| Date |
Text |
| 2002-02-20 00:00:00 | BUILDING PLAN REVIEW |
| | PLAN REVIEW # 01110409 |
| | BRIGER TRACT "D" |
| | BUILDINGTYPE I |
| | SECOND REVIEW |
| | |
| | SBC=1997 STANDARD BUILDING CODE |
| | |
| | 1)- SBC503.3.1 GENERAL AREA MODIFICATION |
| | SHALL BE APPLIED TO TYPE I BUILDING, |
| | UNPROTECTED, SPRINKLERED WITH THE USE OF |
| | NFPA 13R, THIS COMPLIES WITH FL STATE |
| | STATUTE 553.895 (2). |
| | 2)- NO SITE SURVEY/ PLOT PLAN "RESPONCE" |
| | SEE CIVIL PACKAGE, WHERE, WE HAVE NOT RE |
| | CEIVED ANY CIVIL DRAWING AS OF TO DATE. |
| | THIS IS A MAJOR CONCERN, WHEN WE DRAFTED |
| | THE ADDRESS LIST A TELEPHONE CALL TO |
| | EPOCH WAS MADE REVEALING THIS CONCERN! |
| | DISCREPANCY, THE FIRST PLAN REVIEW F0.11 |
| | REVEALS A SITE LAYOUT DIFFERENT FROM THE |
| | SITE LAYOUT DEPICTED ON"TYPE I"S0.10. |
| | 2/19/01 TEL. MIKE SPELLMAN AS TO THE |
| | DISCREPANCY. MR. SPELLMAN INDICATED THAT |
| | THE FIRST DRAWING IS WHAT WAS APPROVED. |
| | THE PLANS NEED TO BE CORRECTED, TO |
| | FACILITATE PLAN REVIEW A REVIEW OF TABLE |
| | 600 REVEILS A PROBLEM BETWEEN BUILDING |
| | NUMBER 4 & 16. THERE IS NO DIMENSIONS |
| | BETWEEN BUILDINGS TO INDICATE DISTACNES |
| | BETWEEN BUILDINGS. |
| | 3)- ADDRESSING PER PREVIOUS CONVERSATION |
| | THE SITE SHALL HAVE A STREET NAME OF |
| | "PORTOFINO WAY". BEFORE PERMITS CAN BE |
| | ISSUED A PLAT SHALL BE RECORDED WITH |
| | PALM BEACH COUNTY, THE PROPOSED STREET |
| | NAME SHOULD APPEAR ON THE PLAT.AGAIN |
| | WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED CIVIL DRAWINGS. |
| | 4)- EXTERIOR STAIRS, THE FLOOR PLAN |
| | DOES INDICATE THAT CODE SECTION 1004.1.4 |
| | HAS BEEN MET AS FAR AS 1/2 THE DIAGONAL |
| | DISTANCE BETWEEN STAIRS. |
| | |
| | 1997 SBC 1006.2.1. DOES ALLOW FOR THE |
| | USE OF EXTERIOR STAIRS AS AN MEANS OF |
| | EGRESS IN BUILDINGS NOT EXCEEDING SIX |
| | STORIES, WITHOUT ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. |
| | THE EXTERIOR EXITWAY STAIR ARRANGEMENT |
| | SHALL CONTAIN 3 PRIMARY FEATURES TO |
| | ASSURE THE LEVEL OF PROTECTION NECESS- |
| | ARY FOE THE BUILDING OCCUPANTS. |
| | |
| | FIRST EACH TENANT MUST HAVE ACCESS TO A |
| | CHOICE OF EGRESS PATHS LEADING TO INDE- |
| | PENDANT AND REMOTELY LOCATED EXTERIOR |
| | STAIRS. THE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO |
| | INDICATE SUCH ON LS1.11. |
| | |
| | THE SECOND PROTECTION FEATURE INVOLES |
| | THE DISSIPATION OF SMOKE AND COMBUSTION |
| | PRODUCTS, WHILE THE CODE DOES NOT CUR- |
| | RENTLY ATTEMPT TO DEFINE THE DEGREE OF |
| | OPENNESS THAT MUST BE MAINTAINED. |
| | |
| | THE THIRD ELEMENT OF EXTERIOR EXIT |
| | STAIRS MUST BE FROM DIRECT FIRE EXPOSURE |
| | EITHER A 10 FT SEPERATION OF THE STAIR |
| | AND BALCONY (BREEZEWAY) FROM THE PROPER- |
| | TY LINE AND OTHER BUILDINGS ON THE SAME |
| | LOT OR 3/4 HR OPENING PROTECTIVES TO PRO |
| | TECT AGAINST EXTERIOR FIRE EXPOSURE.THIS |
| | ALSO HAS BEEN ACHIEVED THROUGH THE |
| | CURRENT DESIGN. |
| | SECTION 1006.2.4 PROVIDES PROTECTION |
| | AGAINST INTERIOR EXPOSURE. THIS HAS NOT |
| | BEEN ACHIEVED, THE OPENINGS ON EACH SIDE |
| | OF THE STAIRWAY SHALL HAVE 45 MINUTE |
| | OPENING PROTECTION. THIS PROTECTION |
| | SHALL EXTEND FROM THE GROUND TO A POINT |
| | 10 FT ABOVE THE TOP MOST LANDING OR THE |
| | ROOFLINE AND HORIZONTALLY 10 FT FROM |
| | EACH SIDE OF THE STAIRWAY. THIS WOULD |
| | PERTAIN TO THE WINDOWS OF EACH UNIT AD- |
| | JACENT A STAIRWAY AND THE GARAGE DOORS |
| | ADJACENT TO THE STAIRWAY. |
| | 5)- WINDERS REVISED OK |
| | 6)- GENERAL AREA INCREASE TAAKEN FOR |
| | TYPE I BUILDING, NFPA 13-R OK. |
| | 7)- SHEET M2.31/ M2.32 INDICATES A RATED |
| | CHASE, RESPONCE TO SEAL AT SLABS. |
| | SBC 705.6 INDICATES THAT ALL PENETRA- |
| | TIONS OF HORIZONTAL SLABS SHALL BE PRO- |
| | TECTED BY A SHAFT ENCLOSURE. 705.6.1 |
| | DOES GIVE EXCEPTION TO PENETRATIONS THAT |
| | PENETRATE A SINGLE FIRE RATED FLOOR OR |
| | FLOOR/ CEILING ASSEMBLY, OTHERWISE A |
| | RATED SHAFT SHALL BE REQUIRED, PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE A UL OR GYPSUM ASSEMBLY NUMBER. |
| | 8)- MEZZANINE OK |
| | 9)- COMMENT ON DRAFT STOPPING OK |
| | BLOCK WALLS EXTENDING ABOVE FLOOR |
| | TRUSSES VS ENTRY HALL AND STORE ROOM |
| | NEED TO CLARIFY WHERE THIS REVISION |
| | IS SHOWN? |
| | 10)- FASTENING SUBSTITUTION FASTENING |
| | SCHEDULE, NOW MISSING FROM STRUCTURAL |
| | SHEETS. |
| | 11)- PLANS INDICATE THE USAGE OF 5"X5" |
| | STEEL COLUMNS ON THE COLUMN SCHEDULE, |
| | DETAIL A/S-D11 MISSING? |
| | 12)- ROOF SHEATHING SCHEDULE MISSING , |
| | ENGINEER TO INDICATE NAILING SCHEDULE |
| | ABOVE 35'. |
| | 13)- TRUSS PLAN TO INDICATE THE LOADS |
| | TO BE RESISTED AND THE FASTENERS |
| | REQUIRED FOR EACH AREA. SEMCO HAS NOT |
| | BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR OVER 2 YEARS! |
| | 14)- COMPONENTS & CLADDING SBC1606.2.6.2 |
| | (3 COPIES) OF PRODUCT TESTING REPORTS |
| | FOR EACH BUILDING TYPE.SBCCI OR DADE |
| | COUNTY REPORTS ARE ACCEPTED. NORANDEX |
| | WINDOWS REQUIRE SITE SPECIFIC REPORT, IF |
| | USED (THEY ONLY HAVE BROWARD APPROVAL). |
| | WINDOWS,SLIDING GLASS DOORS, EXTERIOR |
| | SWING DOORS GARAGE DOORS ASWELL AS |
| | ROOFING. SEE CITY INTERPETTATION FOR |
| | LARGE MISSLE IMPACT TESTING. |
| | 15)- RESIDENT INSPECTOR REQUIRED, SEE |
| | DON NEELY FOR INFORMATION. |
| | 16)- COUNTY IMPACT FEES TO BE PAID |
| | BEFORE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT. |
| | 17)- CONTRACTOR TO PAY RADON FEES |
| | AT TIME OF ISSUANCE. |
| | 18)- PLANS TO REFLECT WIND PRESSURE |
| | ZONES, FOR WINDOWS AND DOORS, THIS |
| | IS COMPLETED. |
| | |
| | JIM WITMER |
| | (561) 659-8096 X 8412 |
