| Date |
Text |
| 2018-07-03 17:40:50 | ****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 |
| | |
| | FBC B 1609 |
| | |
| | 1. THE ENGINEER'S LETTER STATES THAT THE "COMPOSITE |
| | PANELS" HAVE NO PRODUCT APPROVAL. |
| | |
| | THE LETTER SHOULD BE SPECIFIC AS TO PRODUCT, AND THAT |
| | THE PRODUCT DOES HAVE AN NOA BUT FOR USE AS A WALL |
| | PANEL, NOT A ROOF PANEL. REVISE TO REFERENCE. |
| | |
| | 2. THE LETTER STATES THAT THE PANELS ARE ADJUDGED |
| | "STRUCTURALLY EQUAL" TO METL-SPAN CFR PANELS. THE TWO |
| | PRODUCTS ARE DIFFERENT (FOAM DENSITY, STEEL GAGE); |
| | INCLUDE THE DIFFERENCES IN THE LETTER. |
| | |
| | 3. THE LETTER STATES THAT THE PRODUCT WILL "SPAN 48"". |
| | IT IS NOT CLEAR WHERE THIS IS; THE ROOF PANEL NOA SPANS |
| | 60", WALL SPAN DOES NOT APPEAR RELEVANT; CLARIFY OR |
| | REMOVE. |
| | |
| | 4. THE LETTER SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT THE WALL |
| | PANEL NOA IS ACCEPTABLE FOR USE AS A ROOF PANEL. |
| | |
| | 5. THE PLANS APPEAR TO SHOW THE ROOF PANELS SECURED TO |
| | THE WALL PANELS WITH "TRIM" AND NO OTHER SUPPORT AT |
| | EACH END. SEE THE ROOF PANEL NOA, PAGE 3, HIGH EAVE |
| | DETAIL AND EVE DETAIL. THE INSTALLATION SHOULD BE |
| | CONSISTENT WITH THE NOA OR A DETAIL WITH SIMILAR |
| | SUPPORT PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 6. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A ROOF COVERING WAS |
| | INSTALLED; PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - PRODUCT |
| | APPROVAL, METHOD OF INSTALLATION. REVISE PLAN TO |
| | INCLUDE THE ROOF COVERING. |
| | |
| | 7. PROVIDE DESIGN PRESSURES FOR THE ROOF. SEE SHEET 1 |
| | OF 3, ROOF PANEL NOA. REVISE PLAN TO PROPOSE PERLIN |
| | SUPPORT AS NEEDED FOR SPECIFIED DESIGN PRESSURES. |
| | |
| | 8. SHEET 1, THE EXPANSION BOLT IS SHOWN GRAPHICALLY TOO |
| | CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THE CONCRETE. REVISE TO SHOW |
| | DISTANCE OF EACH BOLT TO EDGE, AND DISTANCE BETWEEN |
| | BOLTS. PROVIDE THE PRODUCT APPROVAL FOR THE BOLTS SO |
| | REQUIRED SEPARATION AND EDGE DISTANCE CAN BE CONFIRMED. |
| | THE WAY THE DETAIL IS DRAWN, FAILURE OF THE CONCRETE AT |
| | THE TOP IS POSSIBLE. |
| | |
| | 9. THE NOA FOR THE ROOF PANELS, HIGH EAVE DETAIL AND |
| | EAVE DETAIL, SHOW FASTENERS FROM "EAVE STRUCTURE BY |
| | OTHERS" TO THE WALL PANEL, BUT DOES NOT SPECIFY |
| | SPACING. REVISE PLAN TO INCLUDE. |
| | |
| | 10. A MECHANICAL UNIT IS SHOWN ABOVE THE COOLER. HOW |
| | WILL THIS BE ACCESSED FOR SERVICE? FBC B TABLE 1607.1, |
| | IT APPEARS THAT THE ONLY ACCESS IS OVER THE TOP OF THE |
| | COOLER, BUT THE COOLER ROOF DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE |
| | DESIGNED FOR THE REQUIRED LOAD OF 300# PSF. |
| | |
| | 11. FBC B TABLE 1607.1, REVISE PLAN TO CLARIFY THAT THE |
| | ROOF MEETS THE LIVE LOAD REQUIREMENT OF 20# PSF. |
| | |
| | 12. AFTER PERMIT IS ISSUED AND INSTALLATION IS |
| | COMPLETE, AN ENGINEER'S INSPECTION AND LETTER/REPORT |
| | WILL BE REQUIRED DUE TO THE UNUSUAL NATURE OF THE |
| | CONSTRUCTION, FBC 110.3.9. |
| | |
| | 13. FOR THE WALL PANELS, ON THE PRODUCT APPROVAL |
| | INDICATE |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
