| Date |
Text |
| 2017-03-08 13:01:15 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | COURTESY REVIEW BASED ON PHOTOGRAPHS SENT VIA EMAIL |
| | FROM CONTRACTOR |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-805-6724 |
| | |
| | FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, BUILDING 5TH EDITION (2014) |
| | SECTION 1609: |
| | |
| | COMMENT FROM PREVIOUS BUILDING REVIEW #4 DATED |
| | 3/6/2017: |
| | |
| | THE GATE DETAIL WAS PROVIDED. THE PLAN STATES THAT |
| | DESIGN CRITERIA IS FOR "80% OPEN SIGN". CALCULATIONS |
| | ARE FOR 20% SOLID SURFACE. |
| | |
| | THE GATE DETAIL GRAPHICALLY APPEARS TO DEPICT A SOLID |
| | GATE. A NOTE STATES THAT THE LOUVERS HAVE A .5" |
| | OVERLAP. IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THE GATE MEETS THE |
| | CRITERIA OF 80% OPEN. |
| | |
| | REVISE PLAN TO CLARIFY GATE DESIGN (NEEDS TO BE 80% |
| | OPEN) OR GATE DESIGN CRITERIA (CURRENTLY APPEARS |
| | TO REQUIRE THAT THE GATE IS 80% OPEN, BUT PLAN SHOWS A |
| | SOLID GATE). |
| | |
| | COURTESY REVIEW 3/8/17; PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPOSED GATE |
| | SENT VIA EMAIL BY CONTRACTOR: |
| | |
| | BASED ON THE PHOTOGRAPHS PROVIDED, THE PROPOSED GATE IS |
| | NOT MEET THE 80% OPEN CRITERIA (REQUIREMENT BASED |
| | ON THE GATE FOUNDATION ABILITY TO WITHSTAND WIND LOADS) |
| | UNLESS THE WIND IS PARALLEL TO THE GATE. IF THE |
| | WIND IS PERPENDICULAR TO THE GATE, THE WIND EFFECT WILL |
| | BE SIMILAR TO THE EFFECT ON A SOLID SURFACE. |
| | |
| | THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE BUILDING |
| | OFFICIAL. IF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD DISAGREES, PLEASE |
| | HAVE |
| | HIM CALL ROBERT BROWN, 561-805-6652 OR EMAIL RATIONALE |
| | FOR THIS DESIGN MEETING HIS REQUIREMENT OF 80% OPEN |
| | TO [email protected] (AND PLEASE CC [email protected]). |
| | |
| | THE ENGINEERED DETAIL IS NOT CLEAR AS TO CONSTRUCTION, |
| | FBC 107. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS ALSO IN AGREEMENT |
| | THAT A SECTION IS REQUIRED TO SHOW THE ANGLE OF THE |
| | GATE LOUVERS; THE DRAWINGS PROVIDED DO NOT ACCURATELY |
| | DEPICT PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE SECTION SHOULD |
| | PROVIDE ENOUGH DIMENSIONS TO CLEARLY DEPICT PROPOSED |
| | CONSTRUCTION. |
| | |
| | PLEASE ALSO REVISE REFERENCE TO "SIGN" DESIGN CRITERIA |
| | (APPEARS THAT THIS SHOULD REFERENCE "GATE") OR CLARIFY |
| | |
| | TO CLARIFY THE SEQUENCE OF SUBMITTALS AND PLAN REVIEWS: |
| | |
| | 1/9/2017 REVIEW, A GATE DETAIL PREPARED BY SIVANANTHAN |
| | SRITHARAN, PE ON 2/09/2016 INCLUDES A DETAIL (2-S2) |
| | WHICH |
| | CLARIFIES THE PROPOSED DESIGN BUT LACKS INFORMATION |
| | REGARDING THE PERCENTAGE OF OPEN AREA. |
| | 2/10/2017 REVIEW, THIS GATE DETAIL WAS VOIDED BY |
| | APPLICANT AND A REPLACEMENT DETAIL NOT PROVIDED. |
| | 3/6/2017 REVIEW, A NEW DETAIL PREPARED BY EVAN KENNEDY, |
| | PE ON 1/27/2017 WAS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
