| Date |
Text |
| 2006-04-20 00:00:00 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL, BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | 561-805-6724 [email protected] |
| | |
| | FBC FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2001 |
| | FBC* CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH AMENDMENTS |
| | TO THE FBC2001 |
| | |
| | FROM PREVIOUS LIST: |
| | |
| | 1.)A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE |
| | FILED WITH THE CLERK OF COURTS BEFORE A |
| | PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. |
| | |
| | SECOND REVIEW - NOTE THAT THE NOC MUST |
| | BE SIGNED BY THE OWNER, WASSERMAN REAL |
| | ESTATE CAPITAL. |
| | |
| | FOURTH REVIEW - THE OLD SIGNATURE HAS |
| | BEEN CROSSED OFF AS WELL AS THE |
| | INFORMATION "PREPARED BY".THERE IS A |
| | NEW SIGNATURE AND NEW INFORMATION IN THE |
| | "PREPARED BY" SECTION.THIS IS NOT |
| | ACCEPTABLE FOR A LEGAL DOCUMENT.THE |
| | OWNER IS TO SIGN THE NOC AND HIS |
| | SIGNATURE IS TO BE NOTARIZED.THE NEW |
| | DOCUMENT IS TO BE RECORDED.IF YOU |
| | DISAGREE AND FEEL THAT THIS IS AN |
| | ACCEPTABLE LEGAL DOCUMENT, PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE A LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY FOR |
| | THE PROJECT (RON KOLLINS) STATING SUCH. |
| | |
| | 2-3.) ADDRESSED.PLEASE KEEP THE IMPACT |
| | FEE RECEIPT AND THE THRESHHOLD |
| | INSPECTION PLAN IN THE PACKAGE. |
| | |
| | 4.)THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE WAS NOT A PART |
| | OF THE RESUBMITTAL.THE PLANS, SURVEY, |
| | PERMIT APPLICATION, ETC. ARE REQUIRED |
| | FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE.A COMPLETE REVIEW |
| | WAS NOT PERFORMED AS SOME NECESSARY |
| | INFORMATION IS IN THE PLANS.IF THE |
| | PLANS ARE SUBMITTED WITH CHANGES NOT |
| | SHOWN ON THE FIRST REVIEW (OTHER THAN |
| | THE REVISED S-1.1). |
| | |
| | (SECOND REVIEW) THE ORIGINAL PERMIT |
| | APPLICATION WITH THE |
| | CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE ON THE BACK IS NOT |
| | IN THE PACKAGE.ONLY A PHOTOCOPY OF THE |
| | FRONT OF THE APPLICATION WAS PROVIDED. |
| | A PERMIT APPLICATION IS REEQUIRED BY |
| | FLORIDA STATUTE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE. |
| | |
| | (THIRD REVIEW) THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE IS |
| | STILL NOT A PART OF THE SUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | (FOURTH REVIEW) THE PACKAGE WHICH WAS |
| | NOT IN THE PREVIOUS REVIEWS IS NOW IN |
| | THE PERMIT PACKAGE. IT CONTAINS A NEW |
| | STRUCTURAL SHEET.THIS SHEET IS TO BE |
| | PUT INTO THE PLAN AND THE OLD SHEET |
| | REMOVED.THE OLD SHEET IS TO BE MARKED |
| | VOID AND SUBMITTED SEPARATELY FOR |
| | REFERENCE.S1.1. |
| | |
| | 5.)FBC*109.3.6.1, SPECIAL INSPECTOR |
| | REQUIRED FOR THRESHOLD BUILDINGS. ONE |
| | COPY OF THE THRESHOLD INSPECTION PLAN |
| | SUBMITTED HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO KEN |
| | CONRAD, 561-805-6666.APPROVAL OF THE |
| | PLAN AND AGREEMENT SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES |
| | REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. |
| | |
| | PROVIDE A COPY OF THE SIGNED AGREEMENT. |
| | PLAN IS IN THE PACKAGE. |
| | |
| | 6.)ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 7.)FROM PREVIOUS REVIEW, THE SOILS |
| | REPORT CONFLICTS WITH THE |
| | STRUCTURALS.THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION |
| | FOR AUGERPILES, NONE SHOWN ON THE PLAN. |
| | THE ENGINEER RESPONDED WITH A LETTER |
| | INDICATING THAT THE AUGERPILES ARE NOT |
| | NEEDED DUE TO THE GROUND FLOOR |
| | ELEVATION.HOWEVER, THE STRUCTURAL |
| | DESIGN IS STILL IN CONFLICT WITH THE |
| | SOILS REPORT.PLEASE HAVE THE SOILS |
| | ENGINEER REVISE HIS SOILS RECOMMENDATION |
| | OR PROVIDE A LETTER OF CLARIFICATION AS |
| | DISCUSSED.THREE ORIGINAL SIGNED, |
| | SEALED COPIES REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | THE LETTER FROM THE SOILS ENGINEER |
| | ADDRESSING THE COMMENT IS IN THE PACKAGE |
| | BUT THE SOILS REPORT IS NOT.REQUIRED |
| | FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE FBC1804.2.2. |
| | |
| | (FOURTH REVIEW)THERE ARE SEVEN SOILS |
| | REPORTS AND TWO CLARIFICATION LETTERS |
| | FROM THE SOILS ENGINEER IN THE PACKAGE. |
| | THE SOILS REPORTS HAVE DIFFERENT DATES. |
| | THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CHANGES. |
| | SUBMIT ONLY THREE FOR REVIEW, AND THE |
| | THREE SHOULD BE THE SAME.THREE |
| | CLARIFICATION LETTERS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 8.) THE APPLICATION STATES THAT |
| | UNDERGROUND UTILITES, MEP AND FIRE ALARM |
| | RISERS ARE UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT |
| | APPLICATION.THIS PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED |
| | WITH A PROVISO THAT SEPARATE PERMITS |
| | WILL BE OBTAINED. |
| | |
| | 9.) FBC* 104.4.5 SPECIAL FOUNDATION |
| | PERMIT. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MAY, AT |
| | HIS DISCRETION, ISSUE A SPECIAL PERMIT |
| | FOR THE FOUNDATION ONLY, UPON WRITTEN |
| | REQUEST BY THE OWNER AND CONTRACTOR. THE |
| | HOLDER OF SUCH SPECIAL PERMIT IS |
| | PROCEEDING AT HIS/HER OWN RISK AND |
| | WITHOUT ASSURANCE THAT A PERMIT FOR THE |
| | REMAINDER OF THE WORK WILL BE GRANTED |
| | AND THAT CORRECTIONS WILL NOT BE |
| | REQUIRED IN ORDER TO MEET THE PROVISIONS |
| | OF THE TECHNICAL CODES. |
| | |
| | 10.)ADDRESSED; PLEASE KEEP THE |
| | RECORDED COPY OF THE UNITY OF TITLE IN |
| | THE PACKAGE. |
| | |
| | 11.)NEW COMMENT - YOU MUST APPLY FOR |
| | THE BUILDING PERMIT BEFORE A FOUNDATION |
| | PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED, FBC*104.4.5. |
| | |
| | 12.)ADDITIONAL FEES DUE, SEE ATTACHED |
| | (3RD RESUB). |
| | |
| | 13.)YOUR SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION AND |
| | PLANS WERE INSIDE OF THIS PACKAGE.I |
| | HAVE CALLED THE PERSON ON THAT |
| | APPLICATION AND INFORMED HIM THAT IT IS |
| | AT THE FRONT COUNTER.THE APPLICATION |
| | AND PLANS FOR THE BANNER SIGN WERE |
| | REMOVED AND SENT TO THE FRONT COUNTER |
| | SEPARATELY. |
| | |
