| Date |
Text |
| 2019-10-07 18:34:36 | RESIDENTIAL (R3) REVISION SECOND BUILDING REVIEW |
| | CHECKLIST. |
| | CODE: FBC 6TH EDITION (2017) AND CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | 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 |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | NOTE: SEC. 801.3 FBC-EXISTING BUILDING. ALL NEW |
| | CONSTRUCTION ELEMENTS, COMPONENTS, SYSTEMS, AND SPACES |
| | SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA |
| | BUILDING CODE, BUILDING. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 1- REVISION SUBMITTED IS FOR THE DETACHED REAR |
| | STRUCTURE. THE MASTER PERMIT WAS FOR WORK ON THE MAIN |
| | HOUSE ONLY. A REVISION SUBMITTAL WAS PERMITTED FOR THIS |
| | PROJECT BY ROBERT BROWN (BUILDING OFFICIAL). A SEPARATE |
| | PERMIT APPLICATION IS USUALLY REQUIRED FOR EACH |
| | STRUCTURE. STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL SHEETS |
| | SUBMITTED ARE THE SAME NUMBERS AS SHOWN ON THE MASTER |
| | PERMIT APPLICATION. NEED TO REVISE THE DRAWINGS NUMBERS |
| | ON EACH SHEET OR NEED TO ADD THE SCOPE OF WORK SHOWN ON |
| | THE MASTER PERMIT THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED. |
| | SEC. 107.2.1.3 CITY AMENDMENTS. SEE NOTE BELOW STATING |
| | HOW ROBERT BROWN PERMITTED THE REVISION INSTEAD OF |
| | SEPARATE PERMIT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | PARTIALLY COMPLIED. SHEET NUMBERS WERE REVISED, BUT THE |
| | LAST STRUCTURAL DRAWING WAS S-9. THEREFORE, THE FIRST |
| | OF NUMBER FOR THIS ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE REAR |
| | STRUCTURE SHOULD BE S-10 NOT S-9 AS SUBMITTED. |
| | OTHERWISE, THERE WILL BE TWO S-9 SHEETS. REVISE AS |
| | REQUIRED. SEC. 107.2.1.3 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 2- SECOND FLOOR JOIST LAYOUT, ROOF FRAMING PLAN, |
| | EXTERIOR DOOR OPENING WINDOW/WALL FRAMING & STRAPPING |
| | DETAIL, STAIRWAY FRAMING PLAN AND ELEVATION A ON SHEET |
| | S-2 AND SECTION A, SECTION B SECTION C ON SHEET S-3 ARE |
| | MISSING SOME STRUCTURAL CONNECTORS AT THE ENDS OF EACH |
| | STRUCTURAL MEMBER. PLEASE REVIEW ALL FRAMING PLANS, |
| | DETAILS AND SECTIONS AND CLEARLY PROVIDE THE CONNECTOR |
| | AT EACH FRAMING MEMBER. SEC. R301.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | STRUCTURAL PLANS AND DETAILS DON'T PROVIDE |
| | DETAILS/SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL CONNECTORS AT THE |
| | BASE OF ALL NEW JACKS SPECIFIED ON THE FRAMING PLANS. |
| | SEE JACKS SPECIFIED AT THE END OF EACH BEAM AND AT THE |
| | END OF THE GARAGE DOORS FRAMING. PROVIDE |
| | DETAILS/SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL CONNECTIONS |
| | SHOWING THE LOAD PATH. SEC. 801.3 FBC-EXISTING BUILDING |
| | AND SEC. R601.2 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 3- ENGINEER OF RECORD TO CLARIFY WHY THE DESIGN |
| | PRESSURES SHOWN ON SHEET S-1 ARE HIGHER FOR THE WINDOWS |
| | LOCATED ON ZONE 4. DESIGN PRESSURES ARE HIGHER FOR |
| | WINDOWS LOCATED ON ZONE 5. |
| | SEC. 107.2.1.2 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | DESIGN PRESSURES WERE REVISED BUT ENGINEER NEEDS TO |
| | CLARIFY WHY THE DESIGN PRESSURES SPECIFIED FOR THE |
| | LARGER WINDOWS ARE HIGHER THAN THE DESIGN PRESSURE FOR |
| | SMALLER WINDOWS. TYPICALLY, THE SMALLER THE EFFECTIVE |
| | WIND AREA THE HIGHER THE DESIGN PRESSURES. ALSO, |
| | COORDINATE WITH ITEM #3(B) BELOW AND REVISE AS |
| | REQUIRED. SEC. R301.2.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | B) DESIGN PRESSURES FOR ZONE 5 SEEM TO BE LOW. BASED ON |
| | TABLE R301.2(2) AND TABLE R301.2(3) FBC-RESIDENTIAL, |
| | THE DESIGN PRESSURES FOR ZONE 5 ARE HIGHER THAN THOSE |
| | SHOWN ON SHEET S-1. REVISE AS REQUIRED. KEEP IN MIND |
| | THE BUILDING EXPOSURE D, WINDOW EFFECTIVE AREA AND |
| | HEIGHT. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | DESIGN PRESSURES ARE STILL LOW. ENGINEER OF RECORD TO |
| | CLARIFY WHY THE DESIGN PRESSURES ARE LOWER THAN THOSE |
| | DESIGN PRESSURES SPECIFIED ON THE MASTER PERMIT |
| | 18090722. ALSO, COORDINATE WITH ITEM #3(A) ABOVE. SEC. |
| | R301.2.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | |
| | 4- OK |
| | |
| | 5- ELEVATION A ON SHEET S-2: |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | A)IT LOOKS LIKE THE NEW STAIRWAY DOESN'T PROVIDE THE |
| | REQUIRED HEADROOM REQUIRED BY SEC. R311.7.2 |
| | FBC-RESIDENTIAL. REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | THE STAIRWAY DOESN'T HAVE THE REQUIRED HEADROOM |
| | (6'-8"). ELEVATION A SHOWS THE MEASUREMENT FROM THE |
| | STAIR NOSING TO A POINT THAT IS SETBACK ABOUT 4" FROM |
| | THE EDGE OF THE CEILING ABOVE. THIS IS NOT THE WAY THE |
| | HEADROOM IS MEASURED. THE HEADROOM IS MEASURED |
| | VERTICALLY FROM THE SLOPED LINE ADJOINING THE TREAD |
| | NOSING. SEE SEC. R311.7.2 FBC-RESIDENTIAL AND REVISE AS |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | NOTE: ENGINEER CAN ALSO REVIEW THE COMMENTARY BOOK |
| | WHICH SHOWS A FIGURE OF HOW THE HEADROOM IS MEASURED. |
| | |
| | B) OK. |
| | |
| | 6- OK. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 7- PROVIDE COMPLETE STORM SHUTTERS INSTALLATION |
| | SCHEDULE AS REQUIRED BY CITY POLICY FOR SHUTTERS |
| | INSTALLATION. SEE NOTE ON PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN ON |
| | SHEET S-1. IT SPECIFIED THAT EXISTING CYPRESS DOORS |
| | WILL HAVE HURRICANE PANELS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | PROPOSED INSTALLATION DOESN'T SEEM TO WORK. |
| | INSTALLATION DETAIL "ALTERNATIVE 9" SHOWN ON SHEET 13 |
| | OF 15 OF SHUTTERS DRAWINGS SUBMITTED IS FOR WOOD |
| | INSTALLATION. IF THE STORM SHUTTERS ARE INSTALLED |
| | VERTICALLY, THEN IT MEANS THAT ALTERNATIVE 9 IS THE |
| | BOTTOM OF THE EXISTING GARAGE DOORS. IT DOESN'T LOOK |
| | LIKE THE FLOOR BY THE GARAGE DOORS IS WOOD. |
| | REVISE/CLARIFY AS REQUIRED. SEC. 107.2.1 CITY |
| | AMENDMENTS. |
| | ALSO, PROVIDE ALL THE 15 DRAWINGS OF THE SHUTTERS. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 8-PROVIDE ICC EVALUATION REPORT (2 COPIES) FOR THE "AIR |
| | IMPERMEABLE R-30 INSULATION" SPECIFIED ON SECTION B ON |
| | SHEET S-3 TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. R316 |
| | FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | NOTE: DESIGNER OF RECORD TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE |
| | REPORT IN WRITING PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL TO THIS OFFICE. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | BASED ON EVALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED, THE R-30 |
| | INSULATION DOESN'T FIT ON THE EXISTING 2X4 CEILING |
| | JOISTS SHOWN ON THE ROOF FRAMING PLAN. SEE TABLE 1 ON |
| | PAGE 2 OF 5 OF EVALUATION REPORT FOR THICKNESS REQUIRED |
| | AND REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | |
| | WHEN RESUBMITTING PLANS PLEASE INDICATE THE REVISION & |
| | REMOVE ANY VOIDED SHEETS & REPLACE ANY PAGES AS |
| | NECESSARY. A TRANSMITTAL LETTER LISTING THE ORIGINAL |
| | REVIEW COMMENT NUMBER, WITH A DESCRIPTION OF THE |
| | REVISION MADE, IDENTIFYING THE SHEET OR SPECIFICATION |
| | PAGE WHERE THE CHANGES CAN BE FOUND WILL HELP TO |
| | EXPEDITE YOUR PERMIT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANTICIPATED |
| | COOPERATION. |
| | |
| | PLEASE, INSERT CORRECTED PAGES INTO THE SUBMITTAL AND |
| | REMOVE/VOID THE PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED SHEETS. PLEASE |
| | DON'T STAPLE OLD DRAWINGS/DOCUMENTS . SUBMIT OLD |
| | DRAWINGS/DOCUMENTS FOR REFERENCE. |
| | |
| | IN ORDER TO AVOID MULTIPLE SUBMITTALS, PLEASE FEEL FREE |
| | TO CONTACT ME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THESE |
| | COMMENTS, |
| | JULIO GOMEZ |
| | COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| | BUILDING DIVISION |
| | (561)805-6712 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | PER ROBERT BROWN, A REVISION IS PERMITTED FOR THIS |
| | PROJECT. THE GARAGE IS BEING ADDED TO THE PERMIT. |
| | HOWEVER, THE SHEETS SUBMITTED NEED TO BE CHECKED |
| | CAREFULLY TO ENSURE THE ORIGINAL PROJECT IS NOT |
| | REPLACED WITH THE GARAGE PROJECT. THE SHEETS SUBMITTED |
| | SHALL EITHER BE NEW SHEETS, OR A REVISION THAT INCLUDES |
| | THE ORIGINAL INFORMATION AND WHAT HAS CHANGED. |
