Plan Review Details - Permit 14100604
Plan Review Stops For Permit 14100604
Review Stop B BUILDING (STRUCTURAL)
Rev No 2 Status P Date 2015-02-17 Cont ID  
Sent By shill Date 2015-02-17 Time 18:21 Rev Time 0.00
Received By shill Date 2015-02-17 Time 18:21 Sent To  
Notes
***NONE***
Review Stop B BUILDING (STRUCTURAL)
Rev No 1 Status F Date 2014-11-08 Cont ID  
Sent By shill Date 2014-11-08 Time 12:57 Rev Time 0.00
Received By shill Date 2014-11-08 Time 12:57 Sent To  
Notes
2014-11-08 14:02:23****CORRECTIONS****
  
 SAMANTHA HILL
 BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER
 [email protected]
 561-805-6724
  
 1. SEE FAC 61G15-30 AND FAC61G15-18.001 AND OTHER
 PLACES. ENGINEER OF RECORD NOT CLEAR. ENGINEER OF
 RECORD IS TO REVIEW DELEGATED ENGINEERING AND SHOP
 DRAWINGS. THIS MAY BE DONE EITHER WITH A SHOP DRAWING
 REVIEW STAMP OR A LETTER.
  
 2. SHEET 1 OF 4 SHOWS LOCATION OF PROPOSED LIGHT POLES.
 IT APPEARS THAT THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF
 POLES PROPOSED. PLANS DESCRIBE LOCATION OF POLES WITH
 BANNER ARM, ANOTHER NOTE INDICATES THAT THE POLE WITH
 BASE IS TO BE INSTALLED IN "RAIN GARDEN ONLY" BUT SITE
 PLAN DOES NOT SPECIFY LOCATION OF "RAIN GARDEN".
  
 REVISE PLAN TO INDICATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED POLE
 TYPES. EOR IS TO REVIEW SPECIFICATIONS & ENGINEERING
 FOR PROPOSED POLES (SEE COMMENT #1).
  
 3. SHEET 1 SHOWS LOCATION OF POLES WITH BANNER ARMS.
 THE MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS AGAINST THE INSTALLATION OF
 BANNER ARMS AT 4'10" ABOVE GRADE. ENGINEER IS TO
 ACKNOWLEDGE STATEMENT AND PROVIDE RATIONALE FOR
 INSTALLATION. IS THIS DUE TO PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICULAR
 HAZARD, OR BECAUSE THE BANNER IS TO BE REMOVED AT WINDS
 EXCEEDING 70MPH?
  
 IF THIS IS DUE TO POTENTIAL HAZARD TO PEDESTRIANS AND
 THIS IS NOT NEAR A PEDESTRIAN PATH, IT IS RECOMMENDED
 THAT THE PLAN BE CLARIFIED TO INDICATE THAT THE
 POTENTIAL HAZARD HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. BASED ON THE
 LOCATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN, IT APPEARS THAT THE
 PROPOSED LOCATION MAY PRESENT A HAZARD TO VEHICLES.
  
 IF THIS BANNER IS TO BE REMOVED AT WINDS EXCEEDING
 70MPH AS STATED ON CALCS, PLAN PREPARED BY ENGINEER OF
 RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THIS IN HIS DESIGN CRITERIA. WHO
 IS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS REMOVAL? IS THIS ALSO IN
 AASHTO LTS-6, OR AN EXCEPTION ELSEWHERE IN THE FBC?
 WILL THE ARM OF THE BANNER FAIL IF THE BANNER IS NOT
 REMOVED? HOW DOES FAILURE OF THE BANNER AFFECT THE
 LIGHT POLE?
  
 4. IF THE REMOVABLE BANNER IS NOT INCLUDED IN AASHTO
 LTS-6 OR AS AN EXCEPTION IN FBC 2010, THIS WOULD NEED
 TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND
 METHODS FBC 104.11. THIS INSTALLATION WOULD MOST LIKELY
 BE HANDLED LIKE AN AWNING. THIS REQUIRES A REMOVAL
 LETTER BY THE OWNER ACKNOWLEDGING RESPONSIBILITY AND
 LABELING AS WELL AS REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS. UNLESS
 COVERED UNDER AN FBC OR AASHTO, THIS WOULD REQUIRE
 BUILDING OFFICIAL APPROVAL.
  
 5. REVISE PLAN TO INCLUDE WIND DESIGN CRITERIA, FBC
 2010 1603.1.4. WIND SPEED IS INCLUDED ON CALCS BUT I
 WAS UNABLE TO LOCATE EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATION ON THE
 PLAN OR IN THE CALCS. PLEASE ADDRESS.
  
 6. BANNER ARMS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE ENGINEER'S PLANS
 OTHER THAN THE NOTE ON SHEET 1. FBC 107, INCLUDE
 DIMENSIONS, SPECIFICATIONS. SEE ALSO ITEM 3.
  
 7. THERE ARE NOTES IN THE CALCS WHICH STATE THAT 140MPH
 (VASD) = 170MPH (VULT). THIS IS ACKNOWLEDGED. WHAT IS
 NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT IS WHETHER OR NOT 140MPH
 EXPOSURE ??? WITH A .77 IMPORTANCE FACTOR IS MORE
 CONSERVATIVE THAN 150MPH (VULT) EXPOSURE C. PLANS STATE
 THAT A .77 IMPORTANCE FACTOR WAS USED, BUT ISN'T THIS
 USED IN THE ASD, BUT BUILT INTO THE MAP FOR STRENGTH
 DESIGN, SO 150MPH IS USED, NOT 170MPH? DESIGN CRITERIA
 NOT CLEAR.
  
 AS I AM NOT AN ENGINEER, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME
 TO DISCUSS AND EXPLAIN THE USE OF .77 IMPORTANCE FACTOR
 IN AASHTO LTS-6 (ASCE7-05??) AND SEPARATE WIND MAPS FOR
 RISK CATEGORIES AND THE EFFECT ON CALCULATIONS. AS I
 DON'T HAVE A COPY OF AASHTO LTS-6 (AND, IF WE ORDER A
 COPY OF AASHTO WILL MOST LIKELY ORDER THE VERSION
 REFERENCED IN THE FBC), I AM UNABLE TO COMPARE THE
 CALCULATIONS.
  
 8. FBC 1609.1.1 EXCEPTION 7, AASHTO LTS-4 IS LISTED AS
 AN EXCEPTION; CALCS WERE SUBMITTED USING AASHTO LTS-6.
 THIS IS CONSIDERED UNDER ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND
 METHODS FBC 104.11. PLEASE HAVE ENGINEER SUBMIT A
 LETTER FOR CONSIDERATION.
  
 9. REVISE SITE PLAN TO CLARIFY LOCATION AND RELATION TO
 PRIVATE PROPERTY LINES, FBC 1609. IT APPEARS TO BE
 LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BUT NO PROPERTY
 LINES ARE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN.
  
 10. SEE FAC61G15-23, CALCULATIONS TO BE IN A FORMAT
 ACCEPTABLE TO FBPE. EITHER EACH SHEET IS TO INCLUDE A
 TITLE BLOCK AND BE SIGNED, SEALED, AND DATED OR AN
 INDEX SHEET USED WHICH INDENTIFIES EACH SHEET. SOME
 CALCULATIONS HAVE NEITHER A TITLE BLOCK NOR
 SIGNED/SEALED; NOT CLEAR WHO IS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY
 FOR THOSE CALCULATIONS. OTHER SHEETS ARE SIGNED AND
 SEALED ON COVER SHEET ONLY BUT LACK THE INDEX SHEET.
  
 FOR INSTANCE, "STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS FOR ROUND FLUTED
 PRESTRESSED CONCRET LUMINAIRE ELECTROLILER", 9 PAGES -
 NO TITLE BLOCK, NO INDEX, NOT SIGNED, SEALED & DATED.
 THIS FOLLOWS SHEET 1A OF 10 FOR A LIGHT POLE. THE SHEET
 FOR THE LIGHT POLE HAS A CATALOG NUMBER AND APPEARS TO
 BE ONE OF THE THREE AMERON POLES PROPOSED, BUT NOTHING
 ON THE SHEET TIES THIS DRAWING BACK TO THE THREE
 DIFFERENT LIGHT POLES PROPOSED WHICH ARE NAMED ON THE
 MANUFACTURER'S LETTER (AMERON DRAWING 1408-003, ETC.).
 IF THIS IS 1A OF 10, WHERE ARE THE OTHER SHEETS? DOES
 THE SHEET FROM THE ENGINEER COVER THIS SHEET? WITHOUT
 AN INDEX SHEET AND PAGES WITH CONSECUTIVE PAGE NUMBERS,
 IT IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHICH SHEETS THIS ENGINEER
 IS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR.
  
  
Review Stop E ELECTRICAL
Rev No 2 Status P Date 2015-01-30 Cont ID  
Sent By shill Date 2015-01-30 Time 08:57 Rev Time 0.00
Received By dhayes Date 2015-01-30 Time 08:57 Sent To B
Notes
2015-01-30 08:59:18TO S. HILL'S DESK FOR REVIEW OF WIND LOAD CALCULATIONS.
Review Stop E ELECTRICAL
Rev No 1 Status F Date 2014-11-06 Cont ID  
Sent By dhayes Date 2014-11-06 Time 10:37 Rev Time 0.00
Received By dhayes Date 2014-11-06 Time 08:57 Sent To B
Notes
2014-11-06 10:38:30TO S. HILL'S DESK FOR REVIEW OF WIND LOAD CALCULATIONS.
  
  
2014-11-06 09:41:2811/6/2014
 PROJECT: WPB 7TH ST SQUARE
 PERMIT#: 14100604
 CODE: 2008 EDITION OF THE NEC, 2010 EDITION OF THE FBC
 ,2010 WPB AMENDMENTS TO THE FBC, CHAPTER 1,
 ADMINISTRATION, 2012 FBC SUPPLEMENTS.
 1ST ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEW
 ACTION: DENIED
  
 1) REVISE "ONE LINE DIAGRAM" AND CLARIFY DISCREPANCY
 BETWEEN "ONE LINE DIAGRAM" AND THE "PROPOSED SERVICE"
 DETAIL ON SHEET 2OF4. THE "ONE LINE DIAGRAM" INDICATES
 A SINGLE CIRCUIT 240V BUT DOES NOT INDICATE THE USE OF
 A SERVICE ENTRANCE RATED MAIN OCPD OR HOW THE
 "NIGHTMASTER LIGHTING CONTACTOR" IS FED. CO-ORDINATE
 BETWEEN THE TWO DIAGRAMS FOR COHESIVENESS. WPB
 AMENDMENTS TO THE FBC 107.2.1
  
 2) PROVIDE A PANEL SCHEDULE WITH SIZE OF OCPD FOR
 BRANCH CIRCUITS FEEDING LIGHT POLES AND BRANCH CIRCUIT
 FEEDING IRRIGATION CONTROLLER. WPB AMENDMENTS TO THE
 FBC 107.3.5, NEC 215
  
 3) INDICATE THE LOCATION OF THE FPL ELECTRICAL SERVICE.
 WPB AMENDMENTS TO THE FBC 107.2.1
  
 4) PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILS FOR IRRIGATION
 CONTROLLER. IS IT HARD WIRED? OR PLUG IN? EITHER WAY,
 INDICATE THE MEANS OF DISCONNECT, LOAD AND VOLTAGE OF
 CIRCUIT. WPB AMENDMENTS TO THE FBC 107.2.1
  
 WHEN RESUBMITTING, IT IS HELPFUL TO PROVIDE A RESPONSE
 LETTER ADDRESSING EACH ITEM ALONG WITH THE CITY
 RE-SUBMITTAL FORM. SEE LINK:
 HTTP://WPB.ORG/DEVELOPMENT/WP-CONTENT/UPLOADS/SITES/33/
 2013/09/APPLICATION_RESUBMITTAL_FORM_04132010.PDF
  
 ADDITIONALLY, PLEASE INSERT CORRECTED PAGES INTO
 SUBMITTAL PACKAGE AND LEAVE THE PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED
 SHEETS FOR COMPARATIVE REVIEW.
  
 DAVID HAYES, ELECTRICAL PLANS EXAMINER, PX3421,
 561-805-6717 OR [email protected]
  
  
Review Stop ENG ENGINEERING CSD
Rev No 2 Status P Date 2015-02-03 Cont ID  
Sent By Mgonzale Date 2015-02-03 Time   Rev Time 1.00
Received By cranford Date 2015-02-03 Time   Sent To B
Notes
2015-02-03 10:07:48NO OBJECTION.
  
 CALL 811 BEFORE DIGG
  
 MANUEL JULIAN GONZALEZ
 ENGINEERING PROJECT COORDINATOR
 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
 401 CLEMATIS STREET, 4TH FLOOR
 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
 (MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 3366, ZIP 33402)
 MAIN PHONE: (561) 822-1200
 DIRECT: (561) 494-1085
 FAX: (561) 494-1116
 EMAIL: [email protected]
 WWW.WPB.ORG/ENGINEERING
  
Review Stop ENG ENGINEERING CSD
Rev No 1 Status P Date 2014-11-05 Cont ID  
Sent By shill Date 2014-11-08 Time 14:41 Rev Time 1.00
Received By mgonzale Date 2014-11-05 Time   Sent To E
Notes
2014-11-05 15:24:05PROVISOS:
  
 #1 CALL 811 BEFORE DIGG
  
 #2 PROVIDE AS-BUILT TO ENGINEERING SERVICES UPON
 COMPLETION.
  
 #3 ADA ACCESSABILITY SHALL GOVERN OVER POLE LOCATION.
  
 #4 POLE LOCATIONS MUST TAKE IN CONSIDERATION ANY
 DRIVWAY ENTRANCES AND SHALL BE CONTRUCTED NO LESS THAN
 25' AWAY.
  
  
  
 MANUEL JULIAN GONZALEZ
 ENGINEERING PROJECT COORDINATOR
 ENGINEERING SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
 401 CLEMATIS STREET, 4TH FLOOR
 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
 (MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 3366, ZIP 33402)
 MAIN PHONE: (561) 822-1200
 DIRECT: (561) 494-1085
 FAX: (561) 494-1116
 EMAIL: [email protected]
 WWW.WPB.ORG/ENGINEERING
  
Review Stop I INCOMING/PROCESSING
Rev No 2 Status N Date 2015-02-17 Cont ID  
Sent By shill Date 2015-02-17 Time 18:21 Rev Time 0.00
Received By shill Date 2015-01-23 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2015-02-02 08:19:012/2 TO ENGINEERING (NEW PLAN SHEETS)
 NEED OLD SHEETS (BANNER ARM PAGES) REMOVED FROM PACKAGE
  
2015-01-24 08:52:35SENT TO D. HAYES' DESK.
Review Stop I INCOMING/PROCESSING
Rev No 1 Status N Date 2014-11-08 Cont ID  
Sent By shill Date 2014-11-08 Time 14:41 Rev Time 0.00
Received By shill Date 2014-10-20 Time 13:10 Sent To ENG
Notes
***NONE***


Account Summary | Usage Policy | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2005 – 2014, SunGard Pentamation, Inc & City of West Palm Beach, FL – All Rights Reserved