|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan Review Details - Permit 12110424
Plan Review Stops For Permit 12110424 |
Review Stop |
B |
BUILDING (STRUCTURAL) |
Rev No |
2 |
Status |
P |
Date |
2012-12-03 |
|
|
Cont ID |
|
Sent By |
shill |
Date |
2012-12-03 |
Time |
08:44 |
Rev Time |
0.00 |
Received By |
shill |
Date |
2012-12-03 |
Time |
08:44 |
Sent To |
|
|
Notes |
|
|
Review Stop |
B |
BUILDING (STRUCTURAL) |
Rev No |
1 |
Status |
F |
Date |
2012-11-19 |
|
|
Cont ID |
|
Sent By |
shill |
Date |
2012-11-19 |
Time |
12:44 |
Rev Time |
0.00 |
Received By |
shill |
Date |
2012-11-19 |
Time |
12:44 |
Sent To |
|
|
Notes |
2012-11-19 12:53:53 | ****CORRECTIONS**** | | SAMANTHA HILL, BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER | | 561-805-6724 [email protected] | | FBC FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2010 | | FBC R FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2010 RESIDENTIAL | | | | 1. RAS 117 CALCULATIONS DO NOT APPEAR CORRECT. | | | | SEE PERIMETER ZONE SPACING REQUIREMENT, RATHER THAN 7" | | ZONE 2 SPACING SHOULD BE 6" MINIMUM FOR 3 FIELD ROWS. | | IT APPEARS THAT ENGINEER MAY HAVE USED ROW SPACING OF | | 6.4" FOR FOUR ROWS RATHER THAN 8" FOR THREE FIELD ROWS. | | | | CORNER ZONE APPEARS TO HAVE SAME ERROR; IT APPEARS THAT | | 5.33 MAY HAVE BEEN USED FOR ROW SPACING DIMENSION BUT | | THIS IS THE SPACING FOR FIVE FIELD ROWS (SIX TOTAL), | | SHOULD USE 6.4" FOR FOUR FIELD ROWS. | | | | CHECK = 36" BASE SHEET, - 4" LAP = 32" | | 32" / 4 ROWS TOTAL = 8" (ONE LAP ROW, THREE FIELD ROWS) | | | | PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME IF YOU FEEL THAT I AM IN | | ERROR OR IF YOU NEED ANY FURTHER ASSISTANCE. | | | | | | | | |
|
|
Review Stop |
I |
INCOMING/PROCESSING |
Rev No |
1 |
Status |
N |
Date |
2012-12-03 |
|
|
Cont ID |
|
Sent By |
shill |
Date |
2012-12-03 |
Time |
08:44 |
Rev Time |
0.00 |
Received By |
shill |
Date |
2012-11-21 |
Time |
14:52 |
Sent To |
|
|
Notes |
2012-11-26 14:53:15 | SENT TO SAMANTHA'S DESK FOR REVIEW. JG. |
|
|
|
Account Summary | Usage Policy | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2005 – 2014, SunGard Pentamation, Inc & City of West Palm Beach, FL – All Rights Reserved |
|
|