Date |
Text |
2014-10-22 11:14:23 | PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS |
| |
| |
| 1ST REVIEW: FBC 2010 |
| ROBERT MCDOUGAL, CBO |
| COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| (561) 805-6714 |
| [email protected] |
| |
| BUILDING DENIED |
| PLEASE ADDRESS THE ITEMS NOTED BELOW: |
| |
| 1) NOTE 2 ON SHEETS A-1 AND A-2 INCORRECTLY REFERENCES |
| THE FBC 2007 / 2009 AMENDMENTS. THE CORRECT EDITION IS |
| THE FBC 2010. |
| |
| 2) IN THE DOOR SCHEDULE ON SHEETS A-1 AND A-2, FOR DOOR |
| #2 THE DESIGN OPENING PRESSURES ARE MORE THAN THE NOA |
| PRESSURES OF +/- 50 PSF. THE PRODUCT APPROVAL, FL# |
| 14665.1 HAS PRESSURES OF +/- 55 PSF. FBC-R 301.2.1 |
| |
| 3) THE WINDOW SCHEDULE APPEARS TO BE MISSING FROM THE |
| PLANS. FBC 107.2.1 AND FBC-R 301.2.1 |
| |
| 4) DESIGNATE THE EGRESS WINDOW IN THE MASTER BEDROOM OF |
| THE RIGHT UNIT. FBC-R310.1 |
| |
| 5) THE FOLLOWING MIAMI-DADE NOAS HAVE BEEN SUPERSEDED: |
| BORAL TILESEAL (NOA NO. 12-0417.06) AND CASTCRETE 8" |
| LINTELS (NOA NO. 12-0209.13). SUBMIT THE CURRENT NOAS. |
| DCA RULE 9N-3 |
| |
| 6) THE FLORIDA PRODUCT APPROVAL ( FL# 7170 )THAT WAS |
| SUBMITTED FOR THE AMARR SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR IS FOR |
| THE 2007 FBC. SUBMIT THE PRODUCT APPROVAL THAT |
| REFERENCES THE 2010 FBC EDITION. |
| |
| 7) THE PRODUCT APPROVAL NUMBERS THAT ARE SPECIFIED IN |
| THE DOOR SCHEDULE ON THE PLANS FOR THE FIBERGLASS ENTRY |
| DOOR AND THE SLIDING GLASS DOOR DO NOT MATCH THE ONES |
| THAT WERE SUBMITTED. FBC 107.2.1 |
| |
| 8) THE NOA OPENING PRESSURE FOR THE SLIDING GLASS DOOR |
| IS +/- 80.0 PSF IN THE DOOR SCHEDULE AND +/- 60 PSF IN |
| THE PRODUCT APPROVAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED. FBC 107.2.1 |
| |
| 7) SPECIFY THE ROOF TILE (PROFILE), SIZE AND NUMBER OF |
| SCREWS THAT WILL BE USED TO PROVIDE WINDLOAD RESISTANCE |
| PER FRSA/TRI 07320/8-05. FBC-R 301.2.1 |
| |
| 8) FBC107.1 GENERAL. SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS CONSISTING OF |
| CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, STATEMENT OF SPECIAL |
| INSPECTIONS, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND OTHER DATA SHALL |
| BE SUBMITTED IN TWO OR MORE SETS WITH EACH PERMIT |
| APPLICATION. ONLY ONE SET OF PLANS WERE SUBMITTED FOR |
| "BUILDING C". THERE ARE TWO OTHER PLANS WITH THIS |
| SUBMITTAL BUT ONE IS FOR THE 6-UNIT WORK FORCE HOUSING |
| BUILDING AND THE OTHER IS FOR THE 7-UNIT WORK FORCE |
| HOUSING BUILDING. |
| |
| 9) IT APPEARS THAT THE ENERGY CALCULATIONS HAVE THE |
| ADDRESSES FOR THE RIGHT AND LEFT UNITS REVERSED. SUBMIT |
| CORRECTED FORMS. FBC 107.2 |
| |
| 10) 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. |
| |
| |