| Date |
Text |
| 2008-03-24 09:22:11 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | ****REVISED 4/11/08**** |
| | |
| | |
| | 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.TWO COMPLETE ORIGINAL SETS REQUIRED FOR PERMIT |
| | ISSUANCE.ONLY ONE SET WAS SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | 2.SEE BUILDING REVIEW 3, COMMENT 2 (ATTACHED) |
| | PERFORMED BY KEN CONRAD WHEREIN HE REQUESTED EVIDENCE |
| | OF ORIGINAL DESIGNER NOTIFICATION.THIS NOTIFICATION, |
| | WHICH I HAVE SEEN PREVIOUSLY, HAS APPARENTLY BEEN |
| | REMOVED.THIS IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY |
| | REVISION DESIGNED BY A DESIGNER OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL |
| | DESIGNER OF RECORD OR NEW PLANS SHOWING CODE COMPLIANCE |
| | MUST BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 3.SEE ATTACHED FS61G1-18.002, PROCEDURES FOR A |
| | SUCCESSOR ARCHITECT ADOPTING AS HIS OWN THE WORK OF |
| | ANOTHER ARCHITECT.A LETTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THIS |
| | OFFICE STATING THAT G. RAYMOND BERRY IS NOT A SUCCESSOR |
| | ARCHITECT.I APOLOGIZE FOR MY CONFUSION, BUT |
| | ARCHITECT'S INTENTIONS REGARDING DESIGN DOCUMENTS IS |
| | NOT CLEAR TO ME.ARCHITECT WAS INFORMED THROUGH PLAN |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS SUCCESSOR DESIGNER REQUIREMENTS AND |
| | DOCUMENTS REQUIRED.THE NEW ARCHITECT AND PREVIOUS |
| | ARCHITECT HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PREVIOUS |
| | ARCHITECT'S WORK IS NOT TO BE USED, BUT THE NEW |
| | ARCHITECT DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS INFORMATION AND DID NOT |
| | SUBMIT NEW PLANS.WHAT WAS/IS THE NEW ARCHITECT'S |
| | INTENT AS TO WHAT IS TO BE USED TO DOCUMENT THIS |
| | PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE?THE ONE |
| | ARCHITECTURAL SHEET SUBMITTED DOES NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH |
| | INFORMATION TO SHOW CODE COMPLIANCE FOR THE PROJECT. |
| | IF THE NEW ARCHITECT HAS TAKEN OVER THE PROJECT BUT IS |
| | NOT A SUCCESSOR ARCHITECT AS STATED, DOESN'T THAT |
| | INVALIDATE THE PLANS WHICH WE HAVE ON FILE, REQUIRING |
| | NEW PLANS?PLEASE NOTE THAT SOME OF THE DELAY WHICH IS |
| | OCCURRING NOW IS DUE TO INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT |
| | INFORMATION PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE WORKING ON THIS ISSUE WITH |
| | KEN STEVENS AND ROBERT BROWN (CONSTRUCTION SERVICES |
| | DEPARTMENT).PLEASE RESOLVE THIS ISSUE; THIS WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE REVISION. |
| | |
| | 4.SEE FIRESTOP C-AJ-1042 N SHEET A1.PLEASE CLARIFY |
| | WHERE THIS WILL BE UTILIZED AS THIS THROUGH UL |
| | PENETRATION FIRESTOP SYSTEM HAS A T RATING OF 0.SEE |
| | FBC712.4.1.2. THE T RATING WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE |
| | DETAIL.PLEASE REVISE SO THAT USE AND LIMITATIONS OF |
| | THIS DETAIL ARE READILY APPARENT. |
| | |
| | 5.OTHER SHEETS, SUCH AS A2, A3, AC1, ETC. ARE |
| | AFFECTED BY THE REMOVAL OF THE SINK.PLEASE REVISE ALL |
| | AFFECTED SHEETS. |
| | |
| | 6.IF NEW PLANS ARE SUBMITTED, PLEASE NOTE THAT MS. |
| | DELASTATIOUS SIGNED AND SEALED THE ENERGY COMPLIANCE |
| | FORM AS WELL AS THE MEP ENGINEER(S).MR. BERRY HAS |
| | SUBMITTING NEW PLUMBING AND ELECTRIC SHEETS; THEREFORE, |
| | IT APPEARS THAT MR. BERRY'S OFFICE IS ALSO TO BECOME |
| | DESIGNER OF RECORD FOR MEPS AS WELL.IS MR. BERRY |
| | ACTING AS SUCCESSOR ENGINEER OR NOT?HAVE THESE DESIGN |
| | PROFESSIONALS BEEN ADVISED? |
| | |
| | 7.AS I WAS UNAWARE THAT ALL WORK WAS BEING RECREATED |
| | RATHER THAN ARCHITECT TAKING OVER AS SUCCESSOR |
| | ARCHITECT, ONLY ITEMS CLOUDED AS A CHANGE WERE |
| | REVIEWED.UPON FURTHER REVIEW, IT APPEARS THAT THE |
| | PLANS ARE NOT CONSISTENT.THE SQUARE FOOT AREA |
| | DIFFERS; PLEASE CLARIFY.A LEVEL 2 ALTERATION WAS |
| | DECLARED BY THE NEW ARCHITECT, PERMIT WAS ISSUED AS A |
| | LEVEL 3.EITHER REVISE THE NEW PLAN OR PROVIDE |
| | JUSTIFICATION FOR LEVEL 2 ALTERATION.SHEET A1 WAS A |
| | LIFE SAFETY PLAN; IF OLD SHEETS ARE VOIDED AS |
| | APPARENTLY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, ALL INFORMATION ON THE |
| | OLD SHEET A1 WOULD BE REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 8.MY INITIAL REVIEW WAS PERFORMED BASED ON MR. |
| | CONRAD'S COMMENTS AND CLOUDED ITEMS WHICH SHOULD HAVE |
| | INDICATED CHANGES TO AN APPROVED PLAN.AS APPARENTLY |
| | THE ENTIRE SHEET CHANGED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN |
| | APPROPRIATE TO INDICATE SUCH (EITHER BY CLOUDING THE |
| | SHEET NUMBER, OR CLOUDING THE ENTIRE SHEET).SOME OF |
| | THE NEW COMMENTS ARE DUE TO THE FACT THAT A COMPLETE |
| | REVIEW OF ALL INFORMATION ON THE NEW A1 WAS NEVER DONE |
| | AS ONLY ITEMS WHICH HAVE CHANGED ARE REVIEWED FOR |
| | REVISIONS.IF THE NEW ARCHITECT CANNOT INDICATE WHAT |
| | HAS CHANGED, AS APPEARS TO BE THE CASE NOW AS THE NEW |
| | ARCHITECT STATES THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE |
| | ORIGINAL PLANS, A COMPLETELY NEW REVIEW WOULD BE |
| | APPROPRIATE AS THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION |
| | WHICH HAS CHANGED. |
| | |
