| Date |
Text |
| 2016-08-16 08:11:36 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | REVISED 9/7 (ITEM 34) |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-805-6724 |
| | |
| | GOVERNING CODE: FBC 5TH EDITION (FBC 2014) |
| | |
| | 1. FLORIDA STATUTE 553.71, IT APPEARS THAT THIS |
| | BUILDING MAY QUALIFY AS A THRESHOLD BUILDING; ANY |
| | BUILDING WHICH IS GREATER THAN (3) STORIES OR 50 FT. IN |
| | HEIGHT, OR WHICH HAS AN ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCY |
| | CLASSIFICATION AS DEFINED IN THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE |
| | WHICH EXCEEDS 5,000 SF IN AREA AND AN OCCUPANT CONTENT |
| | OF GREATER THAN 500 PERSONS. |
| | |
| | 2. AS A THRESHOLD BUILDING, THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: |
| | |
| | A. THRESHOLD INSPECTION PLAN; FS 553.79(5)(A), CITY OF |
| | WEST PALM BEACH AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | CODE, CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION 109.3.6.1. THE |
| | ENFORCING AGENCY SHALL REQUIRE A SPECIAL INSPECTOR TO |
| | PERFORM STRUCTURAL INSPECTIONS ON A THRESHOLD BUILDING |
| | PURSUANT TO A STRUCTURAL INSPECTION PLAN PREPARED BY |
| | THE ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT OF RECORD. THE STRUCTURAL |
| | INSPECTION PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY |
| | THE ENFORCING AGENCY BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING |
| | PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THRESHOLD BUILDING. |
| | THE PURPOSE OF THE STRUCTURAL INSPECTION PLAN IS TO |
| | PROVIDE SPECIFIC INSPECTION PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULES SO |
| | THAT THE BUILDING CAN BE ADEQUATELY INSPECTED FOR |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERMITTED DOCUMENTS. |
| | |
| | B. THRESHOLD INSPECTOR: WPB AMENDMENT 109.3.6.2 W.P.B. |
| | CONSTRUCTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT REQUESTS FOR THRESHOLD |
| | BUILDINGS A SPECIAL INSPECTOR AS REQUIRED BY FS |
| | 553.79(5)(A) TO THE MINIMUM INSPECTIONS REQUIRED BY |
| | THIS CODE. THE THRESHOLD INSPECTION FORMS ARE REQUIRED |
| | TO BE FILED OUT BY ALL PARTIES, NOTARIZED AND RETURNED |
| | TO THIS OFFICE, REVIEWED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO PERMIT |
| | ISSUANCE. CONTACT KEN CONRAD, MANAGER OF THE SPECIAL |
| | INSPECTOR PROGRAM, AT 561-805-6666 FOR ADDITIONAL |
| | INFORMATION. |
| | FORMS WERE SENT TO: [email protected] |
| | ON 5/28/16. |
| | |
| | C. SPECIAL INSPECTOR RESUME': PROVIDE A RESUME' OF |
| | INSPECTION EXPERIENCE ON PREVIOUS PROJECTS FOR REVIEW |
| | BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR HIS DESIGNEE. AFTER THE |
| | RESUME' IS REVIEWED, AN INTERVIEW WILL BE SCHEDULED. |
| | UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL AN INSPECTOR BE INTERVIEWED |
| | FOR WORK WITHOUT FIRST MEETING THE ABOVE CRITERIA. THE |
| | RESUME' IS TO BE SUBMITTED TO KEN CONRAD (AND COPY |
| | SAMANTHA HILL), 561-805-6666, [email protected], |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | ALL PROSPECTIVE INSPECTORS ARE TO BE APPROVED BY THE |
| | CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR AND ALL ARE REQUIRED TO SIGN |
| | THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR AGREEMENT. |
| | |
| | D. CONTRACTOR RESUME': PROVIDE A JOB SUMMARY OR HISTORY |
| | FOR THIS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION. THIS MAY BE SUBMITTED TO |
| | KEN CONRAD, (PLEASE COPY SAMANTHA HILL) VIA E-MAIL |
| | ([email protected], [email protected]). |
| | |
| | E. PERMIT DOCUMENTS: PAPER SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THREE |
| | SIGNED AND SEALED (IF APPLICABLE) ORIGINAL SETS OF ALL |
| | DOCUMENTS. |
| | |
| | F. THRESHOLD BLDG., REQUIRED STATEMENT: W.P.B. |
| | AMENDMENT 110.3.7.4.4 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. |
| | |
| | (ARCHITECT OK - REVISED PLAN) |
| | |
| | THE ENGINEER HAS A SIMILAR STATEMENT BUT LACKS SOME OF |
| | THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE; PLEASE REVISE. |
| | |
| | 3. ADVISORY ONLY; PER FS 553.79, ALL SHORING/RE-SHORE |
| | ENGINEERING IS TO BE REVIEWED BY ENGINEER OF RECORD |
| | AND THREE SIGNED AND SEALED ORIGINAL SETS ARE TO BE |
| | SUBMITTED FOR PLAN REVIEW. THE SHORING/RESHORE |
| | ENGINEERING IS TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO |
| | INSPECTION. THE CITY APPROVED (CITY STAMPED) |
| | SHORING/RE-SHORE ENGINEERING IS TO BE AVAILABLE ON THE |
| | JOB AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION. |
| | |
| | 4. ADVISORY ONLY; PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, A GUARD RAIL |
| | DETAIL IS TO BE SUBMITTED FOR PLAN REVIEW. THIS SHOULD |
| | BE SUBMITTED WITH THE SHORING/RESHORE ENGINEERING. |
| | |
| | 5. SEE IMPACT FEE REVIEW. |
| | |
| | 6. ADVISORY ONLY; SEE ROOF (R STOP) REVIEW. NO ROOFING |
| | INFORMATION PROVIDED IF ROOFING INFORMATION (PRODUCT |
| | APPROVAL REVIEWED BY DESIGNER OF RECORD, ASSEMBLY |
| | PROPOSED, ENHANCED FASTENING CALCULATIONS IF REQUIRED) |
| | IS NOT SUBMITTED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, THIS PERMIT |
| | WILL BE ISSUED WITH PROVISO. ROOF INFORMATION WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED PRIOR |
| | TO INSTALLATION. |
| | |
| | 9. THREE COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS REQUIRED FOR ALL |
| | THRESHOLD JOBS (CITY, CONTRACTOR, THRESHOLD INSPECTOR). |
| | |
| | 11 TO 18. OK |
| | |
| | 19. LS101, ACADEMICS TEAM ROOM OCCUPANT LOAD IS SHOWN |
| | AS 20 SF PER PERSON, CLARIFY, APPEARS TO BE A TYPO AS |
| | THIS SHOULD BE 15 SF (AND OCC LOAD CALCULATED USING 15 |
| | SF). REVISE PLAN TO CLARIFY USE OF THE SPACE. 15SF IS |
| | FOR AREAS WITH TABLES AND CHAIRS, AREAS WITH CHAIRS |
| | ONLY SHOULD USE 7 SF, AND STANDING AREAS SHOULD USE |
| | 5SF. |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, ARCHITECT?S RESPONSE IS ACCEPTABLE. PLEASE |
| | REVISE PLAN TO NOTE THAT ACADEMICS TEAM ROOM IS A |
| | CLASSROOM, ACCESSORY USE. |
| | |
| | 20. LS101, THE ACADEMICS TEAM ROOM MEANS OF EGRESS |
| | FORCES THE OCCUPANT TO TRAVEL THROUGH A SPACE WHICH IS |
| | A WORK AREA, WHICH APPEARS TO BE PROHIBITED BY FBC |
| | 1014.2. REVISE PLAN TO EITHER MODIFY EXITING STRATEGY |
| | OR REVISE PLAN TO SHOW COMPLIANCE (I.E., SHOW HOW THE |
| | TWO SPACES ARE ACCESSORY TO ONE ANOTHER). |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, RESPONSE STATES THAT DIRECT ACCESS TO THE |
| | CORRIDOR WAS PROVIDED. PLEASE SEE LS101; THE NEW ACCESS |
| | TO CORRIDOR APPEARS TO BE LABELED STORAGE ON ALL |
| | SHEETS. PLEASE REVISE THE LIFE SAFETY AND FLOOR PLAN. |
| | IT APPEARS THAT THE STORAGE ROOM MAY BE THE ADJACENT |
| | ROOM. ALSO PLEASE INCLUDE THE DIMENSION BETWEEN THE TWO |
| | DOORS TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH FBC 5TH EDITION |
| | ACCESSIBILITY FIGURE 404.2.6. |
| | |
| | 24 - 27. OK |
| | |
| | 30. OK |
| | |
| | 31 TO 33. OK |
| | |
| | 34. REVISED 9/7 - RECEIVED LETTER FROM ENGINEER |
| | REGARDING RATIONALE FOR RISK CATEGORY II. LETTER IS |
| | ACCEPTABLE; PLEASE INCLUDE THE SIGNED, SEALED ORGINAL |
| | WITH THE RESUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 35. OK |
| | |
| | 36. FBC 1008.1.10, REVISE DOOR SCHEDULE AE701 TO |
| | INCLUDE DOOR HARDWARE; IT IS NOT CLEAR WHERE PANIC |
| | HARDWARE IS PROPOSED. |
| | |
| | FBC TABLE 716.5, EXIT ENCLOSURES REQUIRE 1 HOUR DOORS; |
| | DOOR 101 PROPOSES 20 MIN, PLEASE REVISE. |
| | |
| | ALSO, REGARDING THIS EXIT STAIR WHICH DISCHARGES INTO |
| | THE FIRST FLOOR, SEE FBC 1027.1 EXCEPTION 1.1, THE EXIT |
| | IS TO BE READILY VISIBLE AND IDENTIFIABLE FROM THE |
| | POINT OF TERMINATION OF THE ENCLOSURE. PLEASE SEE |
| | CLARIFICATION IN THE COMMENTARY, WHICH SPECIFICALLY |
| | STATES THAT THE OCCUPANT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO TURN |
| | COMPLETELY AROUND OR AROUND A CORNER. IT APPEARS THAT |
| | EITHER THE DOOR SHOULD OPEN DIRECTLY INTO THE DIRECTION |
| | OF THE EXIT DISCHARGE OR THE WALL AT THE END OF THE |
| | FIRST FLOOR STAIR SHOULD BE RATED THE SAME AS THE STAIR |
| | IF THIS IS TO BE CONSIDERED A CONTINUATION OF THE STAIR |
| | EXIT. |
| | |
| | 37. FROM PREVIOUS LIST: A SPOT CHECK OF THE ENERGY |
| | CALCS WAS DONE; PLEASE CLARIFY THE FOLLOWING OR REVISE |
| | PLAN: |
| | ROOF INSULATION IS R20 ON ENERGY CALCS, R19 ON PLAN |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW, THIS WAS CORRECTED BUT STILL SPECS R19 IN |
| | SOME LOCATIONS (SEE AE320, AE321). PLEASE REVISE AND |
| | CHECK ALL. |
| | |
| | 38. THIS PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED WITH THE FOLLOWING |
| | PROVISOS: |
| | |
| | COMPONENTS AND CLADDING PRODUCT APPROVALS REVIEWED BY |
| | DESIGNER OF RECORD ARE TO BE SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND |
| | APPROVED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION |
| | |
| | SEPARATE PERMITS, PLANS, REVIEWS, AND FEES WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED FOR SIGNS, AWNINGS, PARKING |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENT: |
| | |
| | 39. PLAN REVIEW NOTE: THIS PLAN WAS RESUBMITTED PRIOR |
| | TO BUILDING PLAN REVIEW #2. |
| | |
| | PLEASE SEE FS553.80 (NOTE LANGUAGE "SHALL IMPOSE" |
| | RATHER THAN "MAY"): |
| | (B)"WITH RESPECT TO EVALUATION OF DESIGN PROFESSIONALS' |
| | DOCUMENTS, IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINDS IT NECESSARY, IN |
| | ORDER TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | CODE AND ISSUE A PERMIT, TO REJECT DESIGN DOCUMENTS |
| | REQUIRED BY THE CODE THREE OR MORE TIMES FOR FAILURE TO |
| | CORRECT A CODE VIOLATION SPECIFICALLY AND CONTINUOUSLY |
| | NOTED IN EACH REJECTION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, |
| | EGRESS, FIRE PROTECTION, STRUCTURAL STABILITY, ENERGY, |
| | ACCESSIBILITY, LIGHTING, VENTILATION, ELECTRICAL, |
| | MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND GAS SYSTEMS, OR OTHER |
| | REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED BY RULE OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | COMMISSION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 120, THE LOCAL |
| | GOVERNMENT SHALL IMPOSE, EACH TIME AFTER THE THIRD SUCH |
| | REVIEW THE PLANS ARE REJECTED FOR THAT CODE VIOLATION, |
| | A FEE OF FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPORTION OF THE |
| | PERMIT FEE ATTRIBUTED TO PLANS REVIEW. |
| | |
| | FOR THIS PROJECT, PLAN REVIEW FEE IS $22,637 (4X FEE = |
| | $90,548). IF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL DISAGREES WITH A |
| | SIGNIFICANT PLAN REVIEW COMMENT FOR ANY PROJECT, IT IS |
| | RESPECTFULLY SUGGESTED THAT THE APPROPRIATE REVIEWER BE |
| | CONTACTED AND RESOLVE PRIOR TO RESUBMITTING. ALTHOUGH |
| | LANGUAGE REQUIRES THAT THE FEE BE IMPOSED, IT IS NOT |
| | BEING IMPOSED AT THIS TIME DUE TO THE FACT THAT SINCE |
| | PLANS WERE RESUBMITTED WITHOUT ADDRESSING BUILDING |
| | COMMENTS FROM REVIEW 1, THIS IS BUILDING REVIEW 2 |
| | RATHER THAN BUILDING REVIEW 3. PLEASE ALLOW ALL TRADES |
| | TO COMPLETE REVIEWS PRIOR TO RESUBMITTAL. |
| | |
