| Date |
Text |
| 2017-09-22 08:59:48 | ***CORRECTIONS*** |
| | REVISED 9/26/17 (ITEM #1) |
| | |
| | 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 |
| | |
| | GREENE SCHOOL CLASSROOM & GYMNASIUM EXPANSION |
| | REVIEW #2 |
| | |
| | COMMENTS FROM PREVIOUS LIST: |
| | |
| | 1. A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT IS REQUIRED, FBC B 1803.1. |
| | SEOR IS TO REVIEW THE SOILS REPORT; PROVIDE A SHOP |
| | DRAWING REVIEW, A REVIEW LETTER, OR INCORPORATE |
| | REFERENCE INTO THE PLAN. THE REPORT SUBMITTED IS FOR A |
| | PROJECT AT ANOTHER LOCATION; IT IS NOT CLEAR WHY THIS |
| | WAS SUBMITTED, FBC B 1803.1, FBC 107. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, TWO SOILS REPORTS PROVIDED, THREE REQUIRED. |
| | ADVISE AS TO WHERE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF RECORD'S |
| | REVIEW CAN BE FOUND. IF NOT IN THE PLAN, PROVIDE A |
| | LETTER OR SHOP DRAWING REVIEW STAMP ON THE SOILS |
| | REPORT, FBC 107. |
| | |
| | **REVISED ON 9/26/17: IF THE FOUNDATION PERMIT 17060234 |
| | HAS BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO NEXT REVIEW FOR THIS PERMIT, |
| | THE SOILS REPORT WILL NOT REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED AS |
| | IT WILL BE A PART OF THE PERMIT RECORD. REVIEW BY SEOR |
| | IS STILL REQUIRED.** |
| | |
| | 2-5. OK |
| | |
| | 6. A SITE PLAN PREPARED BY A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IS |
| | REQUIRED TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH FBC B TABLES 602, 705. |
| | THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED IS NOT SIGNED AND SEALED AND |
| | DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS INFORMATION. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, SHEET A1.01 DOES NOT INCLUDE DIMENSIONS TO |
| | THE (PROPOSED NEW) PROPERTY LINES OR CENTERLINE OF |
| | STREET AS APPLICABLE. SEE FBC B TABLES 602, 705. |
| | |
| | 7. FBC 109, PROJECT VALUE NOT CLEAR. A COPY OF THE |
| | CONTRACT, COST BREAKDOWN, OTHER INFORMATION MAY BE |
| | REQUIRED. AS SCOPE IS NOT CLEAR, A VALUATION ADJUSTMENT |
| | MAY BE DONE AT TIME OF 2ND REVIEW. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, PROVIDE A COPY OF THE CONTRACT FOR THIS |
| | JOB. VALUE APPEARS LOW. A COST BREAKDOWN MAY BE |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 8. SEE PREVIOUS LIST REGARDING FBC B 503 COMPLIANCE. |
| | BUILDING APPEARS TO BE COMPLIANT BUT INFORMATION ON THE |
| | PLAN IS NOT CORRECT. SHEET A0.02 AND OTHER LOCATIONS, |
| | REVISE THE FOLLOWING (AND CHECK ALL): |
| | |
| | TYPE IIB AND TYPE IIIB CONSTRUCTION DECLARED (APPEARS |
| | TO BE TYPE IIIB, REVIEWED AS SUCH). REVISE; ONLY ONE IS |
| | APPLICABLE. |
| | A5 OCCUPANCY DECLARED; THIS IS FOR OUTDOOR SPORTS, |
| | REVISE, FBC B 303.5, 303.6. |
| | |
| | 9. OK - UPDATE OCCUPANT LOAD IF ASSEMBLY OCC LOAD IS |
| | INCREASED |
| | |
| | 10-11. OK |
| | |
| | 12. SEATING AND SIGHT LINES FOR ASSEMBLY SEATING NOT |
| | CLEAR, REVISE PLAN TO CLARIFY FBC A 802. REVISE PLAN TO |
| | PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE SPACE WILL BE |
| | USED. IT APPEARS THAT COMPANION SEATING MAY ALSO BE |
| | REQUIRED. IF BLEACHER STYLE SEATING IS INCLUDED, WILL |
| | THE EXCEPTION OF FBC B 1006.2 BE USED? NO ELECTRICAL |
| | PLAN SUBMITTED; NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION PROVIDED TO |
| | DETERMINE CODE COMPLIANCE. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, NOT CLEAR HOW THIS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 13. OK |
| | |
| | 14. 2ND REVIEW, SHEET A1.01 SHOWS A SAFE DISPERSAL AREA |
| | FBC B 1027.5 EXCEPTION (TO REQUIREMENT FOR EXIT |
| | DISCHARGE TO THE PUBLIC WAY). IF OCCUPANT LOAD IS |
| | INCREASED DUE TO OTHER COMMENTS, REVISE THIS PAGE. |
| | ALSO, REVISE THE PLAN TO LABEL THE ROW OF RECTANGLES |
| | (NOT CLEAR WHAT THIS IS). |
| | |
| | 15. FBC A 207, REVISE PLAN TO DECLARE METHOD OF |
| | ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS SELECTED. REVISE PLAN TO |
| | SHOW COMPLIANCE; SEE ALSO COMMENT #14. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, NOT CLEAR HOW THIS WAS ADDRESSED. IBC2000 |
| | OR IBC2003? |
| | |
| | 16. THIS PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED WITH PROVISO, COMPLIANCE |
| | WITH MEANS OF EGRESS ILLUMINATION, INCLUDING EXIT |
| | DISCHARGE TO THE PUBLIC WAY, IS TO COMPLY WITH FBC B |
| | 1006.1. THIS WILL BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO C.O. REVISE PLAN |
| | TO NOTE REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | 17-20. OK |
| | |
| | 21. ENERGY CALCS WERE PROVIDED BUT APPEAR INCOMPLETE. |
| | INPUT REPORT DOES NOT SHOW WALLS, DOORS, WINDOWS, |
| | FENESTRATION, ROOF, ETC. FBC EC 103. |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 22. SHEET A0.02, A0.03, POSSIBLY OTHER SHEETS, IT IS |
| | NOT CLEAR WHAT WORK IS EXISTING, COVERED BY OTHER |
| | PERMIT(S), OR PROPOSED UNDER THIS PERMIT. VERIFY THAT |
| | THE NORTH INDICATOR IS CORRECT ON ALL SHEETS. THE FLOOR |
| | PLAN FOR EXISTING BUILDING HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED AT |
| | THIS TIME. IF THIS IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF |
| | THIS PERMIT, REVISE PLAN TO INDICATE WHAT WORK IS |
| | PROPOSED. IF THIS WAS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION ONLY, |
| | PLEASE LABEL AS SUCH. |
| | |
| | 23. A0.04, SEE FIRE COMMENTS, FBC B 1004, PROVIDE |
| | RATIONALE FOR 15SF PER PERSON FOR THE GYMNASIUM. NO |
| | SEATING IS SHOWN. FOR ALL ASSEMBLY AREAS (PROPOSED, AND |
| | WHAT MAY BE EXISTING) THE PLAN LACKS CLARIFICATION |
| | REGARDING THE USE OF THE SPACES. |
| | |
| | F0R INSTANCE, GYMANSIUM; WILL THIS BE USED FOR ANY |
| | PURPOSE OTHER THAN A BASKETBALL COURT WHICH IS SHOWN |
| | GRAPHICALLY?. |
| | |
| | A0.02, WHAT IS THE USE OF THE 1,315 SF ASSEMBLY SPACE? |
| | |
| | 24. A0.05 AND OTHER SHEETS, WHAT IS THE USE OF THE "FAB |
| | LAB", FBC 107, REVISE PLAN TO INCLUDE DESCRIPTON. |
| | A0.04, A0.05, POSSIBLY OTHER LOCATIONS, TEACHER |
| | PLANNING ROOM TEXT NOT LEGIBLE, REVISE. |
| | |
| | 25. VESTIBULES 109A, 208A, REVISE PLAN TO SHOW 18" |
| | MANEUVERING CLEARANCE REQUIRED BY FBC A |
| | |
| | 26. 3-A5.51 INCLUDES A REFERENCE TO "FBC 2015", REVISE |
| | AND CHECK ALL. |
| | |
| | 27. FBC ACCESSIBILITY, PROVIDE DETAILS FOR BATHROOMS |
| | AND FIXTURES. |
| | |
| | 28. FBC A 212.3, SHEET A 5.51, CLARIFY LOCATION OF |
| | SINKS DETAILS 2 AND 3. |
| | |
| | 29. THREE COMPLETE IDENTICAL COLLATED SETS OF PERMIT |
| | DOCUMENTS AND PLANS REQUIRED, FBC 107. FAILURE TO |
| | PROVIDE THREE SETS FOR EACH REVIEW CYCLE MAY RESULT IN |
| | DELAY AT TIME OF ISSUANCE. |
| | |
| | 30. THE DELEGATED ENGINEERING (BUILDING SHELL) IS |
| | REQUIRED TO BE SIGNED, SEALED, DATED ORIGINALS, FS471. |
| | THEY ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF |
| | RECORD PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL. THEY MAY BE PROVIDED IN THE |
| | NEXT SUBMITTAL OR MAY BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL |
| | (SUBMITTED, REVIEWED, AND ISSUED PRIOR TO |
| | INSTALLATION). |
| | |
| | 31. FBC B TABLE 1607.1(26), SHEET S002 AND E1 OF 68, |
| | 300# CONCENTRATED REQUIRED FOR ROOF, REVISE. |
| | |
| | 32. FBC 107, PROVIDE THE COVER SHEET FOR EACH FLORIDA |
| | STATE PRODUCT APPROVAL. THIS WAS PROVIDED FOR SOME BUT |
| | NOT ALL OF THE PRODUCT APPROVALS. ALL PRODUCT APPROVALS |
| | AND RELATED INFORMATION (METHOD OF FASTENING PROPOSED) |
| | MAY BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 33. VERIFY THAT PRODUCT APPROVALS HAVE PRINTED |
| | PROPERLY; SEE NOA 16-0208.08. |
| | |
| | 34. ROOF DECK PRODUCT APPROVALS, WALL PANEL PRODUCT |
| | APPROVALS, INDICATE WHICH METHOD OF FASTENING IS |
| | PROPOSED, FBC B 1609. THIS MAY BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 34. WHEN RESUBMITTING, PROVIDE THREE IDENTICAL COLLATED |
| | SETS OF PLANS AND PERMIT DOCUMENTS. THE SUPPORTING |
| | DOCUMENTS MAY BE IN A BINDER BUT IF SUBMITTED IN THIS |
| | MANNER SHOULD HAVE THREE BINDERS. REMOVE OLD SHEETS |
| | FROM THE BOUND SETS, MARK VOID AND RETAIN IN THE |
| | SUBMITTAL (BUT NOT IN THE PLANS FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE). |
| | ALL CHANGES SHOULD BE CLOUDED AND MARKED WITH REVISION |
| | #. |
| | |
| | 35. FS553.80(2)(B), WITH RESPECT TO EVALUATION OF |
| | DESIGN PROFESSIONALS? DOCUMENTS, IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT |
| | FINDS IT NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH |
| | THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND ISSUE A PERMIT, TO REJECT |
| | DESIGN DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE CODE THREE OR MORE |
| | TIMES FOR FAILURE TO CORRECT A CODE VIOLATION |
| | SPECIFICALLY AND CONTINUOUSLY NOTED IN EACH REJECTION, |
| | INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EGRESS, FIRE PROTECTION, |
| | STRUCTURAL STABILITY, ENERGY, ACCESSIBILITY, LIGHTING, |
| | VENTILATION, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND GAS |
| | SYSTEMS, OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED BY RULE OF |
| | THE FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO |
| | CHAPTER 120, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL IMPOSE, EACH |
| | TIME AFTER THE THIRD SUCH REVIEW THE PLANS ARE REJECTED |
| | FOR THAT CODE VIOLATION, A FEE OF FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT |
| | OF THE PROPORTION OF THE PERMIT FEE ATTRIBUTED TO PLANS |
| | REVIEW. |
| | |
