| Date |
Text |
| 2015-09-22 11:30:05 | RESIDENTIAL (R3) ALTERATION, BUILDING REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| | CODE: FBC-5TH EDITION (2014). |
| | |
| | 1- SCOPE OF WORK IS NOT CLEAR. THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT |
| | SETS OF PLANS WITH TWO DIFFERENT DESIGN PROFESSIONALS |
| | (ONE ARCHITECT AND ONE ENGINEER) AND SCOPE OF WORK IS |
| | NOT CLEAR. ALSO, THERE IS A PERMIT APPLICATION FOR |
| | INTERIOR DEMOLITION FOR WHICH THE SCOPE OF WORK WAS NOT |
| | CLEAR EITHER. A PRE-INSPECTION IS REQUESTED AT THIS |
| | TIME TO HELP DETERMINE THE ACTUAL SCOPE OF WORK. THEN, |
| | PROVIDE ONLY ONE COMPLETE SET OF PLANS THAT DESCRIBES |
| | ALL THE SCOPE OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED AND PROVIDE |
| | COMPLETE EVALUATION AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 606.2.2.1 OF |
| | FBC-EXISTING BUILDING, 5TH EDITION (2014). SEC. 107.2.1 |
| | CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | NOTE: ALL STRUCTURAL CONNECTORS SPECIFIED FOR THE |
| | WALLS, INCLUDING THE GABLE END WALLS NEED TO BE |
| | DESIGNED TO TRANSFER ALL LOADS AS REQUIRED BY SEC. |
| | R601.2 OF FBC-RESIDENTIAL, 5TH EDITION (2014). |
| | |
| | 2- ARCHITECT'S SET OF PLANS SUBMITTED. (THIS WAS THE |
| | SET OF PLANS THAT WAS REVIEWED. IT REFERENCES THE |
| | CURRENT CODE IN EFFECT AND LOOKS MORE COMPLETE). |
| | A) THE ADDRESS SHOWN ON THE TITLE BLOCK IS INCORRECT. |
| | REVISE AS REQUIRED. SEC. 107.2.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | B) THERE IS A CONFLICT WITH THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON |
| | THE TYPICAL WALL SECTION AND THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON |
| | THE STRUCTURAL WOOD NOTES. WALL SECTION CALLS FOR |
| | ICYNENE INSULATION, WHILE STRUCTURAL NOTES CALL FOR 20" |
| | X 7" SOFFIT VENTS. REVISE AS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH |
| | SEC. R806 OF FBC-RESIDENTIAL, 5TH EDITION (2014). |
| | CLARIFY IF DESIGNING A VENTED OR UNVENTED ATTIC. |
| | |
| | C) IF USING ICYNENE, THEN PROVIDE CURRENT ICC |
| | EVALUATION REPORT SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. R316. |
| | ICC ESR-3210 REPORT SUBMITTED IS EXPIRED AND IS FOR |
| | ANOTHER TYPE OF INSULATION NOT ICYNENE AS SPECIFIED BY |
| | THE ARCHITECT. IN ADDITION IT WAS REVIEWED/APPROVED BY |
| | ANOTHER ENGINEER WHICH DOESN'T HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY |
| | IN THIS PROJECT. |
| | |
| | D) DESIGN PRESSURES FOR OPENINGS: REVISE THE DISTANCE |
| | FROM THE CORNERS FOR ZONE 4 AND 5. NOTE "A" ON FIGURE |
| | R301.2(7) REQUIRES THE DISTANCE TO BE 4 FEET IN ALL |
| | CASES NOT 3 FEET . REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 3- ENGINEER'S SET OF PLANS WAS NOT REVIEWED. IT DIDN'T |
| | REFERENCED THE CURRENT CODE IN EFFECT AND IS MISSING A |
| | LOT OF INFORMATION THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS ARE |
| | PROVIDING. SEC. 107.2.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | 4- PROVIDE ENERGY CALCULATIONS AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 811 |
| | OF FBC-EXISTING BUILDING, 5TH EDITION (2014). |
| | NOTE: PLEASE COORDINATE ENERGY CALCULATIONS WITH PLANS |
| | SUBMITTED TO AVOID CONFLICTS OR DELAYS. |
| | (10/1/15 GOT CONFIRMATION FROM FRIEDERIKE MITTNER. THIS |
| | IS A CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC BUILDING. THEREFORE ENERGY |
| | CALCULATIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED. |
| | CALLED CONTRACTOR PAUL NEWMAN TO NOTIFY HIM ABOUT THE |
| | ENERGY CALCULATIONS). |
| | |
| | 5- PROVIDE PRODUCT APPROVAL (2 COPIES) AS REQUIRED BY |
| | FAC 61G20-3.002(33) FOR: |
| | A) PROPOSED ROOF SHINGLES AS SPECIFIED ON THE |
| | ARCHITECT'S PLANS. |
| | |
| | B) EXTERIOR SWING DOOR THAT MATCHES DOOR #2 SPECIFIED |
| | BY THE ARCHITECT. AND NEED TO PROVIDE PRODUCT APPROVAL |
| | FOR THE CURRENT CODE VERSION 2014. FL15210-R4 SUBMITTED |
| | IS FOR 2010 CODE VERSION. |
| | |
| | C) SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS. INFORMATION SUBMITTED DOESN'T |
| | HAVE THE FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL NUMBER. PROVIDE |
| | FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL COVER PAGE THAT CORRESPOND TO |
| | DRAWINGS SUBMITTED AND MAKE SURE THE PRODUCT APPROVAL |
| | IS FOR THE 2014 CODE VERSION. |
| | |
| | D) ALL SIMPSON STRUCTURAL CONNECTORS SPECIFIED ON |
| | PLANS. PROVIDE ONLY THE FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL COVER |
| | PAGE AND PAGE SHOWING THE SPECIFIED CONNECTOR OR DESIGN |
| | PROFESSIONAL TO LIST THE FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL |
| | NUMBER NEXT TO THE SPECIFIED CONNECTOR. |
| | |
| | 6- DESIGN PROFESSIONAL OF RECORD TO APPROVE IN WRITING |
| | (NOT SIGNING AND SEALING) ALL THE PRODUCT APPROVALS AS |
| | REQUIRED BY SEC. 107.3.4.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | 7- VALUATION DECLARED IN THE PERMIT APPLICATION IS TOO |
| | LOW. VALUATION TO INCLUDE ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, |
| | CONTRACTOR'S OVERHEAD AND PROFIT AND ALL DESIGN |
| | PROFESSIONAL FEES AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 109.3 CITY |
| | AMENDMENTS. COORDINATE WITH ITEM #1 ABOVE AND REVISE |
| | VALUATION AS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | ***PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSE LETTER ADDRESSING EACH |
| | COMMENT TO EXPEDITE THE REVIEW PROCESS. |
| | |
| | IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT |
| | JULIO GOMEZ |
| | COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| | (561)805-6712 |
| | [email protected] |
