| Date |
Text |
| 2015-01-09 16:50:46 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | PLAN REVIEW IN PROGRESS |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-805-6724 |
| | |
| | FROM PREVIOUS (2ND REVIEW) LIST: |
| | |
| | 1. THE PRODUCT APPROVAL SUBMITTED (FL 7621-R2) HAS NO |
| | EVIDENCE OF REVIEW BY TIMOTHYJ. MESSLER, PE, ENGINEER |
| | OF RECORD. |
| | |
| | 3RD REVIEW, PLEASE PROVIDE A SHOP DRAWING REVIEW STAMP |
| | OR INCORPORATE INTO THE DRAWING. THE RESPONSE LETTER IS |
| | NOT TYPICALLY RETAINED AS A PART OF THE PERMIT |
| | DOCUMENTS. |
| | |
| | 2. GENERAL NOTES COVER SHEET INDICATES A DESIGN |
| | PRESSURE OF -67 PSF WHICH EXCEEDS ANY MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE |
| | PRESSURE OF THE ROOFING PANEL. ADDITIONALLY, EXPOSURE B |
| | IS CLAIMED BUT THE EXISTANCE OF A BASEBALL PARK TO THE |
| | EAST OF THE PROPERTY RESULTS IN AN EXPOSURE C. SEE THE |
| | ROOFING PANEL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SITE SPECIFIC REQUIRED |
| | DESIGN WIND PRESSURES. |
| | |
| | ENGINEER'S RESPONSE REGARDING WIND DIRECTION IS |
| | ACKNOWLEDGED. ASCE7-10 DOES NOT ALLOW DESIGNING FOR THE |
| | UPWIND DIRECTION FOR COMPONENTS AND CLADDING, ONLY FOR |
| | MWFRS. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ENGINEER |
| | RECONSIDERS THE EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATION AFTER REVIEWING |
| | ASCE7-10 SECTIONS ****. IF ENGINEER DISAGREES AFTER |
| | REVIEWING THESE SECTIONS, HE WILL BE REFERRED TO THE |
| | BUILDING OFFICIAL TO DISCUSS. |
| | |
| | 3. EXISTING BUILDING DATA ON SHEET 3 INDICATES THE TYPE |
| | OF CONSTRUCTION AS IIB AND THAT THE PROPOSED |
| | IMPROVEMENT IS ALSO TYPE IIB. THE ROOF PANELS ARE NOT |
| | OF NON COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED FOR IIB. |
| | CONSIDER RECLASSIFYING THE STRUCTURE PER TABLE 503 |
| | RESPONSE LETTER STATES THAT THIS HAS BEEN REVISED, BUT |
| | PLANS STILL DECLARE BUILDING AS IIB. PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| | NEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 4. ROOF PANEL INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE |
| | MANUFACTURER, PROVIDED BY THE ENGINEER APPEARS TO |
| | RECOMMEND A SLOPE OF 1/2" PER FOOT (IT IS VERY |
| | DIFFICULT TO READ), BUT PLANS SHOW A 2" SLOPE FOR |
| | 9'10". PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| | |
| | 5. FASTENING INFORMATION FOR THE ROOF PANELS WAS |
| | PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF A DOCUMENT PREPARED BY |
| | ENGINEERING EXPRESS. DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY AN ENGINEER |
| | AND SUBMITTED FOR PUBLIC RECORD ARE TO BE SIGNED, |
| | SEALED, DATED ORIGINALS. DELEGATED ENGINEERING IS TO BE |
| | REVIEWED BY ENGINEER OF RECORD, FAC61G15-23. |
| | ALTERNATIVELY, ENGINEER OF RECORD CAN SPECIFY |
| | FASTENING. |
| | |
| | 6. IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THE ROOF PRESSURE WAS |
| | DETERMINED. WHAT SQUARE FOOT AREA WAS USED FOR THE AREA |
| | TRIBUTARY TO A FASTENER? ROOF PRESSURE FOR A FLAT ROOF |
| | APPEAR LOW, EVEN FOR EXPOSURE B. |
| | |
| | IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE REVISING THE WIND DESIGN |
| | CRITERIA TO RISK CATEGORY 1, 150MPH, EXPOSURE C WOULD |
| | RESULT IN DESIGN PRESSURE OF ZONE 3 FOR THE ROOF, 10 SQ |
| | FEET OF -61.32 PER TABLE **** ASCE7-10. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
