| Date |
Text |
| 2017-07-28 10:32:16 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-805-6724 |
| | |
| | FBC = FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 5TH EDITION (2014) |
| | FBC B = FBC BUILDING |
| | FBC EB = FBC EXISTING BUILDING |
| | FBC A = FBC ACCESSIBILITY |
| | FBC EC = FBC ENERGY CONSERVATION |
| | |
| | 1. THIS FILE STILL HAS DUPLICATE RECORDS; DOCUMENTS |
| | PREVIOUSLY DENIED AND RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS WHICH |
| | SHOULD HAVE SUPERSEDED THE DENIED DOCUMENTS (BUT ARE |
| | NOW IN THE PERMIT RECORD TWICE - THE NON COMPLIANT ONE |
| | AND THE CURRENT ONE). |
| | |
| | FOR INSTANCE, SEE ENERGY CALCS - THERE IS ONE DATED |
| | "BLDG 2 ENERGY CALCS SIGNED" DATED 7/18/17. THERE IS |
| | ANOTHER ENERGY CALC FOR THE SAME BUILDING NAMED |
| | "BUILDING 2 ENERGY SIGNED" DATED 12/5/16. THIS IS ONE |
| | EXAMPLE; THERE ARE MORE DUPLICATES IN THE PERMIT |
| | RECORD. |
| | |
| | PLEASE COORDINATE WITH CAROLINE AND LAURA (DIGITAL |
| | LIBRARIANS) TO CLEAN UP THE FOUR PERMITS PRIOR TO |
| | ISSUANCE. ALL NEW FILES SHOULD BE NAMED IDENTICALLY TO |
| | THE OLD DENIED DIGITAL FILE, SO WHEN UPLOADED IT |
| | SUPERSEDES THE DENIED DOCUMENT. |
| | |
| | THIS IS ONLY ONE EXAMPLE. THE SOILS REPORT IS IN THE |
| | FILE THREE TIMES. PLEASE RETAIN ONLY THE MOST CURRENT |
| | VERSION; FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES, THE TWO OTHERS APPEAR |
| | UNNECESSARY. EITHER RENAME SO THEY CAN BE PROPERLY |
| | VERSIONED (SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS OVERWRITING PREVIOUS |
| | VERSIONS), OR HAVE THE DOCUMENTS NOT NEEDED REMOVED. |
| | |
| | THE LARGE NUMBER OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, WHICH ARE NOT |
| | IN ANY PARTICULAR ORDER AND DO NOT HAVE A CONSISTENT |
| | NAMING CONVENTION, MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO LOCATE |
| | INFORMATION. |
| | |
| | 2. STRUCTURAL CALCS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO ME VIA |
| | DROPBOX. I REQUESTED THAT THEY BE UPLOADED TO THE |
| | PERMIT RECORD. BUILDING OFFICIAL AND I REVIEWED A |
| | CALCULATION REPORT WHICH WAS 541 PAGES LONG (ALL |
| | BUILDINGS), COVER PAGE ETABS 2016, DATED 11/27/16. |
| | ENGINEER LATER SENT ADDITIONAL REPORTS WHICH INCLUDED |
| | THE SLAB, GENERATED FROM OTHER SOFTWARE PROGRAMS. THIS |
| | IS NOT WHAT IS NOW IN PROJECTDOX - THERE IS ONLY ONE |
| | CALC REPORT IN THE FILE, 62 PAGES, ETABS 2013, BUILDING |
| | 3 ONLY, NAMED 8/10/16 BUT WITH A DATE ON THE COVER PAGE |
| | OF 7/14/2017. |
| | |
| | THE ISSUE IS NOT THAT THE REPORT HAS ONLY ONE BUILDING, |
| | BUT THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND I SPENT CONSIDERABLE |
| | TIME REVIEWING A REPORT SENT BY THE ENGINEER. THE |
| | ENGINEER STATED THAT THE REPORT I FAILED PREVIOUSLY WAS |
| | "THE WRONG REPORT". PLEASE COORDINATE WITH HIM TO |
| | ENSURE THAT THE REPORTS UPLOADED ARE THE CORRECT |
| | STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS. |
| | |
| | ALSO, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PLANS IN EACH |
| | PERMIT ARE IDENTICAL AND HAS BEEN REVIEWED THIS WAY |
| | (REVIEW DONE ON 16071058 ONLY, AS OTHER PERMITS SHOULD |
| | HAVE THE SAME DOCUMENTS). IS THIS NO LONGER THE CASE? |
| | PRIOR TO ISSUANCE, A CHECK WILL BE DONE TO VERIFY THAT |
| | ALL FOUR PERMITS HAVE THE SAME DOCUMENTS. PLEASE ENSURE |
| | THAT THIS IS THE CASE PRIOR TO NEXT REVIEW. |
| | |
| | IF THE OTHER PERMITS DO NOT HAVE THE SAME DOCUMENTS AS |
| | THIS ONE, PLEASE ADVISE SO ADDITIONAL REVIEW CAN BE |
| | DONE. |
| | |
| | 3. PROVISO, A DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAIL WAS ADDED ON |
| | SHEET A1.01A. THIS IS SUBJECT TO ENGINEERING |
| | DEPARTMENT'S APPROVAL. |
| | |
| | 4. SEE PREVIOUS LIST, ITEM 13. A6.11, OTHER LOCATIONS, |
| | PLANS STILL REFER TO JOHNSONITE PROFILE SLT-XX-C 2MM |
| | QT-SCU UNDERLAYMENT. PREVIOUS LIST STATED TO EITHER |
| | REMOVE THE REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC PRODUCTS OR PROVIDE |
| | THE 3 TEST REPORTS (STC, IIC, FLAME SPREAD) AT THIS |
| | TIME. TO MY KNOWLEDGE ONLY ONE PRODUCT HAS ALL THREE |
| | TEST REPORTS, ANOTHER MANUFACTURER MAY BE HAVING THEIR |
| | PRODUCT TESTED. SPECIFIC UNDERLAYMENT AND TEST REPORTS |
| | CAN BE A PROVISO ITEM, BUT THE PERMIT WILL NOT BE |
| | ISSUED WITH A SPECIFICATION FOR A PRODUCT FOR WHICH |
| | CODE COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED. PLEASE |
| | REMOVE REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC PRODUCT SO THAT THIS CAN |
| | BE A PROVISO ITEM. |
| | |
| | 5. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY SHEET S-B1-2.3 AND OTHER S SHEETS |
| | WERE REVISED. DOES THE STRUCTURAL CHANGE REQUIRE NEW |
| | CALCULATIONS? IT IS SUGGESTED THAT ANY ADDITIONAL VE BE |
| | DONE AFTER PERMIT ISSUANCE, AS A REVISION, TO AVOID NEW |
| | COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (NARRATIVE FOR |
| | STRUCTURAL CHANGES, COMPLETE CALCULATIONS) |
| | |
| | 6. APPLICANT MAY CONSIDER APPLYING FOR A FOUNDATION |
| | PERMIT TO MAINTAIN CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE, IF DESIRED. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
