| Date |
Text |
| 2017-08-18 08:15:28 | ****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 |
| | |
| | 17060191 3 STORY APARTMENT BUILDING |
| | 17060189 6 STORY APARTMENT BUILDING |
| | 17060192 CLUBHOUSE (BLDG F) |
| | |
| | COMMENTS FROM PREVIOUS LIST: |
| | |
| | 1-2. OK |
| | |
| | 3. SEE COMMENT FROM PREVIOUS LIST. 2ND REVIEW, PLANS |
| | HAVE BEEN REVISED TO STATE "THIS PLANS COMPLY WITH |
| | FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE(1ST LEVEL) & FAIR HOUSING |
| | ACT (ENTIRE BUILDING)". APPLICANT MAY EXCEED MINIMUM |
| | CODE BUT, IF PLAN STATES THAT INTENT IS TO COMPLY WITH |
| | A MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENT, DESIGN MUST COMPLY. |
| | |
| | MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS FAIR HOUSING COMPLIANCE ON THE |
| | GROUND FLOOR, NO ADA COMPLIANCE REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | SINCE THE PLAN STATES THAT THE INTENT IS FOR THE DESIGN |
| | TO COMPLY WITH ADA ON THE FIRST FLOOR, NOTE THAT THE |
| | FOLLOWING ITEMS DO NOT COMPLY WITH FLORIDA |
| | ACCESSIBILITY: BATHROOM DOOR LACKS 18" MANEUVERING |
| | CLEARANCE PULL SIDE FBC A TABLE 404.2.4; THE SLIDING |
| | GLASS DOOR TRACK DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ADA ACCESSIBLE |
| | ROUTE. OTHER ITEMS, SUCH AS REACH RANGES, NOT REVIEWED |
| | AS DESIGN INTENT IS NOT CLEAR. |
| | |
| | YOU MAY FIND THE FOLLOWING WEBSITE HELPFUL: |
| | |
| | HTTPS://PORTAL.HUD.GOV/HUDPORTAL/HUD?SRC=/PROGRAM_OFFIC |
| | ES/FAIR_HOUSING_EQUAL_OPP/DISABILITIES/ACCESSIBILITYR |
| | |
| | ADA IS GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO PLACES OF PUBLIC |
| | ACCOMODATION, NOT LONG TERM HOUSING. IT IS RECOMMENDED |
| | TO REVISE PLAN TO NOTE FAIR HOUSING COMPLIANCE, FIRST |
| | FLOOR, AND REMOVE ADA REFERENCES. EVEN FAIR HOUSING |
| | REFERENCE FOR FLOORS OTHER THAN THE GROUND FLOOR IS |
| | CONFUSING AS THERE IS NO ELEVATOR. IT IS RECOMMENDED TO |
| | REMOVE THE REFERENCE REGARDING FAIR HOUSING COMPLIANCE |
| | ON FLOORS ABOVE THE GROUND FLOOR. |
| | |
| | 4. OK |
| | |
| | 5. FBC B 1803, PROVIDE THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION |
| | REPORT (S1.0 ARDAMAN & ASSOC 2/10/17). THIS IS AREA IS |
| | KNOWN TO HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF POOR SOILS. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, RESPONSE LETTER STATES THAT THE SOILS ARE |
| | WITH THE FULL SET. EACH PERMIT REQUIRES DOCUMENTS TO |
| | SHOW COMPLIANCE FOR THE PERMIT; EACH PERMIT IS |
| | TRAVELLING SEPARATELY. UNTIL ONE PERMIT IS ISSUED, THE |
| | SOILS REPORT WHICH WAS SUBMITTED WITH ONE OF THE TWO |
| | OTHER PERMITS IS NOT A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE THREE COPIES OF THE SOILS REPORT WITH |
| | EACH PERMIT APPLICATION. ONE PERMIT APPLICATION SHOULD |
| | INCLUDE ORIGINAL SIGNED AND SEALED SOILS REPORTS; THE |
| | SOILS REPORTS SUBMITTED WITH THE OTHER TWO ASSOCIATED |
| | PERMITS MAY BE PHOTOCOPIES. |
| | |
| | I ATTEMPTED TO LOCATE THE SOILS REPORT WHICH WAS |
| | SUBMITTED WITH ANOTHER PERMIT APPLICATION. IT APPEARS |
| | THAT THE OTHER APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN CHECKED OUT FOR |
| | REVIEW BY ANOTHER REVIEWER, SO REVIEW OF THE FOUNDATION |
| | AND THE SOILS REPORT IS NOT POSSIBLE AT THIS TIME. |
| | STRUCTURAL REVIEW INCLUDES VERIFICATION OF THE SOILS |
| | ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. |
| | |
| | 6. OK |
| | |
| | 7. CLARIFY ZONE 3 DIMENSION AND DIMENSION OF OVERHANG |
| | OF ROOF OVER THE STAIR, FBC 107 (NORTH AND SOUTH |
| | OVERHANGS). |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, RESPONSE LETTER REFERS TO SHEET A-1.5. |
| | PLEASE SEE A-1.5 AND A-3.3. THE STAIRS HAVE A ROOF WITH |
| | NO PARAPET; OVERHANG PRESSURES APPEAR APPLICABLE FOR A |
| | PORTION OF THE STAIR ROOF, BUT IT APPEARS THAT A |
| | PORTION OF ZONE 3 ROOF IS NOT OVERHANG. IF ANY PORTION |
| | OF ZONE 3 IS NOT OVERHANG, THEN ZONE 3 ROOF DESIGN |
| | PRESSURE SPECIFIED ON SHEET S1.0 (-77.6PSF, SAME AS |
| | ZONE 2 PRESSURES) APPEARS TOO LOW FOR THE STAIR ROOF |
| | (OK FOR APARTMENT ROOF). PLEASE REVISE PLAN TO CLARIFY. |
| | IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS, OR DISAGREE, PLEASE CONTACT ME. |
| | |
| | 8-10. OK |
| | |
| | 11. A 2 HOUR PARTITION IS SHOWN BETWEEN UNITS, BUT FIRE |
| | RESISTANCE OF THE WALL BETWEEN THE UNITS ON THE |
| | BALCONIES AND PORCHES IS NOT CLEAR, REVISE PLAN TO |
| | CLARIFY, FBC 107. PLEASE ALSO REVISE LANGUAGE FROM |
| | "SEPARATION" TO "PARTITION" (FBC B 708). |
| | |
| | RESPONSE STATES THAT SHEETS WERE REVISED, BUT PLAN DOES |
| | NOT SHOW A RATED WALL BETWEEN THE UNIT BALCONIES. IF |
| | DOR DOES NOT AGREE WITH COMMENT, PLEASE CONTACT ME TO |
| | DISCUSS PRIOR TO RESUBMITTAL. IF DOR AGREES, PLEASE |
| | REVISE THE EXTERIOR WALL BETWEEN THE UNITS ON THE |
| | BALCONIES TO INDICATE MINIMUM 1 HOUR; THIS CAN BE A |
| | NOTE, NO DETAIL REQUIRED. THE UL WALL DETAIL IS NOT |
| | APPLICABLE TO THE BALCONY LOCATION AS THE UL WALL |
| | DETAIL HAS AN INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR SIDE. BALCONY WALL |
| | HAS TWO EXTERIOR SIDES. |
| | |
| | 12. FBC B 1503.4, FBC B 1503.4.1, FBC P 1106.4, SHEET |
| | A-1.5, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT 50% OF THE STAIR WALL |
| | WAS INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATIONS; REVISE PLAN TO |
| | INCLUDE OR CLARIFY. ALSO PROVIDE PARAPET CALCS; IT IS |
| | NOT CLEAR IF THE HIGHER WALL OVER THE BALCONY AREAS WAS |
| | INCLUDED IN PARAPET CALCS. |
| | |
| | 13. REGARDING THE ENERGY CALCS: PLEASE CORRECT COUNTY |
| | (STATES BROWARD) IF ENERGY CALCS ARE REVISED DUE TO |
| | ANOTHER COMMENTS; OTHERWISE ENERGY CALCS APPEAR |
| | COMPLIANT. |
| | |
| | 14. OK |
| | |
| | 15. FBC B 1207.2, 1207.3, PROVIDE TEST REPORTS FOR THE |
| | FLOORING UNDERLAYMENT (STC/IIC). REVISE PLAN TO INCLUDE |
| | REQUIREMENT FOR ACOUSTIC INSULATION. NOTE THAT SPEC |
| | SHEETS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE; ACTUAL TEST REPORTS ARE |
| | REVIEWED. IT IS LIKELY THAT THE MANUFACTURER WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED TO DO A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AS IT IS UNLIKELY |
| | THAT THE UNDERLAYMENT WAS TESTED WITH HOLLOW CORE (MOST |
| | TESTS ARE DONE WITH A CONCRETE SLAB). |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, PLAN HAS BEEN REVISED IN AN ACCEPTABLE |
| | MANNER. PLEASE ALSO REVISE COVER PAGE "TO BE SUBMITTED |
| | AT A LATER TIME OR UNDER SEPARATE PERMITS" - PLEASE ADD |
| | "FLOORING UNDERLAYMENT STC/IIC TEST REPORTS" TO THIS |
| | LIST. SEE ALSO ADVISORY UNDER ITEM #16. |
| | |
| | HOWEVER, RESPONSE LETTER STILL REFERS TO "CSM". THIS IS |
| | A BRAND, NO TEST REPORTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. IT IS NOT |
| | CLEAR IF THIS PRODUCT CAN BE USED. |
| | |
| | 16. FBC 720.2, PROVIDE A COPY OF THE FLAME SPREAD TEST |
| | FOR THE PROPOSED FLOORING UNDERLAYMENT. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, RESPONSE IS THAT CSM PRODUCT WILL BE |
| | PROVIDED AT A LATER DATE. THIS IS ACCEPTABLE; PLEASE |
| | REVISE THE FRONT PAGE TO ADD "FLOORING UNDERLAYMENT |
| | FLAME SPREAD REPORT". HOWEVER: |
| | |
| | HOWEVER, RESPONSE LETTER STILL REFERS TO "CSM". THIS IS |
| | A BRAND, NO TEST REPORTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. IT IS NOT |
| | CLEAR IF THIS PRODUCT CAN BE USED. |
| | |
| | ***PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, ONLY ONE |
| | PRODUCT HAS THE THREE TEST REPORTS REQUIRED (STC, IIC, |
| | FLAME SPREAD) - MOST PRODUCTS DO NOT HAVE A FLAME |
| | SPREAD TEST WITHOUT TILE ON THE FLAME SIDE IN THE |
| | STEINER TUNNEL - THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR A LVT |
| | INSTALLATION. MANY PRODUCTS DO NOT HAVE AN STC/IIC |
| | WITHOUT DROPPED GYPSUM CEILING, ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE*** |
| | |
| | I AM CONCERNED AS THIS APPLICATION IS "TBD" (NO |
| | CONTRACTOR) AND ALSO IS PRIVATE PROVIDER. A C.O. WILL |
| | NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE THREE TEST REPORTS FOR THE |
| | FLOORING UNDERLAYMENT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AND THE JOB |
| | INSPECTOR HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE CORRECT UNDERLAYMENT |
| | (SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED) HAS BEEN INSTALLED. |
| | |
| | HOW DOES APPLICANT (ARCHITECT, DEVELOPER, OR OWNER) |
| | PROPOSE TO CONVEY THIS INFORMATION TO THE FUTURE |
| | CONTRACTOR? THIS IS A RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENT WHICH IS |
| | NOT ENFORCED IN ALL JURISDICTIONS, SO CONTRACTOR MAY BE |
| | UNFAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE FOUND THAT |
| | MOST PRODUCTS DO NOT HAVE THE THREE TEST REPORTS WHICH |
| | DEMONSTRATE CODE COMPLIANCE. |
| | |
| | IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE APPLICANT'S PRODUCT OF CHOICE'S |
| | TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT ME DIRECTLY SO WE CAN |
| | WORK THROUGH THIS TO AVOID POTENTIAL FUTURE ISSUES? |
| | |
| | 17. OK |
| | |
| | 18. THIS PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED WITH PROVISO, A SEPARATE |
| | ROOF PERMIT IS REQUIRED. A ROOF PRODUCT APPROVAL WAS |
| | SUBMITTED, FIBERTITE SINGLE PLY ROOF SYSTEMS OVER |
| | LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE DECKS (NOA 15-1026.04). |
| | |
| | AT TIME OF ROOF SUB PERMIT APPLICATION, THE APPROVED |
| | ASSEMBLY IS TO BE SELECTED. A PLAN REVIEW WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED AT THAT TIME. |
| | |
| | 19. FS 553.80, A 4X FEE WILL BE CHARGED (AS REQUIRED BY |
| | LAW) IF COMMENTS ARE NOT ADDRESSED A THIRD TIME (#7, |
| | #11). |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | ************************************ |
| | INTERNAL USE ONLY |
| | 17060191 BUILDING DATA FOR C.O./REPORTING |
| | |
| | USC-404 105 - NEW: RES FIVE OR MORE UNITS |
| | SQUARE FEET - 11429 |
| | |
| | CONSTRUCTION TYPE: 14-III-B - 5TH ED TYPE III-B |
| | UNITS: 12 |
| | FLOORS: 3 |
| | BEDROOMS: 24 |
| | ROOMS: 48 |
| | SQ FT LIVABLE: 11429 |
| | SQ FT FOOTPRINT: 3452 |
| | SQ FT ROOF: 3452 |
| | |
| | SETBACKS FRONT (USE THIS TO ENTER VERTICAL DATUM IF |
| | KNOWN): |
| | SETBACKS BACK (USE THIS TO ENTER FIRST FLOOR IF KNOWN): |
| | XX.XX |
| | SETBACKS LEFT (USE THIS TO ENTER SECOND FLOOR IF KNOWN: |
| | XX.XX |
| | OCC LOAD: 58 |
| | PROP USE: APARTMENT |
| | SPRINKLER SYS? Y |
| | SPRK REQ'D? Y |
| | BATHRMS: 12 |
| | |
| | BLDG CODE: FL 2014 |
| | OCC CLASS: 5TH ED R-2 |
| | |
