Date |
Text |
2016-02-22 17:57:12 | NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (R3), SECOND BUILDING |
| REVIEW CHECKLIST. |
| CODE: FBC-5TH EDITION (2014). |
| |
| NOTE: SEE ENGINEERING COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED |
| DRAINAGE FLOW SHOWN ON THE SURVEY. |
| |
| 1- GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: THERE ARE STRUCTURAL |
| DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SUBMITTED |
| AND THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT |
| STATES A SOIL BEARING CAPACITY OF 2000 PSF, WHILE THE |
| ARCHITECTURAL PLANS REQUIRE 2500 PSF SOIL BEARING |
| CAPACITY (SEE SHEET 1 AND 7). ALSO, FOOTING SIZES SHOWN |
| ON PAGE 2 OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ARE DIFFERENT FROM |
| FOOTING SIZES SHOWN ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. |
| ARCHITECT OF RECORD TO REVIEW THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT |
| AND PROVIDE RESPONSE TO THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT |
| FINDINGS. SEC. 107.2.1.3 CITY AMENDMENTS |
| |
| 2- THERE ARE SOME WINDOWS ON THE SECOND FLOOR WITH THE |
| WINDOW SILL LOCATED LESS THAN 24" FROM THE FINISHED |
| FLOOR. NEED TO PROVIDE COMPLIANCE WITH THE WINDOW FALL |
| PROTECTION AS REQUIRED BY SEC. R312.2 OF |
| FBC-RESIDENTIAL, 5TH EDITION (2014). CLEARLY IDENTIFY |
| ON PLANS ALL WINDOWS WITH A SILL LESS THAN 24" FROM THE |
| FLOOR AND PROVIDE COMPLIANCE WITH THE WINDOW FALL |
| PROTECTION REQUIREMENT. |
| RESPONSE: MASTER BEDROOM AND BEDROOM #2 SIZE OF WINDOWS |
| SHOWN ON THE REAR ELEVATION WERE REVISED. THEY DON'T |
| REFLECT THE SIZE SPECIFIED ON PLANS. REVISE AS REQUIRED |
| TO COMPLY. |
| |
| 3- NAILING SCHEDULE ON SHEET 5: REVISE NAIL SIZE |
| SPECIFIED FOR THE CEILING AND SOFFIT METAL LATH. NAIL |
| NEEDS TO HAVE 1-3/4" PENETRATION INTO THE HORIZONTAL |
| FRAMING MEMBER. A 1-1/2" NAIL DOESN'T PROVIDE THE |
| REQUIRED MIN. EMBEDMENT. SEE ASTM C-1063 AND REVISE AS |
| REQUIRED. |
| RESPONSE: A 4D NAIL DOESN'T PROVIDE 1-3/4" PENETRATION |
| INTO THE WOOD FRAMING MEMBER. A 4D NAIL IS 1-1/2" LONG. |
| REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| |
| 4- PROVIDE PRODUCT APPROVAL (2 COPIES) AS REQUIRED BY |
| FAC 61G20-3.002(33) FOR: |
| A) FIBERGLASS PANEL DOOR (OPAQUE) THAT MEETS THE DESIGN |
| PRESSURES CALCULATED BY THE ARCHITECT. FLORIDA PRODUCT |
| APPROVAL FL15037.3 SUBMITTED DOESN'T MEET THE |
| CALCULATED DESIGN PRESSURES. |
| RESPONSE: FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL FL 15037.3 DOESN'T |
| MEET THE DESIGN PRESSURES SHOWN ON SHEET 1. |
| |
| B) UNDERLAYMENT SPECIFIED ON PLANS FOR THE OPEN |
| BALCONY. UNDERLAYMENT TO BE DESIGNED TO RECEIVE TILE AS |
| SPECIFIED ON PLANS. NOTE: SIGNED AND SEALED RAS 117 |
| CALCULATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED IF THE PRODUCT APPROVAL |
| SUBMITTED DOESN'T MEET THE ARCHITECT'S CALCULATED |
| DESIGN PRESSURES. |
| RESPONSE: CERTAIN TEED MODIFIED BITUMEN NOA 14-0224.03 |
| SUBMITTED IS NOT DESIGNED TO RECEIVE TILE FLOORING. |
| THIS PRODUCT IS FOR FLAT ROOF SYSTEMS ONLY. ON THE |
| OTHER HAND, THE DESIGN PRESSURES FOR SELECTED SYSTEM ON |
| SHEET 15 OF 16 ARE TOO LOW. GENERAL LIMITATION #7 ON |
| LAST PAGE OF NOA SUBMITTED REQUIRES RAS 117 |
| CALCULATIONS TO MEET THE CALCULATED DESIGN PRESSURES. |
| NEED TO PROVIDE PRODUCT APPROVAL DESIGNED TO RECEIVE |
| FLOOR TILE AND SIGNED AND SEALED RAS 117 CALCULATIONS |
| MAY BE REQUIRED. |
| |
| C) PROVIDE PRODUCT APPROVAL FOR THE ROOF TILE |
| UNDERLAYMENT SPECIFIED BY THE ARCHITECT ON SHEETS 8 AND |
| 9. NOTE: UNDERLAYMENT NEEDS TO LIST THE ROOF TILE |
| ADHESIVE PRODUCT APPROVAL SUBMITTED. (UNDERLAYMENT |
| SPECIFIED ON SHEETS 8 AND 9 LOOKS MORE LIKE A PRODUCT |
| USED FOR FLAT ROOFS ASSEMBLIES NOT FOR ROOF TILE |
| UNDERLAYMENTS). |
| |
| 5- ARCHITECT OF RECORD TO APPROVE ABOVE PRODUCT |
| APPROVALS AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 107.3.4.1 CITY |
| AMENDMENTS. |
| |
| ***PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSE LETTER ADDRESSING EACH |
| COMMENT TO EXPEDITE THE REVIEW PROCESS. |
| ***PLEASE REMOVE ANY REVISED SHEET. DON'T STAPLE OLD |
| DRAWINGS TO NEW DRAWINGS. SUBMITT OLD DRAWINGS FOR |
| REFERENCE. |
| |
| IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT |
| JULIO GOMEZ |
| COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| (561)805-6712 |
| [email protected] |