| Date |
Text |
| 2015-04-21 12:34:14 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-805-6724 |
| | |
| | FROM PREVIOUS LIST: |
| | |
| | 1. SEE PREVIOUS ITEM #1. PER CONVERSATION, CONTRACTOR |
| | WILL USE A MASTER. A MINIMUM OF THREE FIELD SETS WAS |
| | RECOMMENDED (SO FOUR SETS TOTAL WOULD NEED TO BE |
| | SUBMITTED). ONLY ONE SET WAS SUBMITTED. SEE FBC 107, A |
| | MINIMUM OF TWO COMPLETE COLLATED SETS OF DOCUMENTS |
| | REQUIRED FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE. |
| | |
| | TO MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR - CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE A |
| | MINIMUM OF TWO COLLATED IDENTICAL SETS OF DOCUMENTS FOR |
| | PERMIT ISSUANCE. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHY, WHEN SUBMITTAL OF |
| | FIVE SETS WAS DISCUSSED, ONE WAS SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | 2. PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING THE EXISTING ROOF. THE |
| | PERMIT DOCUMENTS SHOULD INCLUDE ALL INFORMATION |
| | REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE CODE COMPLIANCE, FBC 107. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, PERMIT DOCUMENTS SHOULD INCLUDE SOMETHING |
| | WHICH STATE EXISTING ROOF TYPE. I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED |
| | "TPO" ON ONE DOCUMENT. THIS COULD BE ONE POSSIBLE |
| | METHOD OF INDICATING EXISTING ROOF TYPE, BUT THIS IS |
| | THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY. CONTRACTOR TO DO |
| | ENOUGH RESEARCH TO DETERMINE EXISTING ROOF TYPE AND |
| | SUITABILITY OF PROPOSED INSTALLATION, THEN PROVIDE |
| | DOCUMENTS WHICH CLEARLY INDICATE EXISTING ROOF TYPE |
| | DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR. |
| | |
| | 3. 2ND REVIEW, A NEW NOA PROVIDED WITH "S-2000 |
| | SOLVENTLESS SILICONE BASECOAST/TOPCOAT" HIGHLIGHTED. |
| | |
| | GACOWASH SPEC SHEET - OK |
| | GACOFLEX E5320 SPEC SHEET - DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY STATE |
| | THAT IT CAN BE USED WITH TPO ROOF - EITHER HIGHLIGHT |
| | WHERE TPO IS SPECIFICALLY NAMED OR PROVIDE A LETTER |
| | FROM THE MANUFACTURER SINCE TPO ROOF IS NOT INCLUDED IN |
| | THE NOA |
| | S20 SERIES SPEC SHEET - MENTIONS TPO BUT THE PRODUCT IN |
| | THE NOA (S-2000 SOLVENTLESS SILICONE BASECOAST/TOPCOAT) |
| | IS NOT NAMED. SOMETHING FROM THE MANUFACTURER SHOULD |
| | TIE THIS SPEC SHEET TO THE PRODUCT PROPOSED. |
| | |
| | 4. OK |
| | |
| | 5. E5320 IS SPECIFIED AS A "PRIMER COAT" IN THE |
| | PROPOSAL. PROVIDE MANUFACTURER SPEC SHEETS/INSTALLATION |
| | INSTRUCTIONS, FBC 107. APPLICATION PROPOSES "PRIMER" AT |
| | A RATE OF 1 GALLON / 250 SF. SINCE THIS PRODUCT DOES |
| | NOT APPEAR TO HAVE A PRODUCT APPROVAL (IT IS ONLY |
| | REFERENCED IN THE ROOF COATING SYSTEMS IN THE NOA), |
| | PROVIDE MANUFACTURER SPEC SHEETS WHICH INCLUDE |
| | INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRODUCT AND THE RECOMMENDED |
| | APPLICATION METHOD AND RATE. ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT HAVE |
| | A PRODUCT APPROVAL, IT APPEARS THAT THIS IS THE PRODUCT |
| | WHICH ASSURES THE BOND REQUIRED FOR WIND RESISTANCE FBC |
| | 1609. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, THE RATE WHICH CONTRACTOR PROPOSES IS FOR A |
| | CONCRETE DECK. PROVIDE SOMETHING FROM THE MANUFACTURER |
| | TO INDICATE THAT 1 GALLON PER 250 SF IS ACCEPTABLE. |
| | |
| | 6. APPLICATION AND PROPOSAL SPECIFY GACO FLEX S2000, |
| | 1.5 GALLONS PER 100 SF. SEE PAGE 3 OF THE NOA; TWO |
| | COATS AT A MINIMUM RATE OF .75 GAL / 100' EACH ARE |
| | REQUIRED. ALTHOUGH THE TOTAL GALLONS PER SF IS |
| | CONSISTENT WITH THE NOA, THE APPLICATION METHOD |
| | PROPOSED ("A TOP COAT") DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF THE NOA. |
| | |
| | NOT ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 7. OK |
| | |
| | 8. AS ITEMS 5 AND 6 WERE NOT ADDRESSED, COMMENT STILL |
| | APPLIES - IF METHOD OF INSTALLATION AS PROPOSED ON THE |
| | APPLICATION IS NOT APPROVED, NEW APPLICATIONS WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 9. PERMIT 02090676 FOR 7404 74TH WAY IS EXPIRED (DID |
| | NOT OBTAIN A FINAL INSPECTION). IF THIS PROJECT |
| | INCLUDES THIS ADDRESS, THIS PERMIT IS TO BE RESOLVED |
| | PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT FOR THAT BUILDING. |
| | |
