| Date |
Text |
| 2006-07-06 00:00:00 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL, BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | 561-805-6724 [email protected] |
| | |
| | FBCFLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 |
| | FBC EBFLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 |
| | EXISTING BUILDING CODE |
| | FBC*CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH |
| | AMENDMENTS TO THE FBC2004 |
| | |
| | 1.)A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE |
| | FILED WITH THE CLERK OF COURTS BEFORE A |
| | PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED |
| | |
| | 2-5.)ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 6.)THIRD REQUEST FOR PRODUCT APPROVALS |
| | FOR THE FRENCH DOORS.PRODUCT APPROVALS |
| | WERE SUBMITTED FOR THE IMPACT |
| | PROTECTION.CODE COMPLIANCE CANNOT BE |
| | DETERMINED AS ITEM #10 HAS NOT BEEN |
| | PROPERLY ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | PRODUCT APPROVALS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY |
| | DESIGNER OF RECORD, FBC*106.3.3. |
| | |
| | |
| | 7-9.) |
| | |
| | 10.)PROVIDE WIND DESIGN INFORMATION |
| | FBC1603.1.4.PROVIDE DESIGN PRESSURES |
| | FOR THE NEW DOORS.THIRD REQUEST. |
| | |
| | STATING THAT THE DOORS WILL WITHSTAND |
| | 155 AND 175 MPH IS NOT PROVIDING DESIGN |
| | PRESSURES (ENGINEER), OR PROVIDING ALL |
| | INFORMATION REQUIRED BY FBC1603.1.4. |
| | THE ARCHITECT PROVIDED A COMPUTERIZED |
| | SHEET (WRONG CODE, FBC2001 RATHER THAN |
| | FBC2004) WITH SOME OF THE INFORMATION, |
| | BUT IT CONFLICTS WITH THE ENGINEER'S |
| | INCOMPLETE WIND INFORMATION, AND THE |
| | ARCHITECT'S COMPUTERIZED WIND CALCS ARE |
| | NOT SIGNED AND SEALED. |
| | |
| | THIS INFORMATION IS REQUIRED TO |
| | DETERMINE CODE COMPLIANCE. |
| | |
| | 11.)THERE IS A HALF PARTITION WALL |
| | STILL SHOWN BETWEEN COLUMNS F1 AND G1. |
| | THIS SHOULD BE A TENANT PARTITION WALL, |
| | FIRE RATED.WHY IS A HALF HIGH WALL |
| | SHOWN?A-1.1. |
| | |
| | 12-13.)ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 14.)THIRD REVIEW - THE RAMP IS TO |
| | COMPLY WITH FBC11-4.8.NO DETAIL OR |
| | SLOPE WAS PROVIDED.IF HANDRAILS ARE |
| | REQUIRED, THEY ARE TO COMPLY WITH |
| | FBC11-4.8.5. PROVIDE SLOPE AND ELEVATION |
| | CHANGE.THE LEGEND SHOWS THE HEAVY |
| | SINGLE DASHED LINE AS DELINEATING |
| | EXISTING AND RENOVATED AREAS.IS THERE |
| | A WALL BETWEEN THE EXISTING KITCHEN AND |
| | THE STAGE 108? |
| | |
| | THE ELEVATIONS PROVIDED STATE "SLOPE TO |
| | WALL" OR "SLOPE TO SLAB".THE SLOPES AT |
| | THE RAMPS ARE NOT CLEAR.THERE ARE NO |
| | LANDINGS SHOWN, NO DIMENSION FOR THE |
| | RAMP, ONLY AN ELEVATION CHANGE OF 5.16". |
| | AS I DO NOT HAVE THE RUN DIMENSION I |
| | CANNOT DETERMINE THE SLOPE. |
| | |
| | 15.)ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 16.)HOW IS THE STAGE ACCESSIBLE?IT |
| | IS NOT CLEAR IF THE DARK LINE IS A WALL |
| | OR IF IT IS DELINEATING THE LINE BETWEEN |
| | THE AREA OF WORK AND AREA NOT INCLUDED |
| | IN THE REMODEL. |
| | |
| | VERTICAL ACCESSIBILITY REQUIRED, EITHER |
| | IN THE FORM OF A PERMANENT RAMP OR A |
| | LIFT, FBC11-4.1(1), 11-4.1.2(2), |
| | 11-4.1.6(1)(B). |
| | |
| | 3RD REVIEW - THE ARCHITECT'S LETTER |
| | STATES THAT THE STAGE DETAILS HAVE BEEN |
| | REMOVED, BUT THEY ARE STILL ON THE PLAN, |
| | ALL SHEETS.IT IS UNCLEAR AS TO HOW |
| | ACCESSIBILITY HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 17.)SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH FBC11-5.NO |
| | DETAILS IN REGARDS TO ACCESSIBILITY WERE |
| | SHOWN. |
| | |
| | SEE ITEM 16.THE RAMP PREVIOUSLY SHOWN |
| | ON THE PLAN IS NO LONGER ON THE PLAN. |
| | THE RAMP IMPLIES A CHANGE OF ELEVATION. |
| | OLD SHEETS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS |
| | RESUB.SHOW ELEVATION CHANGES ON THE |
| | PLAN, INCLUDING IN THE AREA HATCHED AS |
| | AN AREA NOT PART OF THE REMODEL.THERE |
| | STILL MUST BE AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FROM |
| | THE NEW AREA TO THE EXISTING AREA. |
| | |
| | 18.-19.)ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 20.)SEE ATTACHED FS553.80(2)(B).A 4X |
| | PLAN REVIEW FEE HAS BEEN CHARGED AS |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
