| Date |
Text |
| 2012-11-05 11:16:23 | BUILDING REVIEW THIRD CHECKLIST: |
| | |
| | 1- PLANS NEED TO BE SIGNED AND SEALED BY THE ARCHITECT. |
| | SEC. 107.1 CITY AMENDMENTS TO FBC. PLANS SUBMITTED THIS |
| | TIME ARE NOT SIGNED AND SEALED. |
| | |
| | 2- (A) EGRESS WINDOW W2 SPECIFIED ON PLANS DON'T COMPLY |
| | WITH THE MINIMUM OPENING SIZE REQUIRED BY SEC. R310 OF |
| | 2010 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. REVISE AS REQUIRED. ALSO, CLARIFY |
| | IF ORDERING CUSTOM SIZE WINDOW. (REPEAT COMMENT. THREE |
| | TIMES). |
| | |
| | ***REVIEW RESPONSE: 37" X 54" SINGLE HUNG WINDOW |
| | DOESN'T MEET THE EGRESS REQUIREMENTS. I ENTERED WINDOW |
| | SIZE ON JELD WEN WEBSITE AND THE RESULT IS THAT IT |
| | DOESN'T MEET THE EGRESS REQUIREMENTS. SEE BELOW. |
| | |
| | SINGLE-HUNG |
| | NET FRAME WIDTH: 37" |
| | NET FRAME HEIGHT: 54" |
| | DOES NOT MEET EGRESS REQUIREMENTS. |
| | CLEAR OPENING WIDTH 34.75 (COMPLIES). |
| | CLEAR OPENING HEIGHT 20.562 (DOESN'T COMPLY). |
| | CLEAR OPENING SQ. FT. 4.962 (DOESN'T COMPLY). |
| | |
| | (B) THIRD DENIED REVIEW: ARCHITECT TO PAY A FEE OF FOUR |
| | TIMES THE ATTRIBUTED TO PLAN REVIEW AS REQUIRED BY SEC. |
| | 553.80(2)(B) FLORIDA STATUTE. (SEC. 107.1 CITY |
| | AMENDMENTS TO FBC). |
| | |
| | IMPORTANT NOTICE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS FLORIDA STATUTE |
| | 553.80(2)(B) DESIGN PROFESSIONAL DOCUMENTS: |
| | WITH RESPECT TO EVALUATION OF DESIGN PROFESSIONALS? |
| | DOCUMENTS, IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINDS IT NECESSARY, IN |
| | ORDER TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | CODE AND ISSUE A PERMIT, TO REJECT DESIGN DOCUMENTS |
| | REQUIRED BY THE CODE THREE OR MORE TIMES FOR FAILURE TO |
| | CORRECT A CODE VIOLATION SPECIFICALLY AND CONTINUOUSLY |
| | NOTED IN EACH REJECTION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, |
| | EGRESS, FIRE PROTECTION, STRUCTURAL STABILITY, ENERGY, |
| | ACCESSIBILITY, LIGHTING, VENTILATION, ELECTRICAL, |
| | MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND GAS SYSTEMS, OR OTHER |
| | REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED BY RULE OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | COMMISSION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 120, THE LOCAL |
| | GOVERNMENT SHALL IMPOSE, EACH TIME AFTER THE THIRD SUCH |
| | REVIEW THE PLANS ARE REJECTED FOR THAT CODE VIOLATION A |
| | FEE OF FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE PORTION OF THE |
| | PERMIT FEE ATTRIBUTED TO PLAN REVIEW. |
| | |
| | 3- PROVIDE PRODUCT APPROVAL (2 COPIES) AS REQUIRED BY |
| | SEC. 107.2 CITY AMENDMENTS TO FBC AND RULE 9N-3 FOR: |
| | A) ENTRY DOOR AS SHOWN ON PLANS. OWNER SAID NOT |
| | REPLACING DOOR. THEN, ARCHITECT TO REVISE PLANS |
| | ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | B) CASEMENT WINDOW AS SHOWN ON PLANS. (REPEAT COMMENT. |
| | NO RESPONSE). |
| | |
| | C) SINGLE HUNG WINDOW THAT MEETS THE DESIGN PRESSURES |
| | CALCULATED BY THE ARCHITECT. NOA 09-0916.05 SUBMITTED |
| | DOESN'T MEET THE DESIGN PRESSURES CALCULATED BY THE |
| | ARCHITECT. |
| | |
| | 4- ARCHITECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVE IN WRITING (NOT |
| | SIGNING AND SEALING) ALL PRODUCT APPROVALS. SEC. |
| | 107.3.4.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. (REPEAT COMMENT. NOT |
| | ADDRESSED). |
| | |
| | ***NOTE: |
| | SUBMIT SEPARATE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR ELECTRICAL AND |
| | FOR MECHANICAL WORK. ONLY PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR THE |
| | BUILDING AND PLUMBING WORK WERE SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL |
| | JULIO GOMEZ |
| | COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| | (561)805-6712 |
