| Date |
Text |
| 2017-07-21 07:34:01 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-805-6724 |
| | |
| | FBC = FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 5TH EDITION (2014) |
| | FBC B = FBC BUILDING |
| | FBC EB = FBC EXISTING BUILDING |
| | FBC A = FBC ACCESSIBILITY |
| | FBC EC = FBC ENERGY CONSERVATION |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, NOT CLEAR HOW THE PREVIOUS LIST WAS |
| | ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | IT IS NOT CLEAR WHICH DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE REVIEWED. |
| | THERE ARE TWO DOCUMENTS NAMED "SUB |
| | 136-03-309-26.01-TRUSS LAYOUT", SUBMITTED ON TWO |
| | DIFFERENT DATES, SAME SIZE. IF ONE SHOULD SUPERSEDE THE |
| | OTHER, ONLY ONE SHOULD APPEAR. PLEASE COORDINATE WITH |
| | DIGITAL LIBRARIANS TO CORRECT SUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | COMMENT FROM PREVIOUS LIST: |
| | ******************************* |
| | FBC 603, CALCULATIONS FOR NON FRT TRUSSES WERE |
| | SUBMITTED. IT APPEARS THAT THE SPECIFICATION FOR |
| | NON-FRT WAS REDLINED BY SOMEONE FROM "NON FIRE |
| | RETARDANT LUMBER" TO REMOVE THE SPECIFICATION "NON". |
| | |
| | FBC 107, PROJECT IS TO COMPLY WITH BOTH FBC AND |
| | DESIGNER'S SPECIFICATIONS. |
| | |
| | ON THE PERMIT DOCUMENTS, IS FRT OR NON FRT SPECIFIED |
| | FOR 2ND FLOOR AWNING TRUSSES? |
| | |
| | IT APPEARS THAT ALTHOUGH NOT A "ROOF" OVER THE |
| | BUILDING, IT STILL SERVES AS A ROOF OVER EITHER BALCONY |
| | OR OTHER OUTDOOR AREAS. IT IS NOT CLEAR UNDER WHICH |
| | EXCEPTION THIS WOULD FALL; SEE FBC B 603. |
| | |
| | IF DESIGNER(S) FEEL THAT INSTALLATION OF NON FRT WOOD |
| | TRUSSES ON THE 2ND LEVEL ARE INCLUDED IN AN EXCEPTION, |
| | SUBMIT A LETTER EXPLAINING RATIONALE VIA EMAIL FOR |
| | PRELIMINARY REVIEW. OTHERWISE, REVISE CALCS TO INCLUDE |
| | FRT ONLY AND RESUBMIT. |
| | ************************* |
| | 2ND REVIEW, INFORMATION FROM DOR NOT RECEIVED. THIS |
| | ITEM FAILED IN THE FIRST PLAN REVIEW FOR THIS BUILDING. |
| | ARCHITECT'S RESPONSE AT THAT TIME WAS THAT ALL LUMBER |
| | PROPOSED WAS FRT. PERMIT WAS ISSUED BASED ON THIS |
| | STATEMENT. IF DOR WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE NON FRT LUMBER |
| | FOR THIS TYPE 1 BUILDING, AND IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY |
| | CALLED OUT ON THE PLAN, A REVISION IS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | EMAIL FROM CONTRACTOR STATES THAT PLAN SPECIFIES NON |
| | FRT. PLEASE INDICATE WHERE. WHEN NON FRT IS PASSED IN |
| | PLAN REVIEW, I GENERALLY REQUIRE THAT THEY INCORPORATE |
| | THE APPLICABLE EXCEPTION INTO THE PLAN. IF PLAN WAS |
| | PASSED SPECIFYING NON FRT, PLEASE HAVE ARCHITECT SEND |
| | AN EMAIL INDICATING EXCEPTION TO FBC B CHAPTER 6 |
| | REQUIREMENTS FOR NON COMBUSTIBLE BUILDINGS. |
| | |
| | 2. SEE SHEET 11 OF THE TRUSS CALCS (TRUSSED VALLEY SET |
| | DETAIL), PLEASE UPDATE (INCORRECT DESIGN CRITERIA, |
| | WIND, ETC.) |
| | |
| | |
