| Date |
Text |
| 2004-08-04 00:00:00 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL, BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | THIRD REVIEW, ARCHITECTURAL PLANS DATED |
| | 12/22/03, STRUCTURAL PLANS DATED |
| | 12/19/03. |
| | |
| | 1.)SEE PREVIOUS TWO LISTS.PROVIDE A |
| | SURVEY.THE SITE PLAN, SHEET 2.1 STILL |
| | DOES NOT HAVE ANY HORIZONTAL CONTROL |
| | DIMENSIONS TO LOCATE THE BUILDING. |
| | PROPERTY LINES ARE NOT IDENTIFIED.SEE |
| | ATTACHED IN REGARDS TO FS553.80(2)(B). |
| | CODE COMPLIANCE FOR TABLE 600 CANNOT |
| | BE DETERMINED WITHOUT A DIMENSIONED |
| | SITE PLAN.DESIGNER OF RECORD IS |
| | RESPONSIBLE TO SUBMIT ALL PLANS IN |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH FBC104.3.1.1.SEE |
| | SECTION (1), SITE REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 2.)THE SHEETS PREPARED BY WE SCHIPSKE |
| | PE CONTAIN A PHOTOCOPY OF A SIGNATURE. |
| | THIS MUST BE AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE |
| | FAC61G15-23.002.THE EMBOSSED SEAL IS |
| | TO BE LEGIBLE. |
| | |
| | 3.)THE FP SHEETS AND CALCS LACK A |
| | TITLE BLOCK REQUIRED BY FAC61G15-23.002. |
| | |
| | 4.)6-S3, STUCCO IN A VERTICAL |
| | APPLICATION OVER WIRE LATH IS TO BE |
| | 7/8" MIN, FBC2405.2.2, ASTM C926.CHECK |
| | ALL DETAILS (WILL REDLINE). |
| | |
| | 5.)SEE PREVIOUS LIST, CORRECTIONS |
| | 6 THROUGH 10.NOT ADDRESSED.FOR YOUR |
| | CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE: |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE THE SPECIFICATION FOR THE |
| | HIGH LIFT GROUTING CALLED OUT IN NOTE |
| | J(3) ON S3. |
| | |
| | COLUMNS SHOWN AS MC1 ARE NOT ON THE |
| | COLUMN SCHEDULE ON SHEET S3. |
| | |
| | THE REQUESTED COLUMN CONNECTINS FOR THE |
| | TS COLUMNS SHOWN ON SHEETS S1 AND S2 |
| | HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | SHEET S3 ROOF WIND ZONE SKETCH.DID |
| | THE ENGINEER USE THE SIMPLIFIED METHOD |
| | IN ASCE7-98 SUBSECTION 6.4 OR THE |
| | ANALYTICAL METHOD IN SECTION 6.5?IN |
| | EITHER CASE, HOW WERE THE EDGE AREAS OF |
| | 4' AND 5' DETERMINED FOR A BUILDING WITH |
| | A LEAST DIMENSION OF 73' AND A MEAN |
| | ROOF HEIGHT OF 16.5'? |
| | |
| | SEE FBC 13-400.3 FOR COMPUTER BASED |
| | ENERGY CALCULATIONS AND THE ATTENDANT |
| | METHODS TO BE USED.ALSO, THE 6020 SF |
| | GROSS AREA INPUT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE |
| | PLANS' 6700+ SQUARE FEET CONDITIONED |
| | AREA.PLEASE REVISE AS NECESSARY. |
| | |
| | THE IMPACT FEES AND NOAS CALLED OUT |
| | IN THE FIRST CHECKLIST REMAIN |
| | APPLICABLE. |
| | |
| | 6.)BEFORE RESUBMITTING, PLEASE |
| | CONFIRM THAT THE COMPONENTS AND CLADDING |
| | PRODUCT APPROVALS SUBMITTED COMPLY WITH |
| | THE DESIGN CRITERIA ON SHEET 4.1. |
| | SHINGLES |
| | STEEL DOORS, DOUBLE AND SINGLE |
| | OVERHEAD DOOR |
| | LOUVERS |
| | IMPACT PROTECTION |
| | WINDOWS |
| | |
| | 7.)I SEE FROM THE RESPONSE LETTER |
| | DATED 12/22/03, ITEM #12, IT INDICATES |
| | THAT THE DETAIL 11/10.3 DOES NOT EXIST. |
| | WHY DOES IT STILL APPEAR ON THE BUILDING |
| | PLANS?THERE IS STILL NO DETAIL FOR |
| | THE COLUMN.EXPLAINING IN A LETTER |
| | THE DESIGN INTENTION FOR THAT COLUMN |
| | DOES NOT PUT THAT ON THE BUILDING PLANS. |
| | PLEASE REMOVE THE REFERENCE TO THE |
| | MISSING 11-10.3 ON THE FOUNDATION PLAN |
| | AND INCLUDE THE METHOD OF ATTACHMENT |
| | FOR W10X22 TO THE MC1. |
| | |
| | 8.)A RESPONSE WAS MADE THAT EACH |
| | MC1 ON REVISED S1 IS NOW MC4.THE PLANS |
| | STILL SHOW MC1.EITHER PROVIDE A |
| | SPECIFICATION FOR MC1 ON THE COLUMN |
| | SCHEDULE OR CHANGE THE MC1S ON THE PLAN |
| | TO MC4. |
| | |
| | 9.)A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE |
| | FILED WITH THE CLERK OF COURTS BEFORE A |
| | PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. |
| | |
| | 10.) FOR MORE INFORMATION REGARDING |
| | THE IMPACT FEES REQUIRED, CALL 233-5025. |
