| Date |
Text |
| 2015-06-13 15:53:37 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-805-6724 |
| | EOR: THOMAS ROGERS, PE (ONM&J) |
| | ARCHITECT: WILLIAM A. HANSER (LEO A DALY) |
| | |
| | PLEASE CONTACT ME AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IF YOU WISH TO |
| | HAVE THIS REVIEW PASSED WITH PROVISO, OR IF REVISED |
| | SHEETS A000 AND S9.1 ARE AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE |
| | SUBMISSION. |
| | |
| | 1. THRESHOLD INSPECTION PLAN IS PENDING DECISION FROM |
| | BUILDING OFFICIAL AND CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR; PLAN |
| | HAS A DATE OF JUNE 22. |
| | |
| | 2. INFORMATIONAL ONLY - AS THIS IS A THRESHOLD JOB, |
| | THREE SETS OF ALL DOCUMENTS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 3-7. OK |
| | |
| | 8A. FBC 705.8, PREVIOUS COMMENT WAS PARTIALLY |
| | ADDRESSED. THE DIMENSION FROM THE PROPOSED GARAGE TO |
| | ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE HAS BEEN PROVIDED ON THE PLAN AS |
| | 30FT. SEE FBC 705.3: |
| | |
| | WHERE A NEW BUILDING IS TO BE ERECTED ON THE SAME LOT |
| | AS AN EXISTING BUILDING, THE LOCATION OF THE ASSUMED |
| | IMAGINARY LINE WITH RELATION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING |
| | SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE EXTERIOR WALL AND THE OPENING |
| | PROTECTION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING MEET THE CRITERIA |
| | AS SET FOR THE IN SECTIONS 705.5 AND 705.8. |
| | |
| | REVISE THE PLAN TO SHOW COMPLIANCE FOR THE EXISTING |
| | BUILDING (APPEARS TO BE 12 FT FROM THE ASSUMED PROPERTY |
| | LINE). THIS APPLIES ONLY TO THE PORTIONS OF THE |
| | BUILDINGS WHICH DIRECTLY FACE THE OTHER BUILDING. |
| | |
| | IF ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE IS RELOCATED, SHOW COMPLIANCE |
| | FOR EACH BUILDING AS APPLICABLE (FBC 705.5 AND 705.8). |
| | |
| | 3RD REVIEW, ARCHITECT HAS A RESPONSE WHICH REFERS TO A |
| | NEW ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE AND REVISED INFORMATION, BUT |
| | THE SAME SHEET (AS000 DATED 5/18/2015 REVISION 3) WAS |
| | SUBMITTED. IT APPEARS THAT THE ARCHITECT ADDRESSED THE |
| | COMMENT AND REVISED THE SHEET BUT THE SHEET WAS NOT |
| | SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | IN THE EVENT THAT IS NOT THE CASE AND THE PREVIOUS |
| | COMMENT WAS NOT CLEAR; TO CLARIFY, EACH BUILDING |
| | (PROPOSED GARAGE AND EXISTING CONVENTION CENTER) IS TO |
| | SHOW COMPLIANCE TO THE ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN |
| | THE TWO BUILDINGS. LINE ON THE PLAN DATED 5/18 IS SHOWN |
| | 30FT FROM THE PROPOSED GARAGE, BUT ARCHITECT REFERS IN |
| | THE RESPONSE LETTER TO AN EXCEPTION FOR PARKING GARAGES |
| | WHICH ALLOWS UNLIMITED OPENINGS IF THE DISTANCE IS |
| | GREATER THAN 10 FT. THEREFORE IT APPEARS THAT THE LINE |
| | COULD BE RELOCATED TO SLIGHTLY OVER 10FT, THEN IT |
| | APPEARS THAT THE DISTANCE FROM THE EXISTING CONVENTION |
| | CENTER WOULD THEN BE OVER 30FT. PLEASE REVISE THE PLAN |
| | ACCORDINGLY AND INCORPORATE THE EXCEPTION INTO THE |
| | PLAN. |
| | |
| | 9-13. OK |
| | |
| | 14. PER CONVERSATION WITH ENGINEER, PLEASE REVISE S9.1 |
| | SECTION 1, TO SHOW CONTINUOUS WATERPROOFING AT THE |
| | FOOTING, FBC 1805.3.3. |
| | |
| | 3RD REVIEW, THE RESPONSE LETTER STATES THAT THIS WAS |
| | REVISED BUT THE SAME SHEET DATED 5/18/15 WAS SUBMITTED |
| | (THEREFORE THE DETAIL WAS NOT REVISED). IT APPEARS THAT |
| | THE SHEET WAS REVISED BUT NOT SUBMITTED, AS WAS |
| | POSSIBLY THE CASE WITH SHEET AS000. |
| | |
| | 3RD REVIEW, WATERPROOFING SPEC SHEETS WERE SUBMITTED |
| | BUT LACK THE SHOP DRAWING REVIEW STAMP OR COVER LETTER. |
| | THIS SUBMITTAL IS ACCEPTED BUT IN THE FUTURE PLEASE |
| | HAVE ALL SUBMITTALS INCLUDE A SHOP DRAWING REVIEW STAMP |
| | OR LETTER. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE RESPONSE LETTERS ARE |
| | NOT TYPICALLY INCORPORATED INTO THE PERMIT RECORD. |
| | |
| | 15. OK |
| | |
| | 16. ADVISORY ONLY - CONSTRUCTION HOURS ARE 7AM - 7PM |
| | MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 8AM - 8PM WEEKENDS, CITY OF WEST |
| | PALM BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 34-72. A WRITTEN |
| | EXCEPTION MAY BE GRANTED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL; |
| | PLEASE SUBMIT ANY SUCH REQUESTS (IF NEEDED) TIMELY TO |
| | [email protected], CC [email protected] AND [email protected]. |
| | |
| | 18. SEE PREVIOUS LIST: PER CONTRACTOR, NO ELECTRICAL |
| | WORK IS A PART OF THIS PHASE. BE ADVISED THAT, PRIOR TO |
| | FIRST POUR, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WILL REQUIRE |
| | INFORMATION FROM THE ELECTRICAL ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT |
| | WHICH VERIFIES THAT BUILDING GROUNDING IS NOT A PART OF |
| | THIS PHASE. IN ORDER TO AVOID FIELD DELAYS, DESIGNER IS |
| | ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT THIS INFORMATION AT THIS TIME. |
| | |
| | VERIFICATION THAT LIGHTNING PROTECTION IS NOT A PART OF |
| | THE FOUNDATION PERMIT WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO BE |
| | SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR PRIOR TO FIRST |
| | POUR. |
| | |
| | 3RD REVIEW, PER ARCHITECT, SHEETS F EE201 AND F EE 202 |
| | WERE TO BE SUBMITTED TO ADDRESS THIS COMMENT. THEY WERE |
| | NOT INCLUDED IN THIS SUBMISSION. IT IS AT CONTRACTOR'S |
| | RISK THAT AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT IS NOT ISSUED WITH THE |
| | BUILDING PERMIT. BASED ON THE ELECTRICAL REVIEWER'S |
| | PRELIMINARY CURSORY REVIEW OF THE ELECTRICAL AND |
| | LIGHTNING PROTECTION PLANS PROVIDED WITH THE BUILDING |
| | PERMIT 15060144, IT APPEARED THAT SOME ELECTRICAL OR |
| | LIGHTNING PROTECTION WORK MAY BE REQUIRED IN THIS |
| | PHASE. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
