2022-04-15 18:18:46 | RESIDENTIAL (R3) SECOND BUILDING REVIEW COMMENTS |
| CODE: FBC 7TH EDITION (2020) AND CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| PERMIT #21120145 |
| |
| 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 |
| |
| |
| 1- ENERGY CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED: |
| A)OK. |
| |
| ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| B)BUILDER TO SIGN AND COMPLETE THE ENERGY PERFORMANCE |
| LEVEL (EPL) DISPLAY CARD. SEC. R405.4.3 FBC- ENERGY |
| CONSERVATION. |
| |
| RESPONSE: |
| ENERGY PERFORMANCE LEVEL (EPL) DISPLAY CARD WAS SIGNED |
| BY CHRIS WISE. ACCORDING TO THE DBPR AND PERMIT |
| APPLICATION THIS IS NOT THE BUILDER. BUILDER NEEDS TO |
| SIGN THE FORM. |
| |
| ORIGINAL COMMENT. |
| C)PROVIDE COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION ON TOP OF |
| FORM, INCLUDING OWNER'S NAME, BUILDER'S NAME. NOTE: |
| ADDRESS ASSIGNED TO THIS STRUCTURE IS 819 NATHAN HALE |
| RD. REVISE AS REQUIRED. SEC. R101.5.1.1.2 FBC-ENERGY |
| CONSERVATION. |
| |
| RESPONSE: |
| OWNER' INFORMATION WAS NOT PROVIDED. |
| |
| ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| C)REVISE WINDOWS OVERHANG DEPTH AND SEPARATION TO MATCH |
| PLANS. SEC. R101.5.1.1.2 FBC-. ENERGY CONSERVATION. |
| NOTE: SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS. |
| |
| RESPONSE: |
| NOT ADDRESSED. CALCULATIONS WERE NOT REVISED. |
| NOTE: CALCULATIONS NEED TO BE REVISED AND REPORT NEEDS |
| TO BE REPRINTED. |
| |
| ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| 2- LOT DRAINAGE |
| PROVIDE DRAINAGE PLAN SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH THE |
| FOLLOWING: R401.3 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. SEC. 107.2.5 CITY |
| AMENDMENTS. SEC. 110.9 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| NOTE: DRAINAGE PLAN TO SHOW THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED |
| GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWING HOW KEEPING WATER AWAY FROM |
| ADJACENT PROPERTIES. |
| |
| RESPONSE: |
| LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO REVISE SITE DRAINAGE PLAN ON |
| SHEET SP-2. STORM WATER CAN NOT BE DIVERTED TOWARD THE |
| NEIGHBORS ON THE WEST AND NORTH SIDE. WATER NEEDS TO BE |
| KEPT WITHIN THE LOT OR DIVERTED TOWARDS THE STREET. |
| REVISE PLAN AND SHOW GRADE ELEVATIONS AND DIRECTION OF |
| FLOW. SEC. 110.9 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| |
| 3-ENGINEER OF RECORD NEEDS TO SPECIFY COMPLETE DESIGN |
| CRITERIA: |
| A)OK. |
| |
| ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| B)BUILDING EXPOSURE, MEAN ROOF HEIGHT, ETC. |
| |
| RESPONSE: |
| MEAN ROOF HEIGHT IS INCORRECT. SEE PLANS AND REVISE AS |
| REQUIRED. |
| SEC. R301.2.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| |
| C)OK. |
| |
| ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| D)COMPONENTS AND CLADDING DESIGN PRESSURES FOR ROOF AND |
| WALLS. |
| |
| RESPONSE: |
| DESIGN PRESSURES FOR DOORS/WINDOWS WAS NOT PROVIDED. |
| SEC. R301.2.1 FBC RESIDENTIAL. |
| |
| E) OK. |
| |
| ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| 4- ENGINEER OF RECORD TO PROVIDE COMPLETE WALL SECTION |
| AND SPECIFICATIONS. SPECIFY ALL FRAMING MEMBERS AND ALL |
| CONNECTORS AT EACH END. SPECIFY EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR |
| FINISHES, WALL SHEATHING THICKNESS AND FASTENING, ETC. |
| SEC. R301.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL AND SEC. 107.3.5.3 CITY |
| AMENDMENTS. |
| |
| RESPONSE: |
| TYPICAL WALL SECTION ON SHEET SD1 IS INCOMPLETE. WALL |
| SECTION DOESN'T PROVIDE INFORMATION FOR THE PARAPET |
| WALL (COPING, FINISHES, ETC.). THE WATERPROOFING NEEDS |
| TO BE SPECIFIED. IT IS NOT BY OTHERS. THERE IS NOT |
| INSULATION INFORMATION (ROOF AND WALL). SLOPE AND ROOF |
| INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED. IT IS NOT BY OTHERS. |
| THE ENGINEER IS THE DESIGNER OF RECORD FOR THE COMPLETE |
| STRUCTURE. DESIGNER OF RECORD NEEDS TO PROVIDE COMPLETE |
| DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF |
| ENTIRE STRUCTURE. IF THERE IS ANOTHER DESIGN |
| PROFESSIONAL WORKING IN THIS PROJECT, THEN COMPLETE SET |
| OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS SIGNED AND SEALED BY EACH |
| DESIGN PROFESSIONAL NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. |
| SEC. 107.2.1.2 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| |
| 5- OK. |
| |
| ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| 6- DESIGNER OF RECORD TO NEEDS TO DEPICT THE BUILDING |
| THERMAL ENVELOPE (WALLS AND CEILING) AND SPECIFY |
| INSULATION MATERIALS AND THEIR R-VALUES. SEC. R103.2 |
| FBC-ENERGY CONSERVATION. |
| NOTE: KEEP IN MIND THICKENS OF CEILING AND WALLS WHEN |
| SPECIFYING INSULATION R-VALUES. IF SPECIFYING FOAM |
| INSULATION, THEN PROVIDE FOAM INSULATION ICC EVALUATION |
| REPORT. THIS REPORT NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED/APPROVED IN |
| WRITING BY THE DESIGNER OF RECORD. |
| |
| RESPONSE: |
| REPEAT COMMENT. NOT ADDRESSED. NOTE: COORDINATE WITH |
| ITEM #4. |
| (HEADS UP: AN ICYNENE EVALUATION REPORT WAS UPLOADED TO |
| PROJECTDOX ON 04/07/22. THIS REPORT IS OLD. IT EXPIRED |
| ON 02/2018. NEED TO PROVIDE CURRENT REPORT. DESIGNER OF |
| RECORD TO SPECIFY THIS PRODUCT AND R-VALUE ON THE |
| CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. AND, REVIEW/APPROVE IN WRITING |
| CURRENT REPORT BEFORE SUBMITTAL). |
| |
| 7- SHEET S1: |
| A)OK. |
| B)OK. |
| |
| ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| C)CLEARLY IDENTIFY EACH FLOOR PLAN. ONLY THE FOUNDATION |
| PLAN WAS IDENTIFIED. ALSO, FLOR PLAN DOESN'T MATCH |
| FLOOR FLOOR PLAN. MISSING ALL THE PARTITIONS. AND, |
| CLEARLY IDENTIFY EACH ROOM. SEC. 107.2.1 CITY |
| AMENDMENTS. |
| |
| RESPONSE: |
| DRAWING FP-1 WAS SIGNED AND SEALED BY A LICENSED |
| LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CAN NOT SIGN |
| AND SEAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. THIS IS |
| OUT OF THE SCOPE OF WORK ALLOWED BY SEC. 481.303 F.S. |
| NOTE: ALL DRAWINGS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS |
| STRUCTURE NEED TO BE SIGNED AND SEALED EITHER BY THE |
| ENGINEER OF RECORD OR BY A LICENSED ARCHITECT. |
| COORDINATE WITH ITEM #4 ABOVE. |
| |
| D)OK. |
| |
| ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| E)SPECIFY ROOF SHEATHING THICKNESS, NAIL TYPE, SIZE AND |
| SPACING AS REQUIRED BY SEC. R803.2 FBC-RESIDENTIAL AND |
| AND TABLE R803.2.3.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| NOTE: RING SHANK NAILS ARE REQUIRED. |
| |
| RESPONSE: |
| (1)REVISE ROOF SHEATHING NAILING SPACING. SHEATHING |
| NEEDS TO BE NAILED AT 4 INCHES O.C. IN THE FIELD AND |
| EDGES AS REQUIRED BY 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. |
| |
| (2)BASED ON TABLE R301.2(2)FBC-RESIDENTIAL, THE DESIGN |
| PRESSURES SHOWN ON THE ROOF ZONE UPLIFT DIAGRAM SEEM TO |
| BE LOW. REVISE DESIGN PRESSURES OR PROVIDE ACTUAL |
| CALCULATIONS. SEC. 107.2.1.2 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| NOTE: CLARIFY IF THE GIVEN DESIGN PRESSURES ARE NOMINAL |
| OR ULTIMATE DESIGN PRESSURES. |
| |
| (3) REVISE DIMENSION "A" SHOWN ON THE ROOF ZONE UPLIFT |
| DIAGRAM. ACCORDING TO FOOTNOTE "A" ON FIGURE |
| R301.2(7)FBC-RESIDENTIAL, THE MINIMUM DIMENSION IS |
| 4'-0". |
| |
| ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| F) PROVIDE DOOR AND WINDOW STRUCTURAL BUCK DETAIL |
| SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. R609.7.2.1 |
| FBC-RESIDENTIAL. SPECIFY STRUCTURAL BUCK SIZE AND |
| FASTENING. |
| NOTE: STRUCTURAL BUCK NEEDS TO PROVIDE FULL SUPPORT TO |
| THE DOOR/WINDOW FRAME AS REQUIRED BY SEC. R609.7.2.1 |
| FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| |
| RESPONSE: |
| PROVIDE DETAILS THAT MATCH ACTUAL BUILDING. WINDOW BUCK |
| DETAIL 7 ON SHEET |
| SD1 PROVIDES A SIMILAR DETAIL FOR THE ATTACHMENT OF |
| STRUCTURAL BUCK TO THE STEEL COLUMN FOR THE SLIDING |
| GLASS DOOR, BUT DETAIL DOESN'T MATCH FOR THE |
| INSTALLATION OF THE WINDOW. SEE TYP. WINDOW OPENING |
| STEEL FRAME DETAIL ON SAME SHEET AND PROVIDE CORRECT |
| WINDOW BUCK DETAIL. |
| |
| G)OK. |
| |
| ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| H)LOW SLOPE ROOFS: PROVIDE COMPLETE DETAILS AND |
| SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROOF DRAINS AND OVERFLOW DRAINS AS |
| REQUIRED BY SEC. R903.4.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| PROVIDE DETAILS: SPECIFY SIZE AND LOCATION ON ROOF. |
| |
| RESPONSE: |
| REPEAT COMMENT. NOT ADDRESSED. |
| |
| 8- OK. |
| |
| ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| 9- FLAT ROOF NOA 15-1020.02 SUBMITTED: |
| CLEARLY MARK/IDENTIFY WHICH ASSEMBLY IS GOING TO BE |
| INSTALLED. IF SELECTED ASSEMBLY DOESN'T MEET THE DESIGN |
| PRESSURES FOR ALL ROOF ZONES, THEN SIGNED AND SEALED |
| RAS 117 CALCULATIONS ARE REQUIRED. SEE GENERAL |
| LIMITATION #7 ON LAST PAGE OF NOA SUBMITTED. |
| NOTE: FASTENING OPTIONS WITH GENERAL LIMITATION #9 CAN |
| NOT BE USED IF THEY DON'T MEET THE DESIGN PRESSURES OF |
| ALL ROOF ZONES. SEE GENERAL LIMITATION #9 ON LAST PAGE |
| OF NOA. |
| |
| RESPONSE: |
| REPEAT COMMENT. NOT ADDRESSED. |
| NOTE: LOOKING AT THE NOA FOR THE SECOND TIME, I |
| REALIZED THIS NOA IS FOR RECOVER DECK APPLICATIONS NOT |
| FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. I APOLOGIZE. NEED TO PROVIDE |
| PRODUCT APPROVAL FOR WOOD DECKS AND THE SAME COMMENTS |
| APPLY. NEED TO SPECIFY THE ASSEMBLY TO BE INSTALLED. |
| THIS CAN BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW LATER AS A DEFERRED |
| SUBMITTAL. ADVICE IF SUBMITTING LATER. |
| |
| ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| 10- ENGINEER OF RECORD TO REVIEW AND APPROVE IN WRITING |
| (NOT SIGNING AND SEALING) ALL PRODUCT APPROVALS AS |
| REQUIRED BY SEC. 107.3.4.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| NOTE: CLARIFY WHY SUBMITTING PRODUCT APPROVAL FOR |
| SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS. PLANS DON'T SHOW ANY. |
| |
| RESPONSE: |
| REPEAT COMMENT. NOT ADDRESSED. |
| |
| ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| 11- ALL DRAWINGS SUBMITTED NEED THE NAME AND SIGNATURE |
| OF THE DESIGNER OF RECORD AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 107.2.1 |
| CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| |
| RESPONSE: |
| ALL DRAWINGS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS STRUCTURE |
| NEED TO BE SIGNED AND SEALED EITHER BY THE ENGINEER OF |
| RECORD OR BY A LICENSED ARCHITECT. DRAWINGS CAN NOT BE |
| SIGNED AND SEALED BY A LICENSED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. |
| COORDINATE WITH ITEM #7(C) ABOVE. |
| |
| NOTE: COORDINATE DRAWINGS SHOWN ON THE COVER SHEET WITH |
| DRAWINGS SUBMITTED TO AVOID CONFLICTS/DELAYS. THERE ARE |
| TWO SP-2 DRAWINGS WITH DIFFERENT INFORMATION ON EACH |
| DRAWING. |
| |
| 12-VALUATION WAS UPDATED TO $60,000 +/-. THE PERMIT FEE |
| BALANCE IS $568.25. |
| |
| 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] |
| |