| Date |
Text |
| 2007-09-28 13:39:48 | ****EXPLANATION OF RESUB FEE**** |
| | |
| | THE PERSON WHO SUBMITTED THIS AT THE COUNTER TOLD LUIS |
| | MARTINEZ THAT ALL INFORMATION WAS ALREADY IN THE |
| | PACKAGE LAST REVIEW, AND ALSO WROTE ON RESUB SHEET |
| | "HIGHLIGHTED INFORMATION ALREADY SUBMITTED."THE |
| | COMMENTS WERE NOT ADDRESSED LAST REVIEW, AND WERE AS |
| | FOLLOWS: |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | ****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 |
| | |
| | FROM PREVIOUS LIST: |
| | |
| | 1.)CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION |
| | ON THE APPLICATION, SEE POLICY (AVAILABLE IN THE |
| | LOBBY); MEAN ROOF HEIGHT, ROOF PITCH, ROOF DECK TYPE, |
| | AREA OF EACH ROOF TYPE. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, PROVIDE ON APPLICATION AS REQUESTED, NOT ON |
| | THE RESUB SHEET.PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION WITH |
| | APPROXIMATE |
| | |
| | 9/28 - THE AREA OF EACH ROOF TYPE WAS NOT ON THE |
| | APPLICATION.THIS IS TO CLARIFY SCOPE OF WORK.THIS |
| | WAS DISCUSSED WITH CONTRACTOR ON THE TELEPHONE, AND SHE |
| | AGREED TO ADD THIS TO THE PERMIT APPLICATION.THE ROOF |
| | DECK TYPE WAS ALSO ADDED TO THE APPLICATION AFTER THE |
| | 2ND REVIEW. |
| | |
| | 2.)ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 3.)FOR THE FLAT DECK, INDICATE ON TABLE A WHICH |
| | SYSTEM YOU WILL USE.. |
| | |
| | NOT ADDRESSED.EACH SYSTEM HAS A DIFFERENT DESIGN |
| | PRESSURE LIMITATION. |
| | |
| | 9/28 - THIS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FIRST OR SECOND |
| | REVIEWS.THIS WAS ADDRESSED IN THE THIRD SUBMITTAL. |
| | THIS INFORMATION WAS REQUIRED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, |
| | ESPECIALLY AS NOT ALL OF THE SYSTEMS MET THE MINIMUM |
| | DESIGN PRESSURES SPECIFIED ON THE SEALED DRAWINGS; |
| | THEREFORE, THE RESUB FEE APPLIES. |
| | |
| | 4.)ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 5.)ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY FAC61G15-23.002 |
| | REQUIRED ON EACH SHEET (ENGINEERING PREPARED BY |
| | PISTORINO & ALAM CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC, 4397). |
| | |
| | NOT ADDRESSED.CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER FOR |
| | THE ENGINEERING FIRM REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 9/28 - THE ENGINEER STILL HAD NOT ADDRESSED THIS |
| | COMMENT.I SPOKE WITH THE CONTRACTOR WHO AGREED THAT |
| | THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT ON THE PLAN (ALTHOUGH THE |
| | ENGINEER HAD TOLD HER THAT ALL COMMENTS WERE |
| | ADDRESSED).I AGREED TO ACCEPT THE SHEET WITH THE COFA |
| | NUMBER WRITTEN ON IT IF THE ENGINEER CALLED ME.THE |
| | ENGINEER AGREED TO INCLUDE ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION IN |
| | THE FUTURE.IN ADDRESSING THIS COMMENT (INCORRECTLY), |
| | THE ENGINEER HAD PROVIDED THE CERTIFICATE OF |
| | AUTHORIZATION LICENSE FOR THE ARCHITECTURE FIRM. |
| | HOWEVER, AS ONE SHEET WAS SEALED BY AN ENGINEER FOR |
| | PISTORINO & ALAM, THE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION |
| | NUMBER FOR THE ENGINEERING BUSINESS LICENSE WAS ALSO |
| | REQUIRED TO BE ON THE PLAN.THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT |
| | ON THE PLAN 2ND REVIEW AND WAS NOT ON THE PLAN AFTER |
| | THE ENGINEER'S THIRD REVIEW, WAS ADDED BY CONTRACTOR |
| | AFTER MY CONVERSATION WITH CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEER. |
| | |
| | 6.)PROVIDE BUILDING HEIGHT. |
| | |
| | PLEASE INCORPORATE THIS INFORMATION INTO THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 9/28 - THIS INFORMATION WAS ADDED TO THE APPLICATION |
| | AFTER THE SECOND REVIEW.THE ARCHITECT AND TWO |
| | ENGINEERS DID NOT MAKE NOTE OF ROOF HEIGHT ON ANY OF |
| | THE SIGNED, SEALED DRAWINGS AND TEST REPORTS.AS PER |
| | THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S WRITTEN POLICY REGARDING REROOF |
| | APPLICATIONS, THIS INFORMATION IS REQUIRED TO BE ON THE |
| | APPLICATION TO DETERMINE CODE COMPLIANCE.AS IT WAS |
| | NOT IN THE PLAN AND NOT ON THE APPLICATION, NOT ENOUGH |
| | INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO DETERMINE CODE COMPLIANCE |
| | FOR THE FIRST TWO REVIEWS. |
| | |
| | THREE COMMENTS WERE REPEAT COMMENTS, TWO TIMES, WHICH |
| | IS WHY A RESUB FEE IS REQUIRED FOR THIRD REVIEW.ALL |
| | INFORMATION WAS NOT ON THE PLAN AS STATED ON THE RESUB |
| | SHEET. |
| | |
