THE PLANS SHOW |
| | THAT THE ROOF SLOPE IS LESS OVER THIS AREA. PLEASE |
| | CLARIFY. CITY AMENDMENTS 107.2.1 NOTE: THE MINIMUM |
| | SLOPE FOR ASPHALT SHINGLES IS 2/12 PER FBCR 905.2.2. |
| | |
| | 6) INDICATE THE TYPE AND SIZE OF THE WINDOW SHOWN ON |
| | THE PLANS AND SUBMIT TWO COPIES OF PRODUCT APPROVALS |
| | FOR THE WINDOW. NOTE: BECAUSE THIS IS A STORAGE SHED |
| | NOT DESIGNED FOR HUMAN HABITATION AND HAS A FLOOR AREA |
| | OF LESS THAN 720 SQFT, LARGE MISSILE IMPACT PROTECTION |
| | IS NOT REQUIRED (FBC R301.2.1.2 (2) . |
| | |
| | 7) SPECIFY ON THE PLANS THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS NOT |
| | DESIGNED NOR INTENDED TO BE USED AS HABITABLE SPACE. |
| | CITY AMENDMENTS 107.2.1 |
| | |
| | 8) THE VALUE SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS OF $2000.00 IS TOO |
| | LOW. PLEASE PROVIDE A REASONABLE VALUE FOR THIS PROJECT |
| | THAT INCLUDES THE UN-PERMITTED ADDITION, THE |
| | UN-PERMITTED PLUMBING WORK, THE ELECTRIC WORK, THE NEW |
| | HEATING AND AIR SYSTEM, STRUCTURAL AND OTHER SPECIFIED |
| | WORK. FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES THE VALUATION IS TO BE |
| | THE TOTAL REPLACEMENT COST AND IS REQUIRED TO INCLUDE |
| | THE COSTS OF ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, DESIGN COSTS, |
| | OVERHEAD AND PROFIT AS WOULD BE CHARGED BY A |
| | CONTRACTOR. CITY AMENDMENTS 109.3 |
| | |
| | ROBERT MCDOUGAL |
| | BLDG. PLAN REVIEW |
| | (561)805-6714 |
| | [email protected] |
