| Date |
Text |
| 2016-01-27 09:10:05 | 2ND REVIEW 2014 MECHANICAL |
| | PERMIT #15090402 |
| | 12/14/15 |
| | |
| | I HAVE REVIEWED THE REVISED PLANS AND THE RESPONSE |
| | NARRATIVE FROM JWL ENGINEERING, HOWEVER INADEQUATE |
| | REVISIONS AND RESPONSES HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO SOME OF THE |
| | COMMENTS. THE FOLLWOWNG REVIEW WILL REFER BACK TO THOSE |
| | 1ST REVIEW COMMENTS. PLEASE NOTE THE RESPONSE NARRATIVE |
| | FROM JWL ADDRESSES ONLY THE FIRST FOUR COMMENTS (LISTED |
| | AS 6-9 IN THE NARRATIVE), AND THERE WERE NO RESPONSES |
| | FROM THE ARCHITECT. |
| | 1) COMMENT #1: THE NARRATIVE REPONSE TO THIS COMMENT |
| | STATES THAT THE REQUESTED DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE |
| | PROJECT IS NOTED ON SHEET M101, HOWEVER I DID NOT SEE |
| | ANY INFORMATION LISTED IN THE MECH SPEC NOTES. |
| | 2) COMMENT #3: SECTION 405.4.2 EXCEPTION ALLOWS FOR |
| | WORSE CASE SCENARARIOS, HOWEVER AS NOTED IN THE 1ST |
| | REVIEW, INDIVIDUAL ENERGY AND AC CALCULATIONS SHALL BE |
| | SUBMITTED FOR EACH TOWN HOME UNDER PERMIT PER SECTION |
| | R103.1 FBC-14 ENERGY CONSERVATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE |
| | RE-SUBMITTED ENERGY FORM R405-2014 INDICATES IT IS NOT |
| | A WORSE CASE ON PAGE 1. |
| | 3) COMMENT #4: RE-SUBMITTED FORM R405-2014 : A) PAGE 1 |
| | INDICATES 98.7 KBTU/HR FOR 2263 SQ.FT.- ONE OF THESE |
| | VALUES IS INCORRECT. B) PAGE 3- THE COOLING SYSTEM DATA |
| | DOES NOT INDICATE A COOLING CAPACITY VALUE, AND THE |
| | 2960 AIR FLOW CFM'S DOES NOT MATCH THE CFM'S INDICATED |
| | IN THE AC EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE ON M101. |
| | 4) COMMENTS #6, 8,9,10,11,12,13,&14- NO RESPONSES OR |
| | REVISIONS WERE PROVIDED: REFER TO 1ST REVIEW COMMENTS |
| | AND COMPLY. PLEASE NOTE IN REGARD TO COMMENT #9- THE |
| | PLUMBING PLANS LIST THE WATER HEATER CAPACTITY AT 199 |
| | CFH NOT AT 34 KBTUH, |
| | |
| | CHRISTOPHER L. COLE |
| | MECHANICAL PLANS EXAMINER |
| | 561-805-6719 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
