| Date |
Text |
| 2015-10-07 15:56:27 | RESIDENTIAL (R3) ALTERATION, FOURTH BUILDING REVIEW |
| | CHECKLIST. |
| | CODE: 2010 FBC. |
| | |
| | 1- THE NEW PLANS SUBMITTED ARE REFERENCING THE 2014 |
| | FBC. THE ORIGINAL PERMIT APPLICATION AND ALL REVIEWS |
| | WERE DONE BASED ON THE 2010 FBC. REVISE ALL PLANS AND |
| | NOTES AS REQUIRED. (REPEAT COMMENT). |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | PLANS WERE NO REVISED. STILL REFERENCING THE 2014 CODE |
| | AND NOW IS MISMATCHING CODES. DESIGN CRITERIA CALLS FOR |
| | THE 2010 FLORIDA MECHANICAL CODE AND THE REST OF THE |
| | CITED CODES ARE REFERRING TO THE 2014 CODE. ALSO, THE |
| | CLASSIFICATION OF WORK IS INCORRECT. THIS IS NOT |
| | ALTERATION LEVEL 2. THIS IS ALTERATION LEVEL 3 AND IT'S |
| | ALSO A CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY FROM GARAGE TO |
| | GARAGE/APARTMENT. REVISE AS REQUIRED. SEC. 405 AND SEC. |
| | 406 OF 2010 FBC-EXISTING BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 2- REVISE ENERGY CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED: |
| | A) COORDINATE WITH PLANS INSULATION FOR ALL WALLS |
| | (INCLUDING THE ADJACENT WALL SEPARATING THE GARAGE FROM |
| | THE A/C AREA.) SEC. 103.2.2 OF 2010 FBC-ENERGY |
| | CONSERVATION. (REPEAT COMMENT). |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | WHERE IS THE EXTERIOR WOOD FRAMED WALL SHOWN ON ITEM |
| | #9(B)?. THERE ARE NOT EXTERIOR FRAMED WALLS ON PLANS. |
| | SEE PLANS AND REVISE AS REQUIRED. IS THIS THE ADJACENT |
| | WALL BETWEEN GARAGE AND NEW APARTMENT?. IF SO, THE |
| | CORRECT WALL DENOMINATION IS ADJACENT WALL NOT EXTERIOR |
| | WALL. |
| | |
| | B) WALLS AND WINDOWS SHOWN PAGE 3 OF 5 DON'T MATCH |
| | PLANS. REVISE WALLS AND WINDOWS INFORMATION, INCLUDING |
| | ORIENTATION TO MATCH PLANS. SEC. 103.2.2 OF 2010 |
| | FBC-ENERGY CONSERVATION. (REPEAT COMMENT). |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | THERE IS NO COORDINATION WITH PLANS. INFORMATION SHOWN |
| | ON THE ENERGY CALCULATIONS DOESN'T MATCH PLANS. REVISE |
| | AS REQUIRED TO MATCH. |
| | |
| | 3- PROVIDE COMPLETE DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOWING |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH THE R VALUE SHOWN ON THE ENERGY |
| | CALCULATIONS ON ITEM #11 FOR THE DUCTS. SEC. 103.2..2 |
| | OF 2010 FBC-ENERGY CONSERVATION. (REPEAT COMMENT). |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | THERE IS NO COORDINATION WITH PLANS. INFORMATION SHOWN |
| | ON THE ENERGY CALCULATIONS DOESN'T MATCH PLANS. |
| | MECHANICAL PLAN WAS REVISED AND INFORMATION SHOWN ON |
| | ITEM #11(A) OF THE ENERGY CALCULATIONS DON'T MATCH. |
| | REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 4- NEW COMMENT: |
| | MECHANICAL PLAN WAS REVISED. NEW A/C EQUIPMENT DOESN'T |
| | PROVIDE HEATING. NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE HEATING |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. R303.8 OF 2010 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | PROVIDE COMPLETE INFORMATION SHOWING COMPLIANCE. |
| | |
| | 5- PLANS DON'T SHOW THE R-VALUE FOR THE EXTERIOR WALLS. |
| | 103.2..2 OF 2010 FBC-ENERGY CONSERVATION. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | ITEM #9(A) OF THE ENERGY CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED CALLS |
| | FOR CONCRETE BLOCK WALL INSULATION OF R-6.2. THE R |
| | VALUE OF THE INSULATION ALONE NEEDS TO BE R-6.2 AS |
| | REQUIRED BY SEC. R304.1.2 OF 2010 FBC-ENERGY |
| | CONSERVATION. OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS CAN NOT BE |
| | INCLUDED TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED R VALUE. REVISE THE |
| | "DROP CEILING SIDE VIEW SECTION" AS REQUIRED. AND, |
| | PROVIDE COMPLETE DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE |
| | R-6.2 INSULATION. |
| | |
| | 6- PROVIDE PRODUCT APPROVAL (2 COPIES) AS REQUIRED BY |
| | DCA RULE 9N-3 FOR: |
| | A) SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS. FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL |
| | FL14604-R3 SUBMITTED IS NOT APPROVED. THE APPLICATION |
| | STATUS SAYS "RE-APPLY". NEED COPY OF APPROVED PRODUCT |
| | APPROVAL. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | ONLY THE FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL COVER PAGE WAS |
| | SUBMITTED THIS TIME. NEED TO SUBMIT THE COMPLETE |
| | PRODUCT APPROVAL WITH THE DRAWINGS THAT WERE APPROVED. |
| | |
| | 7- ENGINEER OF RECORD TO APPROVE ABOVE PRODUCT APPROVAL |
| | AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 107.3.4.1 CITY AMENDMENTS TO FBC. |
| | |
| | 8- DROP CEILING PLAN: |
| | A) PROVIDE DETAIL SHOWING HOW IS THE DOUBLE 2X8 |
| | ATTACHED TO THE MASONRY WALL AND TO THE WOOD FRAMED |
| | WALL? . DROP CEILING SIDE VIEW DRAWING IS NOT CLEAR? |
| | NOTE: FASTENERS FOR THE MASONRY WALL ARE NOT THE SAME |
| | AS FOR A WOOD FRAMED WALL. HOW IS THE LUS28-2 ATTACHED |
| | TO THE 2X4 TOP PLATE?. SEC. 107.2.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | DRAWINGS SUBMITTED ARE NOT CLEAR. DROP CEILING PLAN |
| | DOESN'T SHOW ANY STUDS SUPPORTING THE (2)2X8 BEAM AND |
| | THERE IS NO WAY TO PLACE A LUS28-2 SIMPSON CONNECTOR TO |
| | DOUBLE 2X4 JACK STUD BELOW WOOD BEAM AS SPECIFIED ON |
| | THE DROP CEILING SIDE VIEW. THE WIDTH OF THE CONNECTOR |
| | IS WIDER THAN THE DOUBLE STUDS. THERE IS NO WAY TO NAIL |
| | THE CONNECTOR TO THE STUDS. REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | ***ENGINEER OF RECORD LETTER ADDRESSING EACH COMMENT |
| | WILL HELP TO EXPEDITE THE REVIEW PROCESS. |
| | |
| | NOTE: ENGINEER OF RECORD MAY BE CHARGED FOUR TIMES THE |
| | PLAN REVIEW FEES FOR MULTIPLE REJECTIONS. SEE COPY OF |
| | FLORIDA STATUTE SEC. 553.80(2)(B) BELOW" |
| | |
| | "WITH RESPECT TO EVALUATION OF DESIGN PROFESSIONALS? |
| | DOCUMENTS, IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINDS IT NECESSARY, IN |
| | ORDER TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | CODE AND ISSUE A PERMIT, TO REJECT DESIGN DOCUMENTS |
| | REQUIRED BY THE CODE THREE OR MORE TIMES FOR FAILURE TO |
| | CORRECT A CODE VIOLATION SPECIFICALLY AND CONTINUOUSLY |
| | NOTED IN EACH REJECTION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, |
| | EGRESS, FIRE PROTECTION, STRUCTURAL STABILITY, ENERGY, |
| | ACCESSIBILITY, LIGHTING, VENTILATION, ELECTRICAL, |
| | MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND GAS SYSTEMS, OR OTHER |
| | REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED BY RULE OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | COMMISSION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 120, THE LOCAL |
| | GOVERNMENT SHALL IMPOSE, EACH TIME AFTER THE THIRD SUCH |
| | REVIEW THE PLANS ARE REJECTED FOR THAT CODE VIOLATION, |
| | A FEE OF FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPORTION OF THE |
| | PERMIT FEE ATTRIBUTED TO PLANS REVIEW.". |
| | |
| | IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT |
| | JULIO GOMEZ |
| | COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| | (561)805-6712 |
| | [email protected] |
