| Date |
Text |
| 2018-03-17 12:16:10 | ***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 |
| | |
| | 1. THE EXISTING DOOR IS SHOWN AS PERMANENTLY LOCKED. |
| | SEE FBC B 1008.1.9, |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, PLAN WAS REVISED TO SHOW REMOVAL OF DOOR |
| | HARDWARE. THIS WAS NOT DISCUSSED PREVIOUS TO THE |
| | RESUBMITTAL AS STATED IN THE RESPONSE LETTER. THIS |
| | PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED WITH PROVISO: THIS WILL BE |
| | SUBJECT TO THE FIELD INSPECTOR'S APPROVAL. IF THE DOOR |
| | LOOKS LIKE A DOOR, REMOVAL OF THE HARDWARE WILL NOT BE |
| | ADEQUATE TO RESOLVE THE COMMENT. IF APPLICANT IS ABLE |
| | TO MODIFY THE DOOR IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS CLEARLY NOT |
| | A DOOR, THAT IS ACCEPTABLE. A REVISION SHOWING |
| | MODIFICATIONS IMPLEMENTED MAY BE REQUIRED, SUBJECT TO |
| | FIELD INSPECTOR'S DISCRETION. |
| | |
| | 9. PROVIDE A COPY OF THE CONTRACT FOR THIS JOB, FBC |
| | 109. |
| | |
| | 11. FBC 107, THE DESIGNER OF RECORD IS TO REVIEW |
| | PRODUCT APPROVALS AND DELEGATED ENGINEERING. A DOOR |
| | DETAIL SIGNED AND SEALED BY THOMAS TWOMEY, PE WAS |
| | INCLUDED AND DOES NOT INCLUDE PANIC DEVICES (STATES "NO |
| | PANIC") AND INCLUDES A LOCK, SEE FBC B 1008. |
| | |
| | 3RD REVIEW, IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THIS WAS ADDRESSED. |
| | SAME DETAIL PROVIDED, NO PRODUCT APPROVAL SUBMITTED. |
| | 4TH REVIEW, SAME SPECS PROVIDED. A PANIC BAR IS |
| | REQUIRED FOR THE DOORS DUE TO ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCY, |
| | OCCUPANT LOAD OVER 50. ENGINEER'S REVIEW OF A NON |
| | COMPLIANT DOOR DOES NOT ADDRESS 2ND HALF OF THE |
| | COMMENT. |
| | |
| | 12. FLORIDA STATUTE 553.80, A 4X PLAN REVIEW FEE WILL |
| | BE ASSESSED IF COMMENTS NOT ADDRESSED A THIRD TIME. |
| | |
| | FEE IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED PER FLORIDA STATUTE. DUE TO |
| | THE NUMBER OF TIMES THIS HAS BEEN RESUBMITTED WITHOUT |
| | COMMENTS BEING ADDRESSED, PLEASE REQUEST A |
| | PRE-RESUBMITTAL MEETING. THIS MAY BE THE APPLICANT AS A |
| | REVIEW WILL NOT BE DONE, BUT THE INDIVIDUAL SUBMITTING |
| | THE RESUBMITTAL MUST BE ABLE TO SHOW HOW EACH COMMENT |
| | WAS ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENT: |
| | |
| | IN A CONVERSATION WITH PETE RUSSO, I AGREED TO PASS THE |
| | REVIEW WITH PROVISO. SINCE AN ENTRY DOOR WITH PANIC BAR |
| | IS READILY AVAILABLE, BUT APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED A |
| | PRODUCT APPROVAL OR PROPOSED INSTALLATION SPEC WHICH |
| | INCLUDES A PANIC DEVICE, I'M CONCERNED THAT THE |
| | INSTALLATION WILL BE DONE INCORRECTLY. TO MY BEST |
| | KNOWLEDGE, AN EXTERIOR IMPACT RATED TESTED DOOR |
| | ASSEMBLY CANNOT HAVE A PANIC BAR INSTALLED |
| | RETROACTIVELY WITHOUT VOIDING THE PRODUCT TESTING. |
| | THEREFORE, THIS INFORMATION IS REQUIRED AT THIS TIME. |
| | SUBJECT TO THE PLANS EXAMINER'S DISCRETION, PRODUCT |
| | APPROVALS FOR COMPONENTS & CLADDING CAN BE DEFERRED |
| | SUBMITTALS, ESPECIALLY FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THIS IS A |
| | MINOR ALTERATION, THE DOOR INSTALLATION IS A |
| | SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE PROJECT, AND THE CODE IS |
| | RESTRICTIVE. I DO NOT FEEL THAT A PROVISO FOR THIS ITEM |
| | IS APPROPRIATE. PLEASE CONTACT ME TO DISCUSS IF YOU |
| | WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO TAKE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION |
| | INTO CONSIDERATION. |
| | |
| | |
