| Date |
Text |
| 2015-10-10 15:20:37 | ***PROVISO*** |
| | ***ISSUED AT CONTRACTOR'S RISK*** |
| | ***REVISION REQUIRED*** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-805-6724 |
| | |
| | 1. INFORMATIONAL ONLY; SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR |
| | FENCES, SIGNS, MONUMENT SIGNS, PARKING LOT, SITE |
| | LIGHTING. |
| | |
| | 2. INFORMATIONAL ONLY, PRODUCT APPROVALS ARE TO BE |
| | SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED PRIOR TO PRODUCT INSTALLATION. |
| | ALL SUBMITTALS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY DESIGNER OF RECORD |
| | PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL TO THE BUILDING DIVISION, FBC 107. |
| | |
| | 3. PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION REGARDING COST BREAKDOWN, |
| | FBC 109. IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THE COST OF THE JOB |
| | DECREASED SIGNFICANTLY, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT |
| | THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS HAVE INCREASED SINCE |
| | APPLICATION. PROVIDE A COPY OF THE CONTRACT, FBC 109. |
| | PRIOR TO PAYMENT OF THIS PERMIT, FEES SHOULD BE |
| | RESOLVED AND APPLIED TO OTHER PERMITS AS APPLICABLE. |
| | |
| | 4. AS000, REVISE SITE PLAN TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH FBC |
| | 705.8, FBC 705.3 (ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE, DISTANCE OF |
| | EACH BUILDING TO THE ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE). |
| | INCORPORATE ANY EXCEPTIONS UTILIZED INTO THE PLAN. |
| | (THIS SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHANGES ALREADY |
| | MADE TO THE FOUNDATION PERMIT PLAN.) |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, THE PLAN SUBMITTED (AS000 DATED 9/4/15) |
| | DOES NOT INCLUDE FOUNDATION REVISION NUMBER 3 DATED |
| | 6/9/15. THE PLAN SUBMITTED, ALTHOUGH THIS REVISION IS |
| | INCLUDED IN THE REVISION BLOCK, DOES NOT SHOW THE |
| | ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE CORRECTLY AND DOES NOT MATCH THE |
| | ISSUED FOUNDATION PERMIT. ALSO, THIS SHEET WAS REDLINED |
| | TO INCORPORATE EXCEPTIONS WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN THE |
| | RESPONSE LETTER BUT NOT INCLUDED ON THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | PROVIDE A PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE ISSUED FOUNDATION |
| | PERMIT. IT IS UNCLEAR WHY THIS REVISION WOULD BE |
| | REMOVED FROM THIS SHEET. PLEASE CONFIRM THAT NO OTHER |
| | REVISIONS WERE REMOVED FROM THIS PLAN. A RE-REVIEW |
| | TYPICALLY TAKES LESS TIME AS ONLY NEW ITEMS ARE |
| | REVIEWED. IF REVISIONS WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO SHOW CODE |
| | COMPLIANCE ARE REMOVED FROM THE PLAN, A COMPLETE REVIEW |
| | OF THE ENTIRE PLAN IS REQUIRED AND TAKES SIGNIFICANTLY |
| | MORE TIME. |
| | |
| | 4A. SEE FOUNDATION PERMIT, REVISION 15090442 SHEET |
| | AS000 AND ISSUED SHEET AS000. IT APPEARS THAT, ALTHOUGH |
| | THE DIMENSIONS DEMONSTRATING CODE COMPLIANCE FBC 705.8, |
| | 705.3 WAS REMOVED, THAT CHANGE TO THE PLAN (REMOVAL OF |
| | REQUIRED DIMENSIONS) WAS NOT CLOUDED AND THEREFORE NOT |
| | REVIEWED. REVISE THIS SHEET AND SUBMIT AS A REVISION TO |
| | THE FOUNDATION PERMIT, INCORPORATING REDLINES WHICH |
| | INCLUDED THE EXCEPTIONS REFERRED TO IN THE RESPONSE |
| | LETTER (NOT A PART OF THE PERMIT RECORD). PLEASE SEE |
| | FOUNDATION COMMENT WHICH REQUESTED THAT ALL EXCEPTIONS |
| | UTILIZED BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN (IN ORDER TO |
| | AVOID FIELD ISSUES AND TO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE CODE |
| | COMPLIANCE). |
| | |
| | 4B. TWO SHEETS WERE ENTIRELY NEW SHEETS SUBMITTED AS A |
| | REVISION TO THE FOUNDATION PERMIT (S8.2, S9.4) BUT WERE |
| | NOT INDICATED AS NEW SHEETS AND THEREFORE ONLY CLOUDED |
| | REVISIONS WERE REVIEWED. SUBMIT A NEW INDEX AS A |
| | REVISION TO THE FOUNDATION PERMIT INDICATING THE NEW |
| | SHEETS. CONFIRM THAT ALL CHANGES IN THAT REVISION WERE |
| | CLOUDED. IN ADDITION TO THE CHANGE ON AS000, SEE |
| | F-PP110D; THIS SHEET INCLUDES A CHANGE WHICH WAS NOT |
| | CLOUDED. OTHER CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE STRUCTURAL |
| | SHEETS WHICH WERE NOT CLOUDED. PLEASE CONFIRM THAT ALL |
| | REVISIONS TO THE ISSUED FOUNDATION PERMIT WERE PROPERLY |
| | CLOUDED AND, IF ANY CHANGES WERE NOT, PLEASE CLOUD AT |
| | THIS TIME AND SUBMIT WITH THE REVISION SO THOSE ITEMS |
| | CAN BE REVIEWED. DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND ON TWO S |
| | SHEETS, BUT A THOROUGH REVIEW WAS NOT DONE, ONLY A SPOT |
| | CHECK. |
| | |
| | SHEET AS000 TO BE CORRECTED AND SUBMITTED AS A |
| | REVISION. |
| | |
| | 5. PROVISO, FBC 1008, PER ARCHITECT, BOTH MEANS OF |
| | EGRESS GATES WILL INCLUDE PANIC HARDWARE. |
| | |
| | 6. PROVISO, FBC 2010 ACCESSIBILITY 502.5, HEIGHT |
| | RESTRICTION SIGNAGE REQUIRED FOR ACCESSIBLE VANS. |
| | |
| | 7. PROVISO, PROVIDE CALCULATIONS AND MORE INFORMATION |
| | TO DOCUMENT THE PERCENTAGES (OPEN PARKING GARAGE) SHOWN |
| | ON AE201 AND AE202. CALCULATIONS AND REPORT PREPARED BY |
| | SARAH MAMAN PE, FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER, HAS BEEN |
| | RECEIVED VIA EMAIL; SIGNED, SEALED, DATED ORIGINALS |
| | REQUIRED. SUBMIT AS A "SUBMITTAL" (NO FEE). |
| | |
| | 8. PROVISO, PROVIDE ARCHITECT'S EXHIBIT "C" (ADDITIONAL |
| | DOCUMENTATION FOR "OPEN" CLASSIFICATION) FULL SIZE |
| | SHEETS, SIGNED AND SEALED (SUBMITTAL, NO FEE). |
| | |
| | 9. PROVISO, FBC 2010 ACCESSIBILITY 209.4, 503, REVISE |
| | PLAN TO SHOW THE VEHICULAR PULL UP SPACE AND ACCESS |
| | AISLE. SUBMIT AS A REVISION. (RESPONSE LETTER STATES |
| | THAT THIS IS SHOWN ON AE172 AND REVISED CIVIL DRAWINGS. |
| | SEE SECTION 503.3.3, THE ACCESS AISLE IS TO BE MARKED. |
| | IT IS NOT CLEAR ON AE172 WHERE THE LOADING ZONE IS |
| | LOCATED AND I WAS UNABLE TO FIND THE MARKED ACCESS |
| | AISLE, PLEASE REVISE PLAN. PLEASE REVISE PLANS TO SHOW |
| | DIMENSIONS OF FBC 2010 ACCESSIBILITY 503.2, THE PULL UP |
| | SPACE, AND 503.3, THE MARKED ACCESS AISLE. AN |
| | ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE COMPLIANT WITH 503 IS |
| | REQUIRED. RESPONSE APPEARS TO INDICATE AGREEMENT FROM |
| | THE DESIGNER, BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THIS HAS BEEN |
| | ADDRESSED.) |
| | |
| | 10. PROVISO, FBC 2010 603.1, PROVIDE INFORMATION |
| | REGARDING THE THE VINYL COVERED FENCE. THIS SECTION |
| | LISTS THE COMBUSTIBLES PERMITTED IN TYPE I AND II |
| | BUILDINGS. COMPLIANCE NOT CLEAR. THIS IS REQUIRED AS A |
| | SUBMITTAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. |
| | |
| | ***REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE*** |
| | |
| | 11. SEE SHEETS SA1 THROUGH 6D AND OTHER SHEETS AS |
| | APPLICABLE, AS000, THE THRESHOLD STATEMENTS ARE NOT |
| | CONSISTENT WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 553.79(7)(D). PLEASE |
| | REVISE OR CLARIFY. |
| | |
| | THE LANGUAGE IN FS 553.79: |
| | |
| | ALL PLANS FOR THE BUILDING WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE |
| | SIGNED AND SEALED BY THE ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OF |
| | RECORD CONTAIN A STATEMENT THAT, TO THE BEST OF THE |
| | ARCHITECT?S OR ENGINEER?S KNOWLEDGE, THE PLANS AND |
| | SPECIFICATIONS COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE MINIMUM |
| | BUILDING CODES AND THE APPLICABLE FIRESAFETY STANDARDS |
| | AS DETERMINED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH |
| | THIS CHAPTER AND CHAPTER 633. |
| | |
| | STATEMENT ON STRUCTURAL SHEETS: |
| | |
| | TO THE BEST OF THE ENGINEER'S KNOWLEDGE, THE PLANS AND |
| | SPECIFICATIONS COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE MINIMUM |
| | BUILDING CODES AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE |
| | WITH THIS SECTION AND 633 FLORIDA STATUTES. |
| | |
| | (NOTE THAT LANGUAGE NOT CONSISTENT WITH STATUTE.) |
| | |
| | STATEMENT ON AS000: |
| | |
| | TO THE BEST OF ARCHITECT?S KNOWLEDGE, THE PLANS AND |
| | SPECIFICATIONS COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE FIRE SAFETY |
| | STANDARDS AS DETERMINED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION AND 633 FLORIDA STATUTE. |
| | |
| | (NOTE THAT MINIMUM BUILDING CODES WAS OMITTED.) |
| | |
| | PLEASE EITHER REVISE THE STATEMENT TO BE CONSISTENT |
| | WITH THE STATUTE OR EMAIL RATIONALE FOR LANGUAGE WHICH |
| | DEVIATES FROM THE STATUTE. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
