| Date |
Text |
| 2008-02-28 11:42:36 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | 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.)INCLUDE A CODE SUMMARY; BUILDING TYPE FBC6, |
| | BUILDING HEIGHT AND AREA FBC5, SPRINKLER INFORMATION, |
| | OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION FBC 3 AND AREA PER OCCUPANCY. |
| | |
| | 2.)SEE PREVIOUS LIST, ITEM 7.THIS APPEARS TO BE A |
| | CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY AS YOU MAKE REFERENCE TO ?NEW |
| | OFFICE?.PLEASE MAKE NOTE CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY IN THE |
| | CODE SUMMARY. |
| | |
| | 3.)FBC1004, DECLARE OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION FOR EACH |
| | PORTION OF BUILDING. SEE PREVIOUS LIST, ITEM 7. DECLARE |
| | OCCUPANT LOAD, FBC1004.1. |
| | |
| | 4.)DECLARE HAZARD CATEGORY FOR LIFE SAFETY AND EXITS, |
| | HEIGHTS AND AREAS, AND EXPOSURE OF EXTERIOR WALLS FBC |
| | TABLES 812.4.1, 812.4.2, AND 812.4.3 RESPECTIVELY. |
| | DECLARE EXISTING AND PROPOSED. |
| | |
| | 5.)CLARIFY WHETHER THE UPSTAIRS OFFICE IS A MEZZANINE |
| | OR SECOND STORY.IF THIS IS A MEZZANINE, SHOW |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH FBC505.2, FBC505.4.PROVIDE |
| | CALCULATIONS AS THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION WAS BUILT |
| | BASED ON UNENCLOSED MEZZANINE SPACE. |
| | |
| | 6.)SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT LIST, ITEM 3.GOVERNING CODE |
| | SHOULD INCLUDE 2007 REVISIONS WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE |
| | JULY 1, 2007.PLEASE REVISE. |
| | |
| | 7.)SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT LIST, ITEM 4.PROVIDE A |
| | FRAMING DETAIL FOR THE NEW WALL OPENING. |
| | |
| | 8.)SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT LIST, ITEM 6.PROVIDE CONDO |
| | ASSOCIATION APPROVAL AS YOU ARE ALTERING THE OUTSIDE OF |
| | THE BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 9.)PROVIDE PRODUCT APPROVALS FOR THE PROPOSED WINDOWS |
| | AND MULLIONS.PRODUCT APPROVALS ARE TO BE APPROVED BY |
| | DESIGNER OF RECORD (SHOP DRAWING REVIEW STAMP OR |
| | LETTER), FBC*106.3.3. |
| | |
| | 10.)DECLARE LEVEL OF ALTERATION, FBC EB 3. |
| | |
| | 11.)PROVIDE DETAIL MARKERS ON THE PLAN AND LABEL THE |
| | DETAIL.NOTE THAT THE GRAPHIC FOR THE L SHAPE WALL AT |
| | THE DISPLAY/STORAGE AREA IS APPROXIMATELY FOUR TIMES |
| | THE WIDTH FOR THE DRESSING ROOM PARTITION WALLS. ONLY |
| | ONE WALL DETAIL WAS PROVIDED.IF YOU ARE USING THE |
| | SAME DETAIL FOR BOTH WALLS, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY ONE IS |
| | SO MUCH WIDER THAN THE OTHER ON THE FLOOR PLAN. |
| | |
| | 12.)THE L SHAPE ON THE PLAN APPEARS TO BE A WALL.IF |
| | IT IS A WALL, CLARIFY HOW THIS WILL BE A DISPLAY AREA |
| | AS IT IS NOT VISIBLE. |
| | |
| | 13.)THE TWO APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED WERE FOR A |
| | DRESSING ROOM AREA.THE LETTER SIGNED BY JAE KIM |
| | STATES THAT THIS IS A WAREHOUSE, NO ACCESS TO THE |
| | PUBLIC, AND THE DRESSING ROOM IS TO BE USED BY MODELS |
| | ONLY.THE PLANS SHOW THIS AS STORAGE, NOT DRESSING |
| | ROOM FOR MODELS ONLY (NOT PUBLIC).THE ENGINEER IS TO |
| | INCORPORATE A SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF USE OF THIS AREA |
| | INTO THE SIGNED AND SEALED PLAN, ALSO SUBMIT A SIGNED |
| | AND SEALED LETTER IF NECESSARY FOR CLARIFICATION, AS |
| | THE PLAN CURRENTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE LETTER AND |
| | APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | 14.)FIRE SPRINKLER PLANS REQUIRED AT THIS TIME (HEAD |
| | SCHEMATIC) IF SPRINKLERS ARE REQUIRED FOR CODE |
| | COMPLIANCE, FBC*106.3.5.1.1(5), FS553.79 (2). |
| | |
| | 15.)VERTICAL ACCESSIBILITY REQUIRED FOR THE OFFICE |
| | AREA.SEE FBC11-4.1.6(1)(K)(III).IF VERTICAL |
| | ACCESSIBILITY IS NOT BEING PROVIDED, ANY APPLICABLE |
| | EXEMPTIONS ARE TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 16.)SHOW RACK DISTANCE.FBC1016.3. |
| | |
| | 17.)SIGNATURE FOR ENGINEER TO BE AN ORIGINAL PER FBPE |
| | FS471. |
| | |
| | 18.)CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO BE INCLUDED ON |
| | EACH SHEETS, FAC61G15-23.002. |
| | |
| | 19.)CODE COMPLIANCE AND A COMPLETE CHECKLIST CANNOT |
| | BE PROVIDED AT THIS TIME DUE TO INSUFFICIENT OR |
| | INCONSISTENT INFORMATION. |
| | |
| | 20.)PLEASE PROVIDE A REASONABLE VALUE FOR THIS JOB. |
| | WAS THE VALUATION ON THE PREVIOUS PERMIT OF $8000 |
| | CORRECT? |
