| Date |
Text |
| 2022-12-27 16:46:34 | NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (R3) FIFTH BUILDING REVIEW |
| | COMMENTS |
| | CODE: FBC 6TH EDITION (2017) AND CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | PERMIT #20121077 |
| | 839 4TH ST |
| | |
| | NOTE: |
| | ENGINEER OF RECORD TO PAY $4728.72 FEE OF FOUR TIMES |
| | THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPORTION OF THE PERMIT FEE |
| | ATTRIBUTED TO PLANS REVIEW (LAST REVIEW AND THIS ONE). |
| | FLORIDA STATUTE 553.80(2)(B |
| | |
| | NOTE: |
| | ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS |
| | FLORIDA STATUTE 553.80(2)(B): |
| | ARCHITECTS 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 |
| | |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 3-SPECIFY ATTIC ACCESS SIZE AND LOCATION SHOWING |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. R807 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: |
| | 3-ATTIC ACCESS WAS RELOCATED, BUT BASED ON THE ROOF |
| | FRAMING PLAN, THE LOCATION OF THE ATTIC ACCESS DOESN'T |
| | SEEM TO PROVIDE THE HEADROOM CLEARANCE REQUIRED BY SEC. |
| | R807 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. ATTIC ACCESS IS LOCATED BETWEEN |
| | TWO GABLE END ROOFS. ALSO, BASED ON SECTION 2 ON SHEET |
| | S-3, THERE IS A MASONRY WALL BETWEEN THE FRONT PART OF |
| | THE HOUSE AND THE REAR PART OF THE HOUSE. THEREFORE, |
| | THERE IS NOT ACCESS TO OTHER ROOF AREAS. EACH ROOF AREA |
| | NEEDS AN ATTIC ACCESS. REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | ATTIC ACCESS WAS NOT REVISED ON THE ROOF FRAMING PLAN |
| | TO MATCH LOCATIONS SHOWN ON SHEET A-1. |
| | SEC. R807 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 6- BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET S-2 ONLY SPECIFIES B-1 BEAM. |
| | IT DOESN'T SPECIFY THE RAKE BEAM SHOWN ON SHEET S-4. |
| | REVISE AS REQUIRED TO CLARIFY. SEC. 107.2.1 CITY |
| | AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: |
| | SECTION 2 ON SHEET S-3 SHOWS A MASONRY WALL BETWEEN THE |
| | FRONT PART OF THE HOUSE AND THE REAR PART OF THE HOUSE. |
| | ROOF FRAMING PLAN ON SHEET S-2 DOESN'T SPECIFY THE BEAM |
| | SUPPORTING THE MASONRY WALL. |
| | ROOF FRAMING PLAN DOESN'T SHOW HOW THE TWO REAR GABLE |
| | END ROOFS ARE SUPPORTED AT THE INTERSECTION OF BOTH |
| | ROOFS. |
| | FRONT PORCH WOOD BEAM SIZE AND ROOF RAFTERS SIZE |
| | SPECIFIED ON THE ROOF FRAMING PLAN AND WOOD BEAM |
| | SPECIFIED ON SECTION 2 ON SHEET S-3 DON'T MATCH. |
| | SECTION 2 ON SHEET S-3 SHOWS OUT LOOKERS IN THE MIDDLE |
| | MASONRY WALL. THE OUT LOOKERS ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF |
| | THE SECTION BY THE GABLE END AREA. REVISE/CLARIFY WALL |
| | SECTION AS REQUIRED. |
| | SEC. R301.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | A)ROOF FRAMING PLAN ON SHEET S2 SHOWS B-1 BEAM |
| | SUPPORTING THE MASONRY WALL AND RAKE BEAM RB-1. |
| | FOUNDATION PLAN WAS REVISED SHOWING COLUMN C1 AND |
| | FOOTING CF-16 IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FLOOR SLAB. ENGINEER |
| | TO CLARIFY WHY SPECIFYING A CONTINUOUS SPREAD FOOTING |
| | INSTEAD OF A CONCRETE PAD IF THE LOAD IS THE ECCENTRIC |
| | LOAD FROM THE COLUMN?. SEC. R301.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | B)FOUNDATION PLANS WAS ALSO REVISED SHOWING NEW C1 |
| | COLUMNS ON THE PERIMETER WALL BUT THERE IS NOT COLUMN |
| | SUPPORTING BEAM B-1 ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE. |
| | |
| | C) SIZE OF BEAM B-1 SPECIFIED ON SECTION 2 OF SHEET S-3 |
| | DOESN'T MATCH SIZE SPECIFIED ON THE BEAM SCHEDULE. |
| | |
| | D)NEW C1 COLUMN IS NOT SHOWN ON THE FLOOR PLAN ON SHEET |
| | A-1. |
| | |
| | E)BEAM SUPPORTING THE TWO GABLE END TRUSSES IS NOT |
| | SPECIFIED ON THE |
| | BEAM SCHEDULE. |
| | |
| | F)PORCH WOOD JOIST SIZE SPECIFIED ON SECTION 2 OF SHEET |
| | S-3 DOESN'T MATCH ROOF FRAMING PLAN. |
| | |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 7- PLANS DON'T PROVIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ROOF |
| | SHEATHING. SPECIFY TYPE, THICKNESS AND ROOF SHEATHING |
| | FASTENING AS REQUIRED BY SEC. R803.2.3.1 |
| | FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: |
| | INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE TYPICAL WALL SECTION ON SHEET |
| | A-1 DOESN'T MATCH INFORMATION SHOWN ON OTHER PLANS AND |
| | SECTIONS. REVISE AS REQUIRED TO MATCH TO AVOID MORE |
| | CONFLICTS/DELAYS. ROOF SHEATHING SPECIFICATIONS DON'T |
| | MATCH SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN ON SHEET S-5. FOOTING SIZE |
| | DOESN'T MATCH FOUNDATION PLAN. ATTIC INSULATION DOESN'T |
| | MATCH. ETC. |
| | NOTE: ENGINEER TO COORDINATE ALL PLANS, SECTIONS AND |
| | SPECIFICATIONS TO AVOID MORE CONFLICTS AND DELAYS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | ROOF SHEATHING SPECIFICATIONS DON'T MATCH SECTION |
| | R803.2.3.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL AND FIGURE R803.2.3.1 |
| | FBC-RESIDENTIAL. NEED TO SPECIFY NAILS AT 4" O.C. ON |
| | ROOF ZONE #3 AND NEED TO SPECIFY RING SHANK NAILS. (OR |
| | PROVIDE CALCULATIONS SHOWING THAT 10D NAIL MATCHES OR |
| | EXCEEDS 8D RING SHANK NAILS AS REQUIRED BY SEC. |
| | R803.2.3.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL). |
| | |
| | ALSO, ROOF SHEATHING SPECIFICATIONS DON'T COMPLY WITH |
| | GABLE ROOF NAILING REQUIREMENTS OF FIGURE R803.2.3.1 |
| | FBC-RESIDENTIAL. ROOF ZONE 3 IS 5 FEET NOT 48". |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 8- PROVIDE COMPLETE DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR |
| | STEEL COLUMNS SHOWN ON THE FRONT PORCH. SPECIFY TOP AND |
| | BOTTOM CONNECTORS AND FURRING DETAILS. |
| | SEC. R301.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: |
| | SECTION 2 ON SHEET S-3 SHOWS STEEL COLUMNS BELOW GRADE. |
| | THIS INFORMATION DOESN'T MATCH INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE |
| | FOUNDATION PLAN. FOUNDATION PLAN SHOWS A KNEE WALL. |
| | ALSO, THERE ARE NO DETAIL/SPECIFICATIONS SHOWING HOW |
| | THE STEEL COLUMNS AND CONNECTIONS ARE PROTECTED AGAINST |
| | RUST/DETERIORATION. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | SECTION 2 ON SHEET S3 STILL DOESN'T MATCH FOUNDATION |
| | PLAN. IT DOESN'T SHOW THE KNEE WALL AND IT IS NOT CLEAR |
| | WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CONCRETE PEDESTAL. THE |
| | CONCRETE PEDESTAL IS COVERING THE STEEL COLUMN. WHY?. |
| | WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF COVERING THE STEEL COLUMN WITH A |
| | PEDESTAL. ALSO NO SPECS FOR STEEL COLUMN, PLATE AND |
| | BOLTS PROTECTION FOR RUST. |
| | |
| | 9-OK. |
| | |
| | 11- PROVIDE PRODUCT APPROVAL AS REQUIRED BY FAC |
| | 61G20-3.001 FOR: |
| | |
| | A)OK. ROOF SHINGLES FL31588-R2. |
| | |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: |
| | D)HARDIE BOARD SIDING. |
| | FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL NUMBER UPLOADED TO PROJECTDOX |
| | DOESN'T MATCH FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL NUMBER NAMED IN |
| | PROJECTDOX SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. ONE OF THEM IS |
| | FL13223-R7 AND THE OTHER ONE IS FL13192.2. REVISE AS |
| | REQUIRED TO MATCH. |
| | NOTE: WHEN RESUBMITTING PLEASE UPLOAD THE FLORIDA |
| | PRODUCT APPROVAL COVER PAGE AND INSTALLATION |
| | INSTRUCTION ON THE SAME FILE. DON'T SPLIT THEM INTO TWO |
| | SEPARATE FILES. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | REPEAT COMMENT. NOT ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | WHEN RESUBMITTING, 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 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] |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
