| Date |
Text |
| 2008-06-19 15:19:36 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | ****REVISED 6/26/8**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL, BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | 561-805-6724 [email protected] |
| | |
| | FBCFLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 |
| | FBC EBFLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 EXISTING BUILDING |
| | CODE |
| | FBC RFLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 RESIDENTIAL FBC* |
| | CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH AMENDMENTS TO THE FBC2004 |
| | |
| | FAC FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE |
| | FSFLORIDA STATUTE |
| | |
| | 1.REVISION 5 DATED 5/22/06 (HAND DRAWN AND INITIALED |
| | ON SHETS G0.0, A2.2B, POSSIBLY OTHER SHEETS) WAS NOT |
| | INCLUDED IN THE REVISED SHEETS SUBMITTED (AND IS |
| | THEREFORE APPARENTLY NON COMPLIANT).PLEASE |
| | INCORPORATE THE HAND DRAWN REVISION INTO THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 2.SHEET INDEX G0.0 SHOWS ONLY SHEETS AFFECTED BY |
| | REVISION 14.DOES THAT MEAN THAT REVISIONS 5, 6, AND 7 |
| | AFFECTED ONLY SHEETS WHICH WERE UNDER REVISION 14 ONLY |
| | (AND NO SHEETS WERE REVISED THAT INCLUDED 5, 6, OR 7 |
| | AND NOT 14)?ALSO, PLEASE CLARIFY IN THE RESPONSE |
| | LETTER WHY REVISION NUMBERS 8 THROUGH 13 WERE NOT |
| | SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | 3.PROVIDE ADDITIONAL VALUE FOR THIS REVISION |
| | (ADDITIONAL WORK; FLOOR SLAB POURED, ETC.). |
| | |
| | 4.SHEET A2.2B STATES "NEW CONCRETE SLAB THROUGHOUT |
| | SERVICE CENTER.REFER TO STRUCTURAL SHEETS FOR |
| | REINFORCING."I WAS UNABLE TO LOCATE THIS DETAIL ON |
| | THE TWO STRUCTURAL SHEETS SUBMITTED ON THIS REVISION. |
| | WAS THAT DETAIL INCLUDED IN ANOTHER STRUCTURAL SHEET |
| | ALREADY SUBMITTED?SHOULDN'T THE STRUCTURAL PLAN FOR |
| | THAT AREA ALSO BE SUBMITTED, SHOWING THE NEW CONCRETE |
| | POUR?NOTE - IF OTHER ITEMS ARE IMMEDIATELY ADDRESSED, |
| | THIS CAN BE A PROVISO ITEM. |
| | |
| | 5.A7.0A, DETAILS WERE REMOVED FROM THE REVISED PLAN |
| | SUCH AS GENERAL MANAGER RR, PREOWNED RR, SERVICE CENTER |
| | MENS RR, ETC.THESE DETAILS WERE USED TO SHOW FBC |
| | CHAPTER 11 COMPLIANCE FOR THOSE AREAS.A REVISED SHEET |
| | REPLACES THE OLD SHEET, SO BY REMOVING THE DETAILS FROM |
| | THE NEW REVISED SHEET THESE DETAILS WOULD NO LONGER A |
| | PART OF OUR PERMIT DOCUMENTS.PLEASE CLARIFY AS TO WHY |
| | THESE DETAILS WERE REMOVED, OR INCLUDE THE DETAILS ON |
| | THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | PLEASE CONTACT ME REGARDING THESE ITEMS.THE PLANS |
| | HAVE BEEN PLACED ON HOLD AT MY DESK TO PREVENT A |
| | POSSIBLE FAILED REVIEW FOR OTHER TRADES DUE TO THE |
| | ABOVE COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENT - |
| | |
| | 6.PLANS WERE HELD AT MY DESK AT |
| | CONTRACTOR'S/ARCHITECT'S REQUEST FOR SEVEN DAYS PENDING |
| | RECEIPT OF NEW SHEETS ADDRESSING ABOVE COMMENTS.I |
| | UNDERSTAND THE CIRCUMSTANCES (ARCHITECT NO LONGER IN |
| | FIRM'S OFFICE, OUTSIDE CONSULTANT); HOWEVER, AS IT |
| | APPEARS THAT CONTRACTOR/ARCHITECT ARE UNABLE TO GET THE |
| | NEW SHEETS AT THIS TIME, PLANS WILL BE PUT BACK ON THE |
| | COMMERCIAL BOARD SO THEY WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER |
| | TRADES TO REVIEW.THEY WERE HELD AT MY DESK AT THE |
| | REQUEST OF PAUL FISHUK AND DAISY; WHEN NEW SHEETS WERE |
| | BROUGHT IN, BUILDING WOULD THEN HAVE A PASS STATUS |
| | RATHER THAN FAIL.THEREFORE, AS THE PLANS WERE NOT |
| | AVAILABLE FOR OTHER TRADES TO REVIEW, IT WILL BE LIKELY |
| | THAT THIS REVIEW WILL NOT MEET THE 30 DAY TARGET |
| | TURNAROUND TIME. |
| | |
| | |
