Date |
Text |
2006-07-19 00:00:00 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| |
| SAMANTHA HILL, BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| 561-805-6724 [email protected] |
| |
| FBC FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2001 |
| FBC* CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH AMENDMENTS |
| TO THE FBC2001 |
| |
| FROM PREVIOUS LIST: |
| |
| 1.)A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE |
| FILED WITH THE CLERK OF COURTS BEFORE A |
| PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. (MUST BE FILED |
| PRIOR TO PERMIT PICKUP; THIS COMMENT |
| DOES NOT PREVENT THE PERMIT FROM BEING |
| ISSUED.) |
| |
| 2.)IMPACT FEES MUST BE PAID TO PALM |
| BEACH COUNTY.THE PLANS MUST BE STAMPED |
| AND THE RECEIPT ATTACHED TO THE |
| APPLICATION.561-233-5025 |
| |
| 3.)ADDITIONAL FEES WILL BE DUE |
| (RADON). SEE FS553.721, REQUIRED ON |
| ALTERATIONS.ARCHITECT'S OBJECTION IS |
| NOTED; HAS HE READ THE FLORIDA STATUTE? |
| ALSO NOTE THAT THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT |
| PAY THE RESUB FEE.RESUB FEES ARE DUE |
| AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL; FAILURE TO PAY |
| THIS FEE COULD RESULT IN DEALYS IN PLAN |
| REVIEW. |
| |
| 4-6.)ADDRESSED. |
| |
| 7.)PROVIDE A FIRE SPRINKLER PLAN, |
| FBC104.3.1.1. (FIRST REVIEW) |
| |
| THIS WAS ADDRESSED WITH AN 8 1/2 X 11 |
| SHEETS WITH THE RESPONSE LETTER.EITHER |
| INCORPORATE INTO THE PLAN OR REMOVE FROM |
| THE RESPONSE LETTER AND ATTACH TO THE |
| PLAN. |
| |
| THESE SHEETS ARE ALSO LACKING THE |
| INFORMATION REQUIRED BY FAC61G1-16.003, |
| 004. (2ND REVIEW) |
| |
| 3RD REVIEW - THIS ITEM HAS BEEN |
| ADDRESSED.HOWEVER, ARCHITECT HAS ASKED |
| FOR CLARIFICATION, STATES IN HIS |
| RESPONSE LETTER "PLEASE CLARIFY |
| FAC16G1-16.003 AS IT ADDRESSES TAXES." |
| NOTE THAT THE ARCHITECT IS REFERRING TO |
| SECTION FAC16G1, BUT MY COMMENT REFERS |
| TO 61G1.I HOPE THAT THIS ADDRESSES ANY |
| CONFUSION. |
| |
| 8-15.)ADDRESSED. |
| |
| 16.)SEE ATTACHED FS553.80(2)(B).A 4X |
| PLAN REVIEW WILL BE CHARGED IF COMMENTS |
| ARE NOT ADDRESSED A THIRD TIME. |
| |
| ARCHITECT'S RESPONSE LETTER - "I'M |
| OFFENDED BY THIS COMMENT.WITH EVERY |
| PROJECT I COOPERATE IN GOOD FAITH.ALL |
| PREVIOUS COMMENTS WERE ADDRESSED." |
| PLEASE NOTE THAT NO OFFENSE WAS |
| INTENDED; THIS IS A STATUTORY |
| REQUIREMENT AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO MY |
| DISCRETION.I HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO |
| INCLUDE THIS COMMENT IN MY COMMENT LIST |
| AFTER THE SECOND PLAN REVIEW.THE FEE |
| IS A MANDATORY FEE TO BE IMPOSED IF THE |
| SAME COMMENT IS MADE THREE |
| TIMES,REGARDLESS OF INTENTION AND GOOD |
| FAITH. THIS FEE IS TO BE CHARGED |
| REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE |
| DESIGNER IS ADVISED OF THE FLORIDA |
| STATUTE.THIS COMMENT IS MADE AS A |
| COURTESY (ADVISORY), AND IS NOT INTENDED |
| TO BE OFFENSIVE.MY APOLOGIES IF YOU |
| HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD MY INTENT. |
| |
| ALTHOUGH COMMENT #17 HAS BEEN MADE THREE |
| TIMES, THE 4X FEE IS NOT CHARGED ON THIS |
| REVIEW (MISSED DETAIL) BUT WILL BE |
| CHARGED ON THE NEXT SUBMITTAL IF THE |
| DETAIL IS NOT PROVIDED AS REQUESTED. |
| |
| 17.)PROVIDE A DETAIL FOR THE |
| ACCESSIBLE BREAKROOM SINK, FBC11-4.24. |
| THE DOR IS TO PROVIDE DESIGN CRITERIA; |
| SHOPS CAN BE PROVIDED DURING THE JOB BUT |
| PLANS ARE TO SHOW CODE COMPLIANCE. |
| |
| AS REQUESTED, PROVIDE A DETAIL.THE |
| WRITTEN SPECIFICATION IS NOTED BUT DOES |
| NOT CLEARLY SHOW CODE COMPLIANCE AS |
| THERE HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS IN THE FIELD ON |
| THE PAST REGARDING DOORS (NOT PERMITTED) |
| COVERING THE ACCESSIBLE SINKS.THE |
| DETAIL HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY BOTH THE |
| PLUMBING REVIEWER AND MYSELF TO AVOID |
| PROBLEMS WHILE THE JOB IS IN PROGRESS. |
| |
| NEW COMMENT: |
| |
| 18.)WHEN RESUBMITTING, REMOVE OLD |
| SHEETS FROM THE PLAN.OLD SHEETS SHOULD |
| BE SUBMITTED SEPARATELY AND MARKED |
| "VOID".THIS IS TO PREVENT OLD SHEETS |
| FROM BEING REVIEWED AND STAMPED IN |
| ERROR.FOR INSTANCE, A-1 IS INCLUDED IN |
| THE PACKAGE WITH BOTH REVISIONS 1 AND 2. |
| WHEN RESUBMITTING, IT WILL BE ROUTED TO |
| FIRE FOR FIRE PLAN REVIEW STAMP TO BE |
| PLACED ON THE NEW SHEET. |