| Date |
Text |
| 2022-12-08 17:47:54 | RESIDENTIAL(R3) ADDITION/ALTERATION THIRD BUILDING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS |
| | CODE: FBC 7TH EDITION (2020) AND CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | PERMIT #22050916 |
| | 372 FOREST HILL BLVD |
| | |
| | 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 |
| | |
| | |
| | PREVIOUS RESPONSE COMMENT: |
| | 1- BASED ON DRAWINGS SUBMITTED, 12" DEEP FOOTINGS DON'T |
| | PROVIDE 12" MINIMUM FOOTING DEPTH. SEE SECTION 1 ON |
| | SHEET S-200. ALSO, ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT OF RECORD |
| | NEED TO COORDINATE PLANS TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE |
| | MINIMUM FOOTING DEPTH AND CLEARANCE FOR TERMITE |
| | INSPECTION AS REQUIRED BY SEC. R403.1.4 FBC-RESIDENTIAL |
| | AND SEC. R318.7 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | ALSO, ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER NEED TO COORDINATE TYPE OF |
| | FOOTING. ARCHITECT SHOWS A DIFFERENT FOOTING TYPE ON |
| | SHEET A1-4.2. |
| | |
| | NEW RESPONSE TO ENGINEERS LETTER DATED OCTOBER 22, |
| | 2022: |
| | ENGINEER'S RESPONSE LETTER STATES: "SECTION R403.1.4 |
| | APPLIES TO ISOLATED AND STRIP FOOTINGS. THIS IS A |
| | MONOLITHIC FOOTING." |
| | THIS IS INCORRECT. SECTION R403.1.4 APPLIES TO "ALL |
| | EXTERIOR FOOTINGS". THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS. SEE |
| | SECTION R403.1.4 AND REVISE ALL DETAILS AND |
| | SPECIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED. |
| | ALSO, PROVIDE DETAIL/SPECIFICATIONS SHOWING COMPLIANCE |
| | WITH THE MINIMUM FOOTING DEPTH AND CLEARANCE FOR |
| | TERMITE INSPECTION AS REQUIRED BY SEC. R403.1.4 |
| | FBC-RESIDENTIAL AND SEC. R318.7 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 9- BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE. DESIGNER OF RECORD NEEDS |
| | TO DEPICT THE BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE. NEED TO |
| | SPECIFY INSULATION MATERIALS AND THEIR R-VALUES.(ROOF, |
| | WALLS, RAISED FLOOR ABOVE GARAGE, ETC.) AS REQUIRED BY |
| | SEC. R103.2 FBC-ENERGY CONSERVATION. |
| | NOTE: KEEP IN MIND THERE ARE FLAT ROOFS AND PITCHED |
| | ROOFS. AND, COORDINATE WITH ENERGY CALCULATIONS TO |
| | AVOID CONFLICTS/DELAYS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | PROPOSED SECTION 01/A1-4.3 ON SHEET A1-4.3 SHOWS |
| | ICYNENE INSULATION IN THE PITCHED AND FLAT ROOF AREAS. |
| | IT LOOKS LIKE ARCHITECT IS DESIGNING AN UNVENTED ATTIC. |
| | IF SPECIFYING UNVENTED ATTIC THEN ARCHITECT TO CLARIFY |
| | WHY SPECIFYING ROOF ATTIC VENTILATION ON DETAIL |
| | 03/A1-4.3 AND DETAIL 04/A1-4.3 ON THE SAME SHEET? |
| | PROVIDE ICYNENE INSULATION ICC EVALUATION REPORT. |
| | ARCHITECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVE EVALUATION REPORT PRIOR |
| | TO SUBMITTAL. (NOTE: THIS REPORT MAY BE SUBMITTED LATER |
| | AFTER THE PERMIT IS ISSUED BUT BEFORE INSTALLATION) |
| | |
| | NOTE: THERE IS A CONFLICT WITH SUBMITTED REVISED |
| | DRAWINGS. IT LOOKS LIKE THE NUMBER OF THE DRAWINGS WERE |
| | REVISED BY THE ARCHITECT. FOR EXAMPLE ORIGINAL PROPOSED |
| | ELEVATIONS WAS DRAWING A1-4.1. REVISED PROPOSED |
| | ELEVATIONS DRAWING NUMBER WAS CHANGED TO DRAWING |
| | A1-4.2. THIS CREATES A CONFLICT BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS |
| | PROPOSED ELEVATIONS DRAWING WAS VERSIONED WITH THE |
| | REVISED PROPOSED ELEVATIONS. NOW THE FILE NAME DOESN'T |
| | MATCH THE REVISED DRAWING NUMBER. |
| | NEED TO COORDINATE WITH THE PERMIT LIBRARIAN TO GET THE |
| | CORRECT FILE NAME AND DRAWING NUMBER. |
| | THIS APPLIES TO FILE #008 ALSO. THE FILE NAME AND THE |
| | DRAWING NUMBER DON'T MATCH). COORDINATE FILE #007, #008 |
| | AND #009 TO MATCH FILE NAME AND DRAWING NUMBER. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 10- ROOF WITH LESS THAN 6" EAVES REQUIRES GUTTERS WITH |
| | DOWNSPOUTS AS REQUIRED BY SEC. R318.5 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | SPECIFY GUTTERS ON PLANS. PROVIDE DETAILS AND |
| | SPECIFICATIONS, INCLUDING TERMINATION OF DOWNSPOUTS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | REVISE PROPOSED ROOF PLAN (SHEET A1-4.1). THERE IS A |
| | FLAT ROOF (REAR AND FRONT AREAS). NEED TO SPECIFY |
| | SCUPPERS AT THE PERIMETER OF THE ROOF WHERE THE EAVE IS |
| | LESS THAN 6". THE ONLY EXCEPTION WHERE GUTTER IS NOT |
| | REQUIRED IS FOR GABLE ROOFS. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 12- DESIGNER OF RECORD OF RECORD TO SPECIFY ROOF |
| | VENTILATION AS REQUIRED BY SEC. R806 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | SPECIFY VENT SIZE AND LOCATION. |
| | NOTE: THERE ARE FLAT AND PITCHED ROOFS. IF DESIGNING |
| | UNVENTED ATTICS, THEN SPECIFY HOW COMPLYING WITH SEC. |
| | R806.5 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | RESPONSE LETTER STATES: "PLEASE SEE REVISED SHEET |
| | A1-4.1 INDICATING ROOF PITCH". |
| | THIS IS INCORRECT. THE REQUEST WAS TO SPECIFY ROOF |
| | VENTILATION NOT ROOF PITCH. READ SEC. R806 |
| | FBC-RESIDENTIAL AND PROVIDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION |
| | FOR CROSS VENTILATION FOR ALL ROOF AREAS. (SEE NOTE ON |
| | ITEM #12 ABOVE. ALSO, COORDINATE WITH ITEM #9 ABOVE). |
| | |
| | 13- DEFERRED SUBMITTAL: PRODUCT APPROVALS (NOTE: |
| | PROVIDE COMPLETE INFORMATION FOR REVIEW AFTER PERMIT |
| | ISSUANCE BUT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION TO AVOID |
| | CONFLICTS/DELAYS. ALL PRODUCT APPROVALS NEED TO BE |
| | APPROVED IN WRITING BY DESIGNER OF RECORD PRIOR TO |
| | SUBMITTAL: |
| | A)FLAT ROOF. AND, CLEARLY MARK WHICH APPROVED ASSEMBLY |
| | IS GOING TO BE INSTALLED TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE |
| | DESIGN PRESSURES OF SEC. R301.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | NOTE: IF THE SELECTED ASSEMBLY DOESN'T MEET THE DESIGN |
| | PRESSURES FOR ALL ROOF ZONES, THEN SIGNED AND SEALED |
| | RAS 117 CALCULATIONS ARE REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | D)INSWING ENTRY DOOR AS SHOWN ON PLANS. (NOTE: FLOOR |
| | PLAN ON SHEET A1-4. WAS CHANGED SHOWING AN OUTSWING |
| | DOOR BUT PROPOSED WINDOWS & DOORS FLOOR PLAN ON SHEET |
| | A1-4.3 WAS NOT REVISED. NEED TO REVISE BOTH PLANS TO |
| | MATCH AVOID CONFLICTS/DELAYS). |
| | |
| | E)HORIZONTAL SLIDING WINDOWS. |
| | F)FIXED WINDOWS. |
| | G) REAR SWING DOOR. |
| | H)SLIDING GLASS DOOR. |
| | |
| | 14- DESIGNER OF RECORD TO REVIEW AND APPROVE IN WRITING |
| | (NOT SIGNING AND SEALING) ABOVE PRODUCT APPROVALS AS |
| | REQUIRED BY SEC. 107.3.4.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 15- BEDROOM #3 WINDOW W-11: PROVIDE MANUFACTURER'S |
| | SPEC'S SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH THE EGRESS REQUIREMENTS |
| | OF SEC. R310.2.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. NEED TO VERIFY CLEAR |
| | WIDTH OPENING ON SPECIFIED SIZE WITH 4 PANELS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | RESPONSE LETTER STATES "WINDOW TO BE REPLACED WITH |
| | 3-EQUAL SIZE PANELS". |
| | WINDOW SCHEDULE WAS NOT REVISED TO REFLECT THIS CHANCE. |
| | ALSO, ARCHITECT'S RESPONSE LETTER IS REFERENCING SEC. |
| | R310.2.5 REPLACEMENT WINDOWS. BEDROOM #3 NEEDS TO |
| | COMPLY WITH THE EMERGENCY EGRESS REQUIREMENTS, |
| | ACCORDING TO CITY RECORDS, THIS ROOM IS A CHANGE OF |
| | OCCUPANCY. THIS ROOM WAS EITHER A GARAGE OR CARPORT AND |
| | THERE ARE NO CITY RECORDS FOR THE CONVERSION OF THIS |
| | ROOM TO LIVABLE AREA. |
| | |
| | 17- REVISE ENERGY CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED: |
| | |
| | A) |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | B)CEILING INFORMATION NEED TO BE COORDINATED WITH ITEM |
| | #9 ABOVE. PLANS NEED TO SHOW THE THERMAL ENVELOPE AND |
| | SPECIFY IF DESIGNING VENTED OR UNVENTED ATTICS. NOTE: |
| | THERE ARE SOME FLAT ROOFS IN THIS PROJECT THAT NEED TO |
| | BE CONSIDERED ALSO. SEC. R101.5.1.1.2 FBC- ENERGY |
| | CONSERVATION. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | THIS NEEDS TO BE COORDINATED WITH THE DESIGNER OF |
| | RECORD TO AVOID MORE CONFLICTS/DELAYS. ARCHITECT OF |
| | RECORD IS SPECIFYING ICYNENE ATTIC INSULATION. IT LOOKS |
| | LIKE ARCHITECT IS DESIGNING UNVENTED ATTICS. ITEM |
| | #11(B) SPECIFIES A VENTED ATTIC. REVISE AS REQUIRED TO |
| | MATCH PLANS. COORDINATE WITH ITEM #9 ABOVE. |
| | |
| | C) |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | D) REVISE ATTIC INFORMATION ON PAGE 3. COORDINATE WITH |
| | ITEM (B) ABOVE. |
| | SEC. R101.5.1.1.2 FBC- ENERGY CONSERVATION. |
| | NOTE: TYPICALLY THE VENT RATIO (WHEN PROVIDED) IS AT |
| | LEAST 1/150. |
| | IF ENGINEER PREPARING THE ENERGY CALCULATIONS WANTS TO |
| | USE 1/300 VENT RATIO, THEN NEED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE |
| | DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH THIS |
| | RATIO. SEC. 107.2.1.2 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | REPEAT COMMENT. NOT REVISED. |
| | NOTE: COORDINATE WITH ITEM #17(B) ABOVE. |
| | |
| | WHEN RESUBMITTING, A TRANSMITTAL LETTER LISTING THE |
| | ORIGINAL REVIEW COMMENT WITH A DESCRIPTION OF WHERE AND |
| | HOW THE COMMENT WAS ADDRESSED WILL HELP TO EXPEDITE THE |
| | REVIEW PROCESS. 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] |
