| Date |
Text |
| 2009-02-18 14:07:10 | ** DENIED THIRD REVIEW ** |
| | |
| | ** PLEASE SEE NOTES BELOW AS THEY ARE EXACT COMMENTS |
| | FROM PREVIOUS TWO REVIEWS. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 1) NOTE: NO LIGHTING PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONS WERE |
| | SUBMITTED MEETING PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS. 13-415.2, |
| | 13-415.2.ABC.1.1,.1.2,.1.3 ETC |
| | THIS WAS GONE OVER AT LENGTH IN MEETING HELD WITH |
| | DESIGNER FROM FIRM YET THE PLANS ARE RESUBMITTED WITH |
| | NO CALCULATIONS. |
| | |
| | 2) NOTE: PLANS STILL DO NOT SHOW ANY COMPLIANCE FOR |
| | PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AREAS AND NEW |
| | LIGHTING CONTROLS FOR SEPARATE SPACES. THIS COMMENT WAS |
| | FOR NEW AREAS ONLY AND COMMENTS WERE GONE OVER WITH |
| | DESIGNER FROM FIRM AT LENGTH. HOWEVER PLANS STILL ONLY |
| | SHOW STANDARDS DEVICES AND NO COMPLIANCE FOR NEW IS |
| | SHOWN. |
| | 13-415.1.ABC.1.1, .1.2 AND .1.3. |
| | |
| | 3) NOTE: NO LETTER WAS SUBMITTED WITH RESPECT TO |
| | REQUIRED LIGHTING FOR EGRESS OR OCCUPANCY NOT PERMITTED |
| | WHEN UNDER EMERGENCY POWER. THIS WAS ALSO GONE OVER AT |
| | LENGTH IN MEETING YET NO CHANGES IN PLANS OR STORE |
| | OPERATIONS ARE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 4) NOTE: A NEW COMMENT AS THE RESPONSE FOR |
| | ARCHITECTURAL AND ZONING IS THE FACT THE DRIVE THROUGH |
| | IS SUPPOSE TO BE REMOVED AND NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE |
| | OF WORK HOWEVER THE ELECTRICAL PLANS AS WELL AS OTHER |
| | SHEETS STILL SHOW THIS SCOPE OF WORK. |
| | |
| | 5) NOTE: IN THE PREVIOUS REVIEW A NOTICE IN COMMENTS |
| | WAS GIVEN WITH RESPECT TO FS 553.80(2)(B). THIS WAS |
| | ONLY A NOTICE GIVEN AT THAT TIME AS THE SPECIFIC |
| | COMMENTS HAD ONLY BEEN REPEATED TWO TIMES. THIS IS NOW |
| | THE THIRD REVIEW WITH THE SAME CODE COMPLIANCE COMMENTS |
| | BEING REPEATED. THE CODE SECTIONS FOR DEFICIENCIES ARE |
| | SPECIFIC IN ALL THREE REVIEWS FOR COMMENTS #1 AND #2. |
| | THE STATUTE STATES THAT IF PLANS ARE BEING REJECTED FOR |
| | THE SAME SPECIFIC COMMENT THERE SHALL BE A FEE IMPOSED |
| | BASED ON THE PORTION OF THE PERMIT FEE ATTRIBUTED TO |
| | PLAN REVIEW. THE PORTION ATTRIBUTED TO PLAN REVIEW IN |
| | THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH IS 30% OF THE BASE PERMIT |
| | FEE. THIS IS THE FEE TIMES FOUR AS STATED IN THE |
| | STATUTE. THE BASE PERMIT FEE ON THIS PROJECT IS $4,620 |
| | TIMES 30% IS $1,386 TIMES FOUR. THIS AMOUNT IS $5,544. |
| | THIS FEE IS NOT FOR OWNER OR CONTRACTOR AS THIS IS A |
| | SECTION LISTED UNDER STATUTES FOR |
| | |
| | 6) NOTE: THE RISER AS SHOWN DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MOST |
| | RECENT ELECTRICAL REVISIONS AS MADE ON SITE WITH THE |
| | MOST RECENT PERMITTED ELECTRICAL WORK. THIS WILL NEED |
| | TO BE REVISED. |
| | |
| | |
| | ** IMPORTANT ** |
| | ONCE AUDIT/REVIEWS ARE COMPLETE AND PLANS ARE PICKED UP |
| | FOR CORRECTIONS, PLEASE BE SURE TO COMPLETELY REMOVE |
| | ALL OLD/VOIDED SHEETS AND ONLY INSERT NEW REVISED |
| | SHEETS INTO TWO COMPLETE SETS FOR REVIEW AND STAMPING. |
| | DO NOT LEAVE ANY OLD/VOIDED SHEETS IN SETS. |
| | PLEASE DO NOT ATTACH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO PLANS. ANY |
| | ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION SUCH AS PRODUCT APPROVALS, |
| | SPEC/CUT SHEETS, CALCULATIONS ETC. SHOULD BE PLACED |
| | INTO TWO SETS/FOLDERS/BINDERS ETC. |
| | PLEASE KNOW ONLY ONE SET OF THE OLD/VOIDED SHEETS |
| | SHOULD BE SUBMITTED FOR REFERENCE. |
| | THIS WILL HELP IN THE AUDIT/REVIEW PROCESS AND AVOID |
| | ANY DELAYS. |
| | |
| | IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS; OR IF COMMENTS ARE NOT |
| | TYPED IN A CLEAR MANNER PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO |
| | CONTACT THIS REVIEWER. |
| | |
| | DEWEY PALMER |
| | ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEW II |
| | CONSTRUCTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| | CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH |
| | 561-805-6717 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
