| Date |
Text |
| 2014-06-10 17:15:07 | |
| | ****** REVISION TO THE ORIGINAL CHECKLIST DATED 5/28/14 |
| | ***** |
| | |
| | |
| | RESIDENTIAL (R3) ALTERATION, BUILDING REVIEW COMMENTS |
| | (REVISED): |
| | CODE: 2010 FBC. |
| | |
| | 1- ENERGY CALCULATIONS NO REQUIRED AT THIS TIME. |
| | ENERGY CALCULATIONS WERE REQUESTED THE FIRST TIME |
| | BECAUSE PLANS SUBMITTED WERE NOT CLEAR. PLANS SHOW |
| | FRAMING FOR A NEW ROOF THAT WAS ALREADY BUILT AND RED |
| | TAGGED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR BUILDING WITHOUT |
| | PERMIT. DRAWINGS SUBMITTED DON'T SHOW AN EXISTING |
| | CONDITION AND A PROPOSED CONDITION. THIS BUILDING WAS |
| | BUILT IN 1952 AND ACCORDING TO CITY RECORDS THERE ARE |
| | NOT BUILDING PERMITS FOR THIS PROPERTY. THEREFORE, IT |
| | WAS MY IMPRESSION THAT ROOF WAS DAMAGED OVER THE YEARS |
| | AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS REPAIRED/REBUILT. |
| | SEC. 107.2.1 OF CITY AMENDMENTS TO FBC. |
| | |
| | 2- ROOF BUILT UP: ENGINEERING ANALYSIS NOT REQUIRED AT |
| | THIS TIME. |
| | ENGINEERING ANALYSIS WAS REQUESTED THE FIRST TIME |
| | BECAUSE OF THE SAME REASON EXPLAINED ON ITEM #1 ABOVE. |
| | SEC. 107.2.1 CITY AMENDMENTS TO FBC. |
| | |
| | 3- DESIGNER TO REVISE INFORMATION ON SHEET 6.0 |
| | A) REVISE DIMENSION "A". ACCORDING TO FOOTNOTE ON |
| | FIGURE R301.2(7) THE MINIMUM DIMENSION FOR "A" IS 4'-0" |
| | NOT 3'-0". |
| | |
| | B) REVISE THE DESIGN CRITERIA: CURRENT ASCE EDITION |
| | THAT CORRESPONDS TO FBC 2010 IS ASCE 7-10 NOT ASCE |
| | 7-05. (SEE CHAPTER 43: REFERENCED STANDARDS FOR CURRENT |
| | EDITION). |
| | |
| | 4- ALL DRAWINGS NEED TO HAVE THE NAME AND SIGNATURE OF |
| | THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN. SEC. 107.2.1 |
| | CITY AMENDMENTS TO FBC. |
| | |
| | 5- VALUATION DECLARED IN THE PERMIT APPLICATION IS TOO |
| | LOW. SEC. 109.3 CITY AMENDMENTS TO FBC. VALUATION TO |
| | INCLUDE ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, CONTRACTOR'S OVERHEAD AND |
| | PROFIT AND DESIGN PROFESSIONAL FEES. UPDATE THE |
| | VALUATION AS REQUIRED TO INCLUDE THE ROOF BUILT UP, |
| | REPLACEMENT OF DOOR AND WINDOWS, AND DESIGNER FEES. |
| | |
| | 6- PROVIDE PRODUCT APPROVAL (2 COPIES) AS REQUIRED BY |
| | DCA RULE 9N-3 FOR: |
| | A) ALL SIMPSON STRUCTURAL CONNECTORS SPECIFIED ON PLANS |
| | AND DETAILS. (NOTE: PROVIDE ONLY THE FLORIDA PRODUCT |
| | APPROVAL COVER PAGE AND PAGE SHOWING THE SPECIFIED |
| | CONNECTOR). |
| | |
| | B) EXTERIOR DOORS. PROVIDE THE FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL |
| | COVER PAGE THAT CORRESPONDS TO THE DRAWINGS SUBMITTED |
| | FROM JELD WEN. DRAWINGS SUBMITTED DON'T HAVE ANY |
| | REFERENCE TO THE APPROVED FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL. |
| | UNABLE TO VERIFY IF IT WAS APPROVED OR NOT. |
| | |
| | 7- WINDOW AND DOOR REPLACEMENT DRAWINGS SUBMITTED: |
| | A) SHEET 3.0: SPECIFY TYPE AND SIZE OF EXISTING BEDROOM |
| | WINDOW #2 TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE EGRESS |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 604.1 OF 2010 FBC-EXISTING |
| | BUILDING. |
| | |
| | B) SHEET 4.0: CURRENT ASCE EDITION THAT CORRESPONDS TO |
| | FBC-2010 IS ASCE 7-10 NOT ASCE 7-05. REVISE AS |
| | REQUIRED. (SEE CHAPTER 43: REFERENCED STANDARDS FOR |
| | CURRENT EDITION). |
| | |
| | |
| | *** PLEASE PROVIDE A RESPONSE LETTER CLEARLY ADDRESSING |
| | EACH COMMENT TO EXPEDITE THE REVIEW PROCESS. |
| | |
| | |
| | IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL |
| | JULIO GOMEZ |
| | COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES |
| | (561)805-6712 |
| | |
