| Date |
Text |
| 2023-01-25 14:23:42 | NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (R3) SECOND BUILDING REVIEW |
| | COMMENTS |
| | CODE: FBC 7TH EDITION (2020) AND CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | PERMIT #22060290 1001 WINDSOR AVE |
| | |
| | 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: |
| | 1- BEDROOM #3 AND BEDROOM #4. THE SPECIFIED WINDOW SIZE |
| | DOESN'T SEEM TO COMPLY WITH EGRESS REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. |
| | R310.2.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. TYPICALLY, 50-3/8" SINGLE |
| | HUNG WINDOW DOESN'T PROVIDE THE REQUIRED 24" CLEAR |
| | HEIGHT. REVISE SIZE OR PROVIDE MANUFACTURER'S |
| | SPECIFICATIONS SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE EGRESS |
| | CLEAR OPENINGS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | WINDOW SIZE WAS NOT REVISED. NEED TO REVISE. TYPICALLY, |
| | 37" X 63" WINDOWS AS SPECIFIED FOR BEDROOM #2 ARE THE |
| | ONES COMPLYING WITH THE EGRESS REQUIREMENTS. REVISE AS |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 2- REVISE ROOF SHEATHING NAILING SPECIFICATIONS TO |
| | COMPLY WITH NEW 2020 FBC-RESIDENTIAL NAILING SPACING |
| | SPECIFICATIONS. ROOF SHEATHING NEEDS TO BE NAILED AT 4 |
| | INCHES O.C. IN THE FIELD AND EDGES AS REQUIRED BY SEC. |
| | R803.2.3.1 AND TABLE R803.2.3.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | NOTE: REVISE SPECIFICATIONS OR PROVIDE CALCULATIONS |
| | SHOWING THAT SPECIFIED NAIL TYPE AND SPACING MATCHES OR |
| | EXCEEDS TABLE R803.2.3.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM |
| | REQUIREMENTS. |
| | REVISE NOTE "C" ON PLYWOOD ROOF SHEATHING NOTES AND |
| | NOTE #9 ON ROOF PLAN NOTES ON SHEET GN. TYPICAL WALL |
| | SECTION ON SHEET 4. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | ROOF SHEATHING SPECIFICATIONS ON TYPICAL WALL SECTION |
| | ON SHEET 4 WAS NOT REVISED TO SHOW COMPLIANCE. NEED TO |
| | REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 3- ATTIC VENTILATION SPECIFIED ON ATTIC VENTILATION |
| | CALCULATION ON SHEET 1 AND VENTED ALUMINUM SOFFIT |
| | SPECIFICATION SHOWN ON THE TYPICAL WALL SECTION ON |
| | SHEET 4 DON'T MATCH. REVISE AS REQUIRED TO MATCH. SEC. |
| | R806 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | REPEAT COMMENT. NOT ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 4- OK. |
| | 5- OK. |
| | 6- OK. |
| | |
| | 7- ENERGY CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED: |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | A) NEED TO COMPLETE THE "INSTALLED" INFORMATION ON PAGE |
| | 1 AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS ON SAME |
| | SHEET. SEC. R101.5.1.1.1 FBC-ENERGY CONSERVATION. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | REPEAT COMMENT. NOT ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | B)NEED TO COMPLETE THE "INSTALLED EFFICIENCY LEVEL" |
| | INFORMATION ON PAGE 2 AS REQUIRED BY THE NOTE ON TOP OF |
| | SAME SHEET. SPECIFY THE DUCT R-VALUE. SEC. R101.5.1.1.1 |
| | FBC-ENERGY CONSERVATION. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | R-VALUE SPECIFIED IS INCORRECT. DUCTS DIAMETER IS |
| | GREATER THAN 3 IN. |
| | ALSO, SPECIFY LOCATION OF AIR HANDLER. |
| | |
| | C)OK. |
| | D)OK. |
| | E)OK. |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENT BASED ON INFORMATION SUBMITTED: |
| | 8- ALL RESUBMITTED PLANS ARE NOT LEGIBLE. NEED TO |
| | UPLOAD CLEAR AND LEGIBLE DRAWINGS. SEC. 107.2.1 CITY |
| | AMENDMENTS. SEC. 107.2.1.3 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | 9- ENGINEER TO REVISE SITE DRAINAGE PLAN ON SHEET 8. |
| | THE PROPOSED GRADE AT THE SWALE AREA IS HIGHER THAN THE |
| | ADJACENT GRADE. ALSO, IT DOESN'T MATCH SECTION DETAILS |
| | A-A, B-B AND C-C. |
| | ACCORDING TO SECTION DETAILS A-A, B-B AND C-C THE GRADE |
| | IS HIGHER AT THE PERIMETER OF THE LOT. ENGINEER OF |
| | RECORD TO PROVIDE DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOWING |
| | HOW THE RAISED GRADE IS SUPPORTED. IF RETAINING WALLS |
| | ARE REQUIRED, THEN SEPARATE PERMIT IS REQUIRED. SEC. |
| | 105.1 CITY AMENDMENTS, SEC. 105.2.5 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | SEC. R401.3 FC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | NOTE: DRAINAGE PLAN TO SHOW THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED |
| | GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWING HOW KEEPING WATER AWAY FROM |
| | ADJACENT PROPERTIES. |
| | |
| | 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] |
| | |
| | |
