| Date |
Text |
| 2007-08-03 19:11:03 | 2004 FBC EXISTING BUILDING |
| | STRUCTURALS REPAIRS |
| | SECOND REVIEW |
| | |
| | DENIED BY BUILDING |
| | |
| | 1) A RECORDED COPY OF THE NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT |
| | MUST BE SUBMITTED BEFORE A |
| | PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. |
| | |
| | 2) THE ENERGY CALCULATION FORMS SPECIFIES R 8.9 FOR THE |
| | WALLS AND THE PLANS SPECIFY R-11 ON S-1. PLEASE |
| | COORDINATE. |
| | |
| | 3) SPECIFY THE REQUIRED LOAD BEARING CAPACITY OF THE |
| | SOIL IN POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT, BASED ON THE DESIGN OF |
| | THE STRUCTURE. SEE NUMBER 12 FROM PREVIOUS REVIEW. SEE |
| | FBC 106.1.2 AND R401. |
| | |
| | 4) SPECIFY THE SPACING OF THE ROOF TRUSS ON THE PLANS. |
| | SEE NUMBER 16 FROM PREVIOUS REVIEW. FBC 106.1.2 |
| | |
| | 5) THE TRUSS DRAWINGS REQUIRE CONNECTIONS TO BEARING |
| | FOR 2465 LBS. HORIZONTAL REACTION. PLEASE REVIEW THE |
| | TRUSS DRAWINGS AND SPECIFY ADEQUATE CONNECTIONS ON THE |
| | ROOF FRAMING PLAN. SEE COMMENT NUMBER 17 FROM LAST |
| | REVIEW. |
| | |
| | 6) THE TRUSS DRAWINGS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE ORIGINAL |
| | SIGNATURE OF THE TRUSS ENGINEER. PHOTO COPIED |
| | SIGNATURES OR STAMPS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. SEE FS471. SEE |
| | # 18 ON LAST REVIEW. THE TRUSS LAYOUT DOES HAVE THE |
| | TRUSS ENGINEER'S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, HOWEVER, THE TRUSS |
| | DRAWINGS HAVE PHOTO COPIED SIGNATURES. |
| | |
| | 7) THE APPROVED ROOFING SYSTEM AND FASTENING OPTION |
| | SELECTED FOR THE GAF MODIFIED ROOF SYSTEM HAS A DESIGN |
| | PRESSURE OF -45 PSF WHICH IS TOO LOW FOR THE PERIMETER |
| | AND CORNER ROOF AREAS. SUBMIT RAS 117 CALCULATIONS FOR |
| | ENHANCED FASTENING IN THESE AREAS AS ALLOWED BY |
| | LIMITATION NUMBER 7 ON PAGE 32 OF THE NOA. SEE NUMBER |
| | 20 ON LAST REVIEW. |
| | |
| | 8)WPB ADMIN CODE 106.3* PRODUCT |
| | APPROVALS. THOSE PRODUCT WHICH ARE |
| | REGULATED BY DCA RULE 9B-72 SHALL BE |
| | REVIEWED AND APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE |
| | DESIGNER OF RECORD PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL |
| | FOR JURISDICTIONAL APPROVAL. THE PRODUCT APPROVAL FOR |
| | THE ROOFING MATERIAL HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED IN WRITING |
| | BY THE D.O.R. |
| | |
| | 9) THE PLANS SPECIFY THAT THE WINDOWS AND DOORS WILL BE |
| | IMPACT RATED. THE PRODUCT APPROVALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED |
| | FOR THE WINDOWS AND DOORS HAVE NO MISSLE IMPACT RATING. |
| | PLEASE CORRECT. NOTE: IF NOT USING IMPACT RATED |
| | PRODUCTS, SUBMIT PRODUCT APPROVALS FOR STORM PANELS |
| | ALONG WITH A KEY PLAN AND INSTALLATION SCHEDULE. |
| | |
| | 10) THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED FROM INTERTEK IS NOT |
| | ACCEPTABLE. THE PRODUCT ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE STATE |
| | APPROVAL OR MIAMI-DADE APPROVAL. THE MANUFACTURER CAN |
| | APPLY FOR LOCAL PRODUCT APPROVAL IN COMPLIANCE WITH |
| | RULE 9B-72. |
| | |
| | ROBERT MCDOUGAL |
| | BLDG. PLAN REVIEW |
| | (561)805-6714 |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
