| Date |
Text |
| 2007-03-23 11:46:33 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL, BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | 561-805-6724 [email protected] |
| | |
| | FBC FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 |
| | FBC* CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH AMENDMENTS |
| | TO THE FBC2004 |
| | |
| | NOTE - NEW PLANS FROM A NEW DESIGN |
| | PROFESSIONAL, 2ND -4TH REVIEW FOR NEW DOR |
| | |
| | NOTE - FIRST PLAN REVIEWS WERE DONE ON FBC2001 AS A |
| | PLAN CHECK.GOVERNING CODE FOR THE PROJECT WILL BE |
| | FBC2004; CODE REFERENCES HAVE BEEN REVISED. |
| | |
| | WHEN RESUBMITTING,PLEASE INCLUDE A RESPONSE LETTER |
| | INDICATING HOW THE ITEMS WERE ADDRESSED.ALSO INCLUDE |
| | A SET OF OLD SHEETS. |
| | |
| | FROM PREVIOUS LISTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 2.) IMPACT FEES MAY BE DUE (CHANGE OF |
| | USE).THE PLANS MUST BE STAMPED |
| | AND THE RECEIPT ATTACHED TO THE |
| | APPLICATION.233-5025 |
| | |
| | 4TH REVIEW - THE RECEIPT AND THE STAMPED PLAN ARE |
| | REQUIRED.A RECEIPT FOR $14,880 WAS PROVIDED BUT IT IS |
| | FOR WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE |
| | RECEIPT FOR THIS PROJECT. |
| | |
| | 3. - 12.)ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 13.)SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH FBC1007, ALL |
| | DETAILS - STAIR WIDTH, TREAD AND RISER |
| | DIMENSIONS FBC1007, ALL REQUIREMENTS OF |
| | FBC1006.2, HANDRAIL AND GUARDRAIL |
| | DIMENSIONS FBC1007 AND FBC1015, HANDRAIL |
| | AND GUARDRAIL DESIGN CRITERIA (FBC1608). |
| | |
| | THE RESPONSE LETTER STATES THAT THE STAIR RAIL WILL BE |
| | AT 42", 34-38" REQUIRED.THE PLAN HAS A NOTE WHICH |
| | STATES "34"MIN 38" MAX" BUT DOES NOT STATE WHAT THIS IS |
| | FOR.THERE IS A NOTE, THE NEW HANDRAIL SHALL EXTEND 8" |
| | AT BOTTOM AND 12" HORIZONTALLY AT TOP.THE DETIAL MUST |
| | COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FBC1009.11.5.THE |
| | GUARD IS SHOWN AT 48". |
| | |
| | 14. - 17.)ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 18.)PREVIOUS LISTS QUESTIONED COMPLIANCE WITH |
| | MEZZANINE REQUIREMENTS.NOTE THAT YOU NOW CALL THIS AN |
| | ATTIC, BUT AN ATTIC IS UNCONDITIONED AREA BETWEEN FLOOR |
| | SPACE AND THE ROOF ABOVE; THIS IS CLEARLY NOT AN ATTIC. |
| | PLEASE PROPERLY DEFINE THIS AREA. |
| | |
| | 19.)SHOW FIRE RATING REQUIREMENT FOR |
| | THE DOORS WITHIN 10FT OF THE STAIRS, |
| | FBC705.1.2.PROVIDE FIRE RATING |
| | INFORMATION FOR THE SPECIFIC DOOR YOU |
| | ARE INSTALLING. |
| | |
| | THE ELEVATION STATES THIS IS A 1 HOUR DOOR, THE |
| | SCHEDULE SPECIFIES A 1 1/2 HOUR DOOR.FIRE RESISTANCE |
| | REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER OPENINGS ARE NOT NOTED ON THE |
| | PLAN (WINDOWS, DOOR ON THE SECOND FLOOR). |
| | |
| | 20.)SHOW ALL DETAILS AND DESIGN LOAD REQUIREMENTS FOR |
| | THE MEZZANINE.WAS THE |
| | ORIGINAL MEZZANINE PERMITTED LIKE THIS? |
| | |
| | THE AREA IS NOW CALLED AN "ATTIC", PLEASE SEE ITEM 29. |
| | DESIGN LOADS NOT PROVIDED. SHOW DESIGN LOADS FOR THIS |
| | AREA, REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS LABELED; FBC TABLE |
| | 1604.1. |
| | |
| | 4TH REQUEST, PROVIDE DESIGN LOADS (DEAD LOAD AND LIVE |
| | LOAD) FOR THE MECHANICAL MEZZANINE AREA. |
| | |
| | 21.)PROVIDE AREA CALCULATIONS FOR THE |
| | SPACE.IT IS NOT CLEAR IF THE MEZZANINE |
| | WAS INCLUDED WHEN IMPACT FEES WERE PAID. |
| | |
| | 3RD REVIEW - AREA CALCS PROVIDED CALLING THIS AREA AS A |
| | MECH ATTIC.IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT BY THE COUNTY NOT |
| | DONE, SEE ITEM 2 ABOVE. |
| | |
| | 22.)PROVIDE WIND DESIGN CRITERIA |
| | REQUIRED BY FBC1606.1.7. |
| | |
| | 3RD REVEIW - WRONG CODE SPECIFIED BASED ON APPLLICATION |
| | DATE. |
| | |
| | 4TH REVIEW - WRONG CODE SPECIFIED BASED ON APPLICATION |
| | DATE.THIS PROJECT MUST BE DESIGNED TO FBC2004; IT HAS |
| | AN APPLICATION DATE OF JANUARY 2007. |
| | |
| | 23-26.)ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 27.)SHOW REQUIRED TENANT/OCCUPANCY |
| | SEPARATION BETWEEN THE LAUNDROMAT AND |
| | THE RESTAURANT.DECLARE AN OCCUPANCY |
| | FOR THE RESTAURANT. |
| | |
| | NOT ADDRESSED.THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE RESTAURANT |
| | AND THE 2ND FLOOR STATES 5/8 TYPE X DRYWALL, DOES NOT |
| | STATE HOW MANY LAYERS.YOU SPECIFY A 1 HOUR, BUT 5/8 |
| | TYPE X IS 40 MINUTES. |
| | |
| | 4TH REVIEW - THE PLAN STATES THIS IS 2 HOURS, 2 LAYERS, |
| | BUT 2 LAYERS IS 80 MINUTES.SEE FBC 302.3.1, FBC |
| | 708.1(5), FBC708.3, FBC708.4.DESIGN INTENT SHOULD BE |
| | CLEAR ON THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 28.)SEE ATTACHED FS553.80(2)(B). |
| | |
| | 29.)THE MECHANICAL ROOM IS NOT AN ATTIC, SEE |
| | DEFINITIONS FBC13-202.IS THIS A MEZZANINE?TO BE |
| | TREATED AS ANOTHER FLOOR?CODE COMPLIANCE CANNOT BE |
| | DETERMINED UNTIL DOR DETERMINES HOW TO CLASSIFY THE |
| | SPACE.NOTE THAT A NEW AREA IS BEING CREATED AND A |
| | CODE COMPLIANT MEANS OF EGRESS MUST SERVE THAT AREA. |
| | SHEET 5 STILL CALLS IT A MEZZANINE. |
| | |
| | 30-31.)ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 32.)PRODUCT APPROVALSWERE SUBMITTED FOR SHUTTERS. |
| | USE OF REMOVABLE SHUTTERS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE |
| | BUILDING OFFICIAL, SEE ATTACHED POLICY, ITEM 13.WHAT |
| | ARE THE SHUTTERS FOR?THE DOORS ARE IMPACT.THE PLAN |
| | DOES NOT SHOW WINDOW REPLACEMENT.NO SHUTTER |
| | INSTALLATION PLAN WAS SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENT: |
| | |
| | 33.)STORAGE IS SHOWN UNDER THE STAIRS; THIS MUST |
| | COMPLY WITH FBC1019.1.5.NOTE THAT THIS COMMENT WAS |
| | MADE ON THE FIRST REVIEW AND THE EQUIPMENT/STORAGE |
| | REMOVED FROM THE PLAN.PROVIDE INFORMATION IN REGARDS |
| | TO WHAT WILL BE STORED UNDER THE STAIRS AND SHOW |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH FBC1019.1.5. |
| | |
| | 34.)A HARD NONABSORBENT FINISH REQUIRED FOR THE |
| | BATHROOM AS REQUIRED BY FBC1210.2. |
| | |
| | 35.)DECLARE OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THE RESTAURANT AREA AND |
| | FOR THE MEZZANINE, FBC1004.1.IF THE METHOD USED TO |
| | ESTABLISH OCCUPANT LOAD IS NOT CLEAR, PROVIDE |
| | CALCULATIONS FOR EACH AREA. |
| | |
| | 36.)THERE IS A NOTE ON THE PLAN STATING THAT THE |
| | ARCHITECT IS TO INSPECT ROTTED FLOOR JOISTS.THIS WILL |
| | BE ISSUED WITH A PROVISO THAT AN INSPECTION IS REQUIRED |
| | PRIOR TO CONCEALING THIS AREA. |
| | |
