| Date |
Text |
| 2019-10-28 18:14:27 | |
| | *****NOTE: |
| | 01/15/2020 MEETING W/ SAMANTHA HILL, JORGE GONZALEZ |
| | (ENG'R) AND DANIEL ACEVEDO (CONTR) TO GO OVER COMMENTS. |
| | JG. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | RESIDENTIAL (R3) SIXTH BUILDING REVIEW COMMENTS |
| | CODE: FBC 6TH EDITION (2017) AND CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | 1- SHEET S-01: |
| | PROVIDE COMPLETE DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ONE |
| | HOUR FIRE RATED FLOOR ASSEMBLY SEPARATING DUPLEX A AND |
| | B. |
| | SEC. 801.3 FBC-EXISTING BUILDING AND SEC. R302.3 |
| | FBC-RESIDENTIALL. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | REPEAT COMMENT (SIX TIMES). REVISED DRAWING SUBMITTED |
| | THIS TIME ON SHEET S-01 DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY DETAIL OR |
| | SPECIFICATIONS FOR AN APPROVED ONE HOUR FIRE RATED |
| | FLOOR /CEILING ASSEMBLY COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS |
| | OF SEC. R302.3 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. THE PREVIOUS PLANS |
| | SPECIFIED APPROVED ASSEMBLY NO L501 BUT IT WAS NOT |
| | COORDINATED WITH THE BUILDING SECTION ON SAME SHEET. |
| | THE COMMENT WAS FOR ENGINEER TO COORDINATE THE |
| | INFORMATION. NOW ENGINEER PROVIDES A NEW DRAWING THAT |
| | DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY ONE HOUR APPROVED FIRE RATED |
| | ASSEMBLY. NEED TO PROVIDE DETAIL/SPECIFICATIONS FOR AN |
| | APPROVED 1 HOUR FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLY THAT IS TESTED |
| | IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E119 OR UL 263 AS REQUIRED BY |
| | SEC. R302.3 FRBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | THIS PLAN REVIEW HAVE BEEN DENIED SIX TIMES FOR THIS |
| | SAME ITEM. ENGINEER OF RECORD TO PAY FOUR TIMES THE |
| | PLAN REVIEW FEE ($1630.72) AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA |
| | STATUTE 553.80(2)(B). |
| | |
| | ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS |
| | FLORIDA STATUTE 553.80(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 |
| | |
| | |
| | 2- WINDOW REPLACEMENT: |
| | A) CLEARLY SPECIFY TYPE AND SIZE OF EXISTING WINDOWS |
| | AND TYPE AND SIZE OF PROPOSED WINDOWS TO VERIFY |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH THE EGRESS REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 702.5 |
| | FBC-EXISTING BUILDING. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | REPEAT COMMENT (SIX TIMES). EGRESS NOTE ON SHEET A-01 |
| | DOESN'T ADDRESS THE COMMENT. THIS NOTE DOESN'T ANSWER |
| | WHAT IT WAS REQUESTED. PLEASE READ THE COMMENT AGAIN |
| | AND PROVIDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION. ALSO, IT LOOKS |
| | LIKE THE CODE SECTION IS TAKING FROM ANOTHER CODE OTHER |
| | THAN THE 2017 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. IN ADDITION, THE WINDOW |
| | SIZES SHOWN ON THE PROPOSED WINDOW SCHEDULE DON'T |
| | COMPLY. |
| | |
| | ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS |
| | FLORIDA STATUTE 553.80(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 |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 3- PROVIDE PRODUCT APPROVAL (2 COPIES) AS REQUIRED BY |
| | FAC 61G20-3.001 FOR: |
| | A) EXTERIOR DOORS AS SHOWN ON PLANS. NOTE: PROVIDE |
| | FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL COVER PAGE THAT CORRESPOND TO |
| | DRAWINGS MA-FL0211-17 SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | REPEAT COMMENT (SIX TIMES). FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL |
| | COVER PAGE WAS NOT PROVIDED. NEED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE |
| | FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL, INCLUDING THE FLORIDA PRODUCT |
| | APPROVAL COVER PAGE THAT CORRESPONDS TO THE DRAWINGS |
| | SUBMITTED. THE FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL IS REQUIRED |
| | BECAUSE IT SHOWS IF PRODUCT IS APPROVED AND CURRENT |
| | CODE IN EFFECT. |
| | NOTE: IF THERE IS NOT CURRENT FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL, |
| | THEN MANUFACTURER MAY APPLY FOR LOCAL PRODUCT APPROVAL. |
| | 2 COPIES OF COMPLETE ENGINEERED PACKAGE WITH ORIGINAL |
| | SEAL/SIGNATURE ALONG WITH APPLICATION FOR PRODUCT |
| | APPROVAL WILL BE REQUIRED FOR BUILDING OFFICIAL |
| | REVIEW/APPROVAL PROCESS. |
| | |
| | 4- RAFTER CONNECTION DETAIL ON SHEET S-01. ENGINEER TO |
| | PROVIDE ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS SHOWING THAT THE |
| | SPECIFIED CONNECTION IS ADEQUATE FOR THE SUPPORT OF |
| | SECOND FLOOR JOISTS. ENGINEER TO SHOW THAT 1/4" X |
| | 3-1/4" TAPCONS SPACED AT 24" O.C ARE ADEQUATE TO CARRY |
| | ALL LIVE AND DEAD LOADS. SEC. 107.2.1.2 CITY |
| | AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | SCOPE OF WORK IS NO CLEAR NOW. SEC. 107.2.1 CITY |
| | AMENDMENTS. NEW STRUCTURAL DRAWING S-01 SHOWS WHAT |
| | LOOKS LIKE A SECOND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN (THERE IS NO |
| | NAME FOR THIS PLAN). IN ADDITION IT DOESN'T SPECIFY |
| | WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF WORK ON THIS PLAN. PREVIOUS FLOOR |
| | FRAMING PLAN WAS FOR THE REPAIR ON ONE CORNER OF THE |
| | FLOOR. NOW, THE SCOPE OF WORK IS NOT CLEAR. |
| | ALSO, PREVIOUS SET OF PLANS SHOWED A ROOF FRAMING PLAN |
| | FOR REPAIR AT ONE CORNER ALSO. THE STRUCTURAL PLAN |
| | SUBMITTED (S-01) IS NOT CLEAR ON THE SCOPE OF WORK. |
| | |
| | ON THE OTHER HAND, WALL SECTIONS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE |
| | OF THE SHEET SHOWS THE SECOND FLOOR CONCRETE BLOCK WALL |
| | BEING SUPPORTED BY WOOD FLOOR JOISTS. THIS DOESN'T SEEM |
| | TO BE RIGHT. ( MASONRY SHALL NOT BE SUPPORTED ON WOOD. |
| | SEC. 2104.1.1 FBC-BUILDING). PREVIOUS DRAWINGS SHOWED A |
| | CONTINUOUS CONCRETE BLOCK WALL ALL THE WAY UP TO THE |
| | SECOND FLOOR. AND, FLOOR JOISTS WERE SUPPORTED ON |
| | STRUCTURAL WOOD LEDGERS. CLARIFY/REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | ALSO, THE HURRICANE TIES (SIMPSON H3) SPECIFIED FOR THE |
| | FIRST FLOOR FRAMING PLAN AND ROOF FRAMING PLAN ARE WOOD |
| | TO WOOD CONNECTORS. ACCORDING TO WALL SECTIONS |
| | SUBMITTED THERE ARE WOOD JOISTS ATTACHED TO THE |
| | CONCRETE BLOCK WALL. REVISE AS REQUIRED. SPECIFY |
| | CONNECTORS FOR MASONRY CONSTRUCTION. |
| | AND, THERE IS NOT INFORMATION ABOUT THE ROOF VENTS. |
| | PREVIOUS DRAWINGS SHOWED CONTINUATIONS ROOF VENTS. |
| | |
| | ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS |
| | FLORIDA STATUTE 553.80(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 |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 5- ALL PLANS SUBMITTED HAVE A COPY OF THE SEAL AND |
| | SIGNATURE OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. NEED TO PROVIDE |
| | PLANS WITH ORIGINAL SEAL AND SIGNATURE AS REQUIRED BY |
| | 61G15-23.001 FAC. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE THAT SUBMITTAL OF ADDITIONAL AND/OR REVISED |
| | MATERIALS MAY RESULT IN NEW PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| | ENGINEER OF RECORD TO CALL IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS |
| | REGARDING THE COMMENTS AND PROVIDE A RESPONSE LETTER |
| | ADDRESSING EACH COMMENT TO AVOID ANY PLAN REVIEW FEES |
| | AND TO HELP EXPEDITE THE REVIEW PROCESS. |
| | ADDITIONALLY, PLEASE INSERT CORRECTED PAGES INTO THE |
| | SUBMITTAL AND REMOVE/VOID THE PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED |
| | SHEETS. PLEASE DON'T STAPLE OLD DRAWINGS. SUBMIT OLD |
| | DRAWINGS FOR REFERENCE. |
| | |
| | |
| | IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT |
| | JULIO GOMEZ |
| | COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| | BUILDING DIVISION |
| | (561)805-6712 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
