| Date |
Text |
| 2015-04-21 10:35:52 | PLAN |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW: FBC 2010 |
| | ROBERT MCDOUGAL, CBO |
| | COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| | (561) 805-6714 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | DENIED BY BUILDING |
| | PLEASE ADDRESS THE ITEMS NOTED BELOW: |
| | |
| | 1) (REPEAT COMMENT) FBC 107.3.4 - PROVIDE TWO SETS OF |
| | PRODUCT APPROVALS FOR THOSE PRODUCTS WHICH ARE |
| | REGULATED BY DCA RULE 9N-3 THAT HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND |
| | APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE DESIGNER OF RECORD. PROVIDE |
| | TWO COMPLETE PRODUCT APPROVALS WITH FL OR NOA NUMBERS |
| | INCLUDING INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS AND MAXIMUM DESIGN |
| | PRESSURES FOR EACH OF THE DIFFERENT WINDOW/GLASS TYPES, |
| | STRUCTURAL MULLIONS AND EXTERIOR DOOR TYPES. |
| | (NEW COMMENT.) THE EXISTING / DEMOLITION PLAN HAS NOTES |
| | AT THE EXTERIOR FRONT DOOR, KITCHEN AND BEDROOM WINDOWS |
| | ARE TO BE REMOVED. THE DOOR SCHEDULE LISTS THIS DOOR |
| | AND THE NEW WINDOW SCHEDULE LISTS THESE WINDOWS AS |
| | EXISTING. ARE THESE BEING REPLACED WITH NEW ONES? |
| | CLARIFY. IF THE DOOR IS TO BE REPLACED WITH A NEW ONE, |
| | THEN SUBMIT 2 SETS OF PRODUCT APPROVALS THAT HEV BEEN |
| | REVIEWED AND APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE DESIGNER OF |
| | RECORD. |
| | |
| | 2) (REPEAT COMMENT) R301.2.1.2 PROTECTION OF OPENINGS. |
| | WINDOWS IN BUILDINGS LOCATED IN WINDBORNE DEBRIS |
| | REGIONS SHALL HAVE GLAZED OPENINGS PROTECTED FROM |
| | WINDBORNE DEBRIS. GLAZED OPENING PROTECTION FOR |
| | WINDBORNE DEBRIS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE |
| | LARGE MISSILE TEST OF ASTM E 1996, ASTM E 1886, SSTD 12 |
| | OR TAS 201, 202 AND 203 OR AAMA 506 REFERENCED THEREIN. |
| | IF STORM PANELS ARE USED SUBMIT TWO SETS OF PRODUCT |
| | APPROVALS, KEY PLAN AND INSTALLATION SCHEDULE. |
| | (NEW COMMENT.)THE STORM PANEL INFORMATION THAT WAS |
| | SUBMITTED DOES NOT HAVE A FLORIDA FL # OR MIAMI-DADE |
| | NOA NO. WITH IT. IT ALSO HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED AND |
| | APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE DESIGNER OF RECORD. THERE |
| | WERE NO KEY PLANS OR INSTALLION SCHEDULES SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | 3) NEW COMMENT. THE DESIGNER OF RECORD (ENGINEER) |
| | SHOULD NOT BE SIGNING AND SEALING THE PRODUCT APPROVALS |
| | AS THEY ARE NOT HIS DESIGNS. HE SHOULD USE HIS SHOP |
| | REVIEW STAMP AND SIGNATURE TO SHOW THAT HE HAS REVIEWED |
| | AND APPROVED IT. |
| | |
| | IN ORDER TO REDUCE PLAN REVIEW TIMES AND PROVIDE |
| | CLARIFICATION, PLEASE SUBMIT A RESPONSE LETTER |
| | INDICATING HOW EACH OF THE REVIEW COMMENTS HAS BEEN |
| | ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | |
