| Date |
Text |
| 2017-08-15 09:50:11 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-805-6724 |
| | |
| | FBC = FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2010 |
| | FBC B = FBC BUILDING |
| | FBC EB = FBC EXISTING BUILDING |
| | FBC A = FBC ACCESSIBILITY |
| | FBC EC = FBC ENERGY CONSERVATION |
| | |
| | 1. FBC 107, G101 CALLS OUT THE TWO 1 HOUR RATED WALLS |
| | (10' LENGTH ONLY) AT INTERSECTIONS, BUT THE WALLS LACK |
| | THE 1 HR DESIGNATION SHOWN FOR THE OTHER RATED WALLS. |
| | EITHER EXPLAIN LOGIC OF LEAVING THIS OFF OR ADD. |
| | |
| | 2. SEE COMMENTS FOR REVISION 17060328 WHICH AFFECT THIS |
| | REVISION. FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE, THE ISSUE IS AS |
| | FOLLOWS: |
| | |
| | SHEET G101 SUBMITTED WITH REVISION NUMBER 17060343 IS |
| | SIGNED & SEALED DATED 7/2/17. IT INCLUDES REVISIONS |
| | 1,2,4,5,10,30 AND 32 DATED 6/6/17. |
| | |
| | SHEET G101 SUBMITTED WITH REVISION NUMBER 17060328 IS |
| | SIGNED & SEALED DATED 7/2/17. IT INCLUDES REVISIONS 1, |
| | 10, AND 11. |
| | |
| | IT IS NOT CLEAR WHY ONE IS UP TO REVISION 32 AND HAS AN |
| | EARLIER DATE THAN THE ONE WHICH INCLUDES REVISION 11. |
| | WHY IS REVISION 11 NOT INCLUDED IN THE VERSION |
| | SUBMITTED WITH 17060343? WHY DID THE ARCHITECT SIGN AND |
| | SEAL TWO DIFFERENT SHEETS G101? (THESE ARE HYPOTHETICAL |
| | QUESTIONS, NO NEED TO RESPOND IN WRITING.) |
| | |
| | PLEASE CORRELATE. IT IS OK, BUT NOT PREFERABLE, FOR THE |
| | SAME SHEET TO BE SUBMITTED WITH TWO DIFFERENT |
| | REVISIONS, BUT THEY DO NEED TO BE THE SAME. BOTH SHEETS |
| | SHOULD BE THE SAME AND INCLUDE ALL INFORMATION WHICH |
| | WAS INCORPORATED INTO ALL REVISIONS. |
| | |
| | PLEASE VERIFY THAT OTHER SHEETS ARE ALSO CONSISTENT. |
| | |
| | 3. REMOVED - FIELD ISSUE |
| | |
| | 4. RESPONSE LETTER STATES THAT THE 3 HR HORIZONTAL |
| | SLIDING FIRE DOOR SPECS ARE ATTACHED. I WAS UNABLE TO |
| | LOCATE, PLEASE PROVIDE. IF THIS HORIZONTAL SLIDING |
| | ASSEMBLY DOES NOT INCLUDE A DOOR IN COMPLIANCE WITH FBC |
| | B 1008 AND FBC A, PROVIDE INFORMATION VIA EMAIL PRIOR |
| | TO RESUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | NOTE THAT ALL DOORS IN THE MEANS OF EGRESS NEED TO |
| | COMPLY WITH BOTH FBC BUILDING AND FBC ACCESSIBILITY. |
| | |
| | 5. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHY THE OCCUPANTS IN THE OTHER |
| | TOWER, NOW LEGALLY ANOTHER PROPERTY, ARE DIRECTED |
| | THROUGH THE NEW TOWER AREA RATHER THAN EXITING OUT OF |
| | THE DOUBLE DOOR WHICH IS NEAR THE COMMUNICATING DOOR, |
| | FBC 107. IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO BE CHANGED, |
| | BUT I CANNOT RECALL IF WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
