| Date |
Text |
| 2021-05-24 14:06:22 | RESPONSE TO DANIEL BARRETT EMAIL DRY FLOODPROOFING |
| | PROPOSAL: |
| | |
| | GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, |
| | ARCHITECT IS PROPOSING DRY FLOODPROOFING. DRY |
| | FLOODPROOFING IS NOT ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. |
| | ASCE 24-14 SEC. 6.2.1 . |
| | |
| | ACCORDING TO ASCE 24-14 SEC. 1.5.2 THE TRASH ROOM SHALL |
| | HAVE THE LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATED TO OR ABOVE THE DESIGN |
| | FLOOD ELEVATION (DFE). |
| | |
| | ONLY ENCLOSED AREAS THAT ARE USED SOLELY FOR PARKING OF |
| | VEHICLES, BUILDING ACCESS, OR STORAGE SHALL BE ALLOWED |
| | BELOW THE DFE. |
| | TRASH ROOM IS NONE OF THE ABOVE. |
| | |
| | I HOPE THIS HELPS. |
| | |
| | JULIO GOMEZ |
| | COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| | BUILDING DIVISION |
| | (561)805-6712 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | FINAL ELEVATION CERTIFICATE, THIRD REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | SUBMITTAL #21041684 |
| | |
| | (NOTE: NUMBERING OF COMMENTS WAS REVISED TO SIMPLIFY |
| | REVIEW. ORIGINAL COMMENT IS THE SAME FROM PREVIOUS |
| | REVIEW). |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 1- REVISED FINAL SURVEY SHOWS 14.24 (NAVD) FINISH FLOOR |
| | ELEVATION AT TRASH ROOM. THIS ELEVATION IS BELOW THE |
| | DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION OF 14.7 (NAVD) SPECIFIED BY THE |
| | DESIGNER OF RECORD. SEE SHEET A-2.1 FOR PROPOSED |
| | ELEVATION (16.25 NGVD). COORDINATE WITH THE DESIGNER OF |
| | RECORD AND SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIRED FINISH |
| | ELEVATION. |
| | SEC. 1612.4 FBC-BUILDING. SEC. 1.5.2 ASCE 24. |
| | NOTE: SEE REVISION #19110684. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | RESPONSE LETTER FROM HUMBERTO BRICENO STATES "THE |
| | ELEVATION 14.24' WAS TAKEN AT THE THRESHOLD, THE |
| | MEASURED FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION IS 14.31' NAVD88 |
| | (15.83' NGVD29) WHICH IS THE DESIGN ELEVATION." |
| | |
| | THIS COMMENTS APPLY TO HUMBERTO BRICENO'S RESPONSE |
| | LETTER: |
| | (A) THE DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION SHOWN ON PLANS IS 16.25' |
| | NGVD. THEREFORE, 15.83' NGVD29 IS NOT THE DESIGN |
| | ELEVATION. HUMBERTO'S RESPONSE IS INCORRECT. |
| | |
| | (B)TRASH ROOM FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION IS BELOW THE |
| | REQUIRED DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION. FINISH FLOOR NEEDS TO |
| | BE RAISED TO MEET THE 16.25' NGVD SPECIFIED BY THE |
| | ARCHITECT OF RECORD. |
| | IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES TO THE APPROVED PLANS, THEN |
| | THEY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD BY |
| | REVISING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOWING COMPLIANCE |
| | WITH SEC. 1612.4 FBC-BUILDING. |
| | |
| | (C)BASED ON HUMBERTO'S RESPONSE LETTER AND CONVERSATION |
| | WITH LUIS ORTIZ (SURVEYOR), THE TRASH ROOM HAS AN |
| | SLOPED FLOOR. IF THE FLOOR IS SLOPED, THEN THE FINISH |
| | FLOOR ELEVATION OF 15.83' NGVD29 IS INCORRECT BECAUSE |
| | THERE ARE LOW AND HIGH ELEVATIONS ON THE SAME ROOM. |
| | SPOT FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS SHOULD BE GIVEN AS DONE |
| | WITH THE LOADING AREA. THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS |
| | ROOM HAS EQUIPMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE LOCATED AT THE |
| | DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION. REVISE AS REQUIRED AND CLEARLY |
| | PROVIDE THE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION SPOT ELEVATION WHERE |
| | THE TRASH ROOM EQUIPMENT IS LOCATED. |
| | SEC. 107.2.1.2 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 2- CLARIFY WHY DOMESTIC PUMP ROOM SAYS F.F.E.=14.71 |
| | SINCE THERE IS AN SPOT ELEVATION OF 14.61 SHOWN AT THE |
| | ENTRY OF THIS ROOM. |
| | SEC. 107.2.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | COORDINATE WITH RESPONSE (C) TO ITEM #1 ABOVE. SIMILAR |
| | SITUATION WITH SLOPED FLOOR. |
| | |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 3- BASED ON THE REVISED FINAL SURVEY IT LOOKS LIKE THE |
| | LOWEST ELEVATION OF MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT IS NOT THE |
| | GENERATOR PAD. THE EQUIPMENT LOCATED IN THE ROOMS |
| | ADJACENT TO THE LOADING AREA SEEM TO BE LOWER THAN THE |
| | GENERATOR PAD. REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | SEC. 107.2.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | THIS ITEM WAS REVISED, BUT THIS WILL NEED TO BE REVISED |
| | AGAIN ONCE ITEM #1 IS ADDRESSED AND IN COMPLIANCE. |
| | NOTE: REVISE COMMENT C2(E) AT THE BOTTOM OF SECTION D. |
| | NEED TO IDENTIFY THE EQUIPMENT. "TRASH ROOM" IS NOT AN |
| | EQUIPMENT. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 4- PROVIDE PHOTOS SHOWING THE VENTS SPECIFIED ON ITEM |
| | A9(B). |
| | NOTE: COORDINATE WITH VENTS SHOWN ON SHEET A.2.1 AND |
| | DETAILS 4 AND 8 ON SHEET A-8.1.1. THERE IS A VENT |
| | INSIDE THE GARAGE CONNECTING TO THE OUTSIDE WALL. THE |
| | OTHER VENT CONSIDERED BY THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD IS THE |
| | ENTRANCE TO THE GARAGE. SHOW ALL VENTS. SEE ITEM A6 |
| | FEMA ELEVATION CERTIFICATE INSTRUCTIONS. |
| | ALSO, ALL PHOTOS NEED TO BE AT LEAST 3"X3". REVISE |
| | PHOTO THREE ON PAGE 6 OF 6. |
| | |
| | SEE ARCHITECT'S REVISION #8 ON PLANS AND REVISION |
| | #19110684 CITY RECORDS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | (A)VENTS SHOWN ON THE PHOTOS ON PAGE 7 DON'T MATCH THE |
| | ONES DESIGNED BY THE DESIGNER OF RECORD. SEE SHEET |
| | SHEET A.2.1 AND DETAILS 4 AND 8 ON SHEET A-8.1.1. |
| | NEED TO INSTALL VENTS AS SPECIFIED BY THE ARCHITECT OF |
| | RECORD. |
| | IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES TO THE APPROVED PLANS, THEN |
| | THEY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD BY |
| | REVISING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOWING COMPLIANCE |
| | WITH SEC. 1612.4 FBC-BUILDING. |
| | NOTE:THERE ARE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-ENGINEERED |
| | VENTS. SEE SEC. 2.7.2.1 ASCE 24. |
| | |
| | (B)BASED ON PHOTO #5 SHOWN ON PAGE 7, IT LOOKS LIKE THE |
| | PASSAGE FROM THE GARAGE INTERIOR VENT TO THE OUTSIDE |
| | VENT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE ARCHITECT'S DESIGN. |
| | APPROVED REVISION #19110684 SHOWS DETAIL A ON SHEET |
| | A-2.1 WITH A VOID SPACE BETWEEN THE INTERIOR AND |
| | EXTERIOR VENTS. THIS DETAIL SHOWS THIS VOID WITH A |
| | CONCRETE SLAB AS THE FINISH FLOOR. PHOTO #5 SEEMS TO |
| | SHOW DIRT INSTEAD OF CONCRETE SLAB. |
| | THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. |
| | IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES TO THE APPROVED PLANS, THEN |
| | THEY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD BY |
| | REVISING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOWING COMPLIANCE |
| | WITH SEC. 1612.4 FBC-BUILDING. |
| | |
| | (C)PHOTO #5 SHOWN ON PAGE 7 LOOKS LIKE IT WAS TAKEN |
| | WHEN THE BUILDING WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THIS IS A |
| | FINAL ELEVATION CERTIFICATE. PHOTO NEEDS TO BE TAKEN |
| | WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE, INCLUDING THE FINAL |
| | GRADING. |
| | |
| | (D) ALL PHOTOS ON PAGE 7 AND 8 NEED THE DATE WHEN THEY |
| | ARE TAKEN. |
| | THEY NEED TO BE TAKEN WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF |
| | CERTIFICATION. SEE ITEM A6 OF FEMA ELEVATION |
| | CERTIFICATE INSTRUCTIONS. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 5- ITEM A9(C) WAS REVISED. THIS ITEM IS FOR THE NET |
| | AREA OF FLOOD OPENINGS. AREA SHOWN IS WAY TOO HIGH |
| | COMPARED TO THE ONE SPECIFIED BY THE ARCHITECT OF |
| | RECORD ON SHEET SHEET A.2.1 AND DETAILS 4 AND 8 ON |
| | SHEET A-8.1.1. PLEASE COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECT AND |
| | REVISE AS REQUIRED. ONLY THE AREA BELOW THE DESIGN |
| | FLOOD ELEVATION COUNTS. ALSO, NEED TO SPECIFY THE |
| | ACTUAL NET AREA (EXCLUDING VENT FRAME)OF THE INSTALLED |
| | VENTS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | BASED ON THE REVISED NET AREA, IT LOOKS LIKE THE NET |
| | AREA DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE NET AREA SPECIFIED BY THE |
| | ARCHITECT OF RECORD ON FLOOD VENT CALCULATIONS ON SHEET |
| | A-2.1. |
| | THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. COORDINATE WITH ITEM #4 |
| | ABOVE. |
| | IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES TO THE APPROVED PLANS, THEN |
| | THEY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD BY |
| | REVISING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOWING COMPLIANCE |
| | WITH SEC. 1612.4 FBC-BUILDING. |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENTS: |
| | 6- I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS NEW COMMENT, BUT AFTER |
| | REVIEWING SHEET A-2.1 |
| | TO REVIEW ARCHITECT'S ORIGINAL VENTS DESIGN, I REALIZED |
| | THE SURVEY SHOW SOME PARTITIONS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF |
| | THE GARAGE. THESE PARTITIONS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE |
| | ARCHITECT'S PLANS. THESE PARTITIONS SEEM TO BE BLOCKING |
| | THE FLOOD VENTS. THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. |
| | IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES TO THE APPROVED PLANS, THEN |
| | THEY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD BY |
| | REVISING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOWING COMPLIANCE |
| | WITH SEC. 1612.4 FBC-BUILDING. |
| | SEC. 107.2.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | 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] |
| | |
