Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Permit 06090692
Permit Number 06090692
Review Stop B
Sequence Number 3
Notes
Date Text
2007-04-04 07:45:09****CORRECTIONS****
  
 SAMANTHA HILL, BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER
 561-805-6724 [email protected]
  
 FBCFLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004
 FBC EBFLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 EXISTING BUILDING
 CODE
 FBC RFLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 RESIDENTIAL FBC*
 CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH AMENDMENTS TO THE FBC2004
  
 ***NOTE - PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS WERE CHANGED 4/12/07 TO
 DOCUMENT ITEMS DISCUSSED/NEGOTIATED WITH ARCHITECT AND
 CONTRACTOR IN A MEETING 4/11/07**
 ***NOTE THAT A LIFE SAFETY PLAN WAS ACCEPTED DURING THE
 PLAN REVIEW PROCESS DURING REVIEW #3.THIS IS THE 4TH
 COURTESY REVIEW REFERRED TO IN THE PLAN REVIEW
 NOTES.***
  
 1-8.) ADDRESSED.
  
 9.)A SEPARATE PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE SIGN
 SHOWN ON A-0.1.SEPARATE PLANS AND PERMIT APPLICATION
 WILL BE REQUIRED.INFORMATIONAL ONLY; THIS IS NOT
 REQUIRED TO BE ADDRESSED AT THIS TIME.
  
 10-12.)ADDRESSED.
  
 13.)EXTRA FP1 SHEETS WERE SUBMITTED.PLEASE PROVIDE
 THREE ORIGINALS, ONE PUT INTO EACH ROLLED PERMIT SET.
  
 THREE SETS SUBMITTED.PLEASE KEEP THE THREE SETS IN
 THE PACKAGE.THEY ARE NOT CURRENTLY A PART OF THE
 BOUND SET.THIS IS ACCEPTABLE; HOWEVER, PLEASE ENSURE
 THAT THEY ARE NOT INADVERTENTLY REMOVED FROM THE
 PACKAGE AS THIS IS A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT AND THE
 PERMIT CANNOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT SPRINKLER PLANS.
  
 14-15.) ADDRESSED.
  
 16.)A NEW LIFE SAFETY PLAN WAS ACCEPTED DURING THE
 PLAN REVIEW PROCESS.NOTE THAT THE ORIGINAL LS PLAN
 SUBMITTED DID NOT PROPERLY ADDRESS THE COMMENTS AND A
 NEW LS PLAN WAS SUBMITTED AFTER DISCUSSION WITH THE
 ARCHITECT.
  
 3RD REVIEW:ONLY ONE ACCESSIBLE EXIT SHOWN FOR EACH
 AREA.BASED ON OCCUPANT LOAD, TWO EXITS ARE REQUIRED
 FOR THE DISTRIBUTION AREA, TWO EXITS ARE REQUIRED FOR
 THE OFFICE AREA.PROVIDE ALL INFORMATION FOR EXITING
 ON THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN FOR THE ACCESSIBLE EXITS.
 REVIEW WAS STOPPED AND I AGREED TO ACCEPT A NEW LIFE
 SAFETY PLAN IN ATTEMPT TO ISSUE THE PERMIT IF ALL OTHER
 ITEMS WERE ADDRESSED FROM ALL PLAN REVIEWERS, INCLUDING
 MY LIST.HOWEVER, THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN SUBMITTED WAS
 NOT COMPLIANT.
  
 FOURTH (COURTESY) REVIEW.THE NEW LIFE SAFETY PLAN
 SHOULD BE REVISED TO SHOW THE FOLLOWING FOR THE SECOND
 ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS FROM THE DISTRIBUTION AREA:
  
 EXIT LIGHTS, FBC1006.3
 EXIT CAPACITY, FBC1004.1.3
 DOOR SWING, FBC1008.1.2
 TRAVEL DISTANCE, FBC1015
 EGRESS CAPACITY, FBC1005
  
 NOTE THAT TRAVEL DISTANCE IS SHOWN THROUGH THE MIDDLE
 OF SOME ROOMS; THIS IS USUALLY DONE AROUND THE
 PERIMETER OF THE ROOM, FBC1015.1.
  
 ALL OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED ON THE LIFE
 SAFETY PLAN BUT DID NOT ADDRESS ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF
 EGRESS.SEE COMMENT 17, ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS
 SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE SAME NUMBER AS REQUIRED FOR
 EXITS BY LOCAL BUILDING/LIFE SAFETY REGULATIONS,
 FBC11-4.1.3(9).A LIFT WAS ADDED, EXITING THROUGH THE
 OFFICE AREA WAS DISCUSSED BUT NOTHING IS SHOWN ON THE
 PLAN; OTHER INFORMATION ABOVE NOT PROVIDED.
  
 17.)FBC11-4.1.3(9), ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS SHALL
 BE PROVIDED IN THE SAME NUMBER AS REQUIRED FOR EXITS BY
 LOCAL BUILDING/LIFE SAFETY REGULATIONS. A RAMP IS SHOWN
 AT THE BUILDING ENTRANCE, NO OTHER ACCESSIBLE EXITS
 SHOWN.
  
 2ND REVIEW, THE RESPONSE LETTER STATES THAT ALL EXITS
 ARE ACCESSIBLE.SEE FBC11-3, DEFINITION OF EGRESS,
 MEANS OF; DOES NOT INCLUDE STAIRS, STEPS, OR
 ESCALATORS.
  
 (REVISED 4/12) 3RD COURTESY REVIEW, TWO EXITS ARE
 REQUIRED FROM THE DISTRIBUTION AREA AND TWO EXITS
 REQUIRED FROM THE OFFICE AREA.ONLY ONE ACCESSIBLE
 EXIT FOR EACH AREA IS SHOWN.
  
 (REVISED 4/12) 4TH REVIEW, REVISED LIFE SAFETY PLAN
 SUBMITTED DURING REVIEW; THERE IS STILL ONLY ONE
 ACCESSIBLE EXIT FROM THE DISTRIBUTION AREA, TWO
 REQUIRED BASED ON OCCUPANT LOAD.
  
 18.)1ST/2ND REVIEW: THIS BUILDING REQUIRES MORE THAN
 ONE EXIT, SEE FBC1018.2.THIS WAS NOT ADDRESSED FOR
 ACCESSIBLE EXITS; ONLY ONE SHOWN.
  
 (REVISED 4/12) 3RD REVIEW:SEE COMMENT 17.
  
 (REVISED 4/12) 4TH COURTESY REVIEW:THERE IS NOW ONE
 ACCESSIBLE EXIT SHOWN FOR THE DISTRIBUTION AREA
 (REQUIRES TWO BASED ON OCCUPANT LOAD) AND ONE FOR THE
 OFFICE AREA.OFFICE AREA IS COMPLIANT AS IT REQUIRES
 ONE EXIT BASED ON OCCUPANT LOAD, BUT TWO ACCESSIBLE
 EXITS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE DISTRIBUTION AREA.
  
 19-22.)ADDRESSED.
  
 23.)1ST/2ND REVIEWS: EXIT OR EXIT ACCESS DOORWAY
 ARRANGEMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH FBC1014.2 OR
 FBC1014.2.2., SHOW DISTANCE APART, SEE EXCEPTION 2.
 THERE ARE TO BE TWO ACCESSIBLE EXITS WHICH ARE REMOTELY
 LOCATED.ONLY ONE SHOWN ON THE PLAN (ALL OTHERS HAVE
 STAIRS).
  
 3RD REVIEW (REVISED 4/12):THE TWO DOORS SHOWN SERVE
 TWO DIFFERENT AREAS.SHOW THE TWO ACCESSIBLE EXITS,
 REMOTELY LOCATED, AS REQUESTED.
  
 4TH (COURTESY) REVIEW: THE DISTANCE IS SHOWN BETWEEN
 THE TWO ACCESSIBLE EXITS BUT THE EXIT WITH THE RAMP
 DOES NOT SERVE THE DISTRIBUTION AREA (NO EXIT SIGNS
 FROM DISTRIBUTION AREA THROUGH OFFICE, NOTHING ON THE
 PLAN TO SHOW THAT THIS IS TO BE AN EXIT TO SERVE THE
 DISTRIBUTION AREA).IT IS CLEAR THAT NON ACCESSIBLE
 EXITS ARE COMPLIANT.SHOW COMPLIANCE FOR ACCESSIBLE
 EXITS AS REQUESTED ON PREVIOUS REVIEWS.
  
 24.) ADDRESSED.
  
 25.)SIGN THE OWNER/AGENT LINE OF THE ENERGY CALC.
  
 26.)THE COMMENT REGARDING REMOVABLE SHUTTERS WAS, I
 BELIEVE, ADDRESSED WITH SUBMITTAL OF IMPACT DOOR
 PRODUCT APPROVALS.IT APPEARS THAT IMPACT RATED
 PRODUCTS WILL BE USED.PLEASE NOTE THAT IF NON IMPACT
 PRODUCT APPROVALS ARE SUBMITTED ON THIRD REVIEW, A
 SHUTTER INSTALLATION PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO
 PERMIT ISSUANCE.PLEASE CONTACT ME IF YOU WOULD LIKE
 TO PROPOSE THE USE OF REMOVABLE SHUTTERS TO DISCUSS
 THAT APPROVAL PROCESS.IF ALL PRODUCTS WILL BE IMPACT
 RATED, DISREGARD THE COMMENT.
  
 THIRD REVIEW - PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REQUIRED PRODUCT
 APPROVALS AT THIS TIME.
  
 27.)PLEASE NOTE THAT PRODUCT APPROVALS FOR IMPACT
 DOORS WERE SUBMITTED.PRODUCT APPROVALS ARE TO BE
 REVIEWED BY DESIGNER OF RECORD, FBC*106.3.3.NO OTHER
 PRODUCT APPROVALS WERE SUBMITTED.FLORIDA STATE OR
 LOCAL PRODUCT APPROVAL REQUIRED IN ADDITION TO THE
 EVALUATION REPORT (MIAMIDADE NOA IN THIS CASE)
 PROVIDED, FAC9B72; WWW.FLORIDABUILDING.ORG.IF FLORIDA
 STATE PRODUCT APPROVAL IS NOT AVAILABLE, PLEASE CONTACT
 ME TO DISCUSS.
  
 NO ROOFING PR-DUCT APPROVALS WERE SUBMITTED. CONTRACTOR
 OR DOR IS TO SELECT THE APPROVED ASSEMBLY.
  
 FOR ALL OTHER PRODUCTS, INCLUDING THE STANDING SEAM
 ROOF PANELS, IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR
 INSTALLATION AND NOT ALL OF THEM ARE COMPLIANT FOR
 DESIGN PRESSURES FOR THIS BUILDING, CIRCLE THE
 INSTALLATION OR PARTICULAR OPTION YOU ARE USING SO THAT
 CODE COMPLIANCE CAN BE DETERMINED.
  
 THIRD REVIEW ? THE PRODUCT APPROVALS WHICH ARE IN THE
 PACKAGE STILL HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN
 REVIEWED BY DESIGNER OF RECORD.THIS MAY BE DONE WITH
 A SHOP DRAWING REVIEW STAMP, A LETTER, OR INCORPORATED
 INTO THE PLAN BY REFERENCE.
  
 ALL PRODUCT APPROVALS REQUIRED BY FAC9B72 ARE REQUIRED
 AT THIS TIME DUE TO A POLICY CHANGE.STATEMENTS IN THE
 PREVIOUS COMMENTS THAT THEY COULD BE SUBMITTED IN THE
 FUTURE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM
 THIS REVIEW TO AVOID CONFUSION.
  
 AS THE DOR DID NOT PROVIDE A SCHEDULE, ALL WALL
 PRODUCTS ARE TO COMPLY WITH WORST CASE WALL PRESSURE OF
 -48PSF.PRODUCT APPROVALS REQUIRED INCLUDE STOREFRONT,
 SKYLIGHT, OVERHEAD DOOR, FULL LOUVER METAL DOOR,
 LOUVERS, ROOF HATCH, 24 GA GALVALUME STANDING SEAM
 METAL ROOF, 4 PLY BUR OVER INSULATED LW CONCRETE.THIS
 MAY NOT BE A COMPLETE LIST; CONTRACTOR OR DOR IS
 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPLETENESS OF THE SUBMITTED
 PACKAGE.
  
 **4/12/07** DURING THE MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECT I
 BECAME AWARE THAT THE THREE BOUND SETS OF DOCUMENTS
 SUBMITTED WERE NOT IDENTICAL SETS.THERE WERE SOME
 PRODUCT APPROVALS REVIEWED BY DOR IN THE OTHER PACKAGE.
 THE ROOF PRODUCT APPROVAL WAS REVIEWED BY ANOTHER
 ARCHITECT FROM A DIFFERENT PRODUCT.
  
 WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE THREE IDENTICAL BOUND
 SETS FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE.FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT
 IN PERMIT DELAYS.
  
 ALL OTHER COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO PRODUCT APPROVALS
 STILL APPLY.FLORIDA STATE OR LOCAL PRODUCT APPROVAL
 REQUIRED FOR ALL PRODUCTS, FAC9B72,
 WWW.FLORIDABUILDING.ORG.FLORIDA STATE PRODUCT
 APPROVAL IS TO BE FOR THE 2004 CODE (NOT 2001 AS IS THE
 CASE WITH THE OVERHEAD DOOR PRODUCT APPROVAL).ONLY
 ONE SHEET OF THE NOA FOR THE INGERSOLL RAND DOOR WAS
 SUBMITTED; ALL SHEETS REQUIRED.IF A FLORIDA STATE
 PRODUCT APPROVAL IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR ANY OF THE
 PRODUCTS YOU HAVE SELECTED, PLEASE CONTACT ME IN
 REGARDS TO THE PROCEDURE FOR APPLICATION FOR LOCAL
 PRODUCT APPROVAL.
  
 28.)SQUARE FOOT AREAS ON THE ENERGY CALCS DO NOT
 MATCH THE PLAN.
  
 THIRD REVIEW - THE ARCHITECT RESPONSE LETTER STATES
 THAT INSIDE DIMENSIONS WERE USED FOR THE ENERGY CALCS.
 SEE FBC 13, CHAPTER 2, DEFINITION OF FLOOR AREA, GROSS.
 AS NEW ENERGY CALCS ARE REQUIRED, ELECTRIC REVIEW WILL
 ALSO BE REQUIRED ON RESUBMITTAL.NOTE THAT ENERGY
 CALCS ARE A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT AND STATUTORY
 REQUIREMENTS CAN NEVER BE WAIVED OR PROVISO?D (PER
 BUILDING OFFICIAL).
  
 29.)FROM FIRST REVIEW - THE ENGINEER'S TITLE BLOCK IS
 TO COMPLY WITH FAC61G15-23.002, VP BUILDINGS.
  
 4/12/07MR. JOHN RYAN, ATTORNEY FOR FLORIDA BOARD OF
 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, CONFIRMED THE CERTIFICATE OF
 AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENT, FS471.023.THE ENGINEER'S
 LETTER STATING THAT ENGINEERING IS NOT THE PRODUCT
 OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC IS ACKNOWLEDGED.HOWEVER, WHEN
 PRACTICING ENGINEERING THROUGH A COMPANY, A CERTIFICATE
 OF AUTHORIZATION IS REQUIRED REGARDLESS OF PRODUCT
 OFFERED.PLEASE CONTACT FBPE IF YOU NEED FURTHER
 CLARIFICATION, 850-521-0500.AS THIS IS A STATUTORY
 REQUIREMENT, THIS CANNOT BE WAIVED OR PROVISO'D; PLANS
 MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE FOR PERMITTING.
  
 30.)ADDRESSED.
  
 31.)THE ENGINEER'S SIGNATURE IS A PHOTOCOPY, ORIGINAL
 WET SIGNATURE REQUIRED.SEE PANEL SHEETS AND VP
 SHEETS.
  
 THIRD REVIEW - PANEL ENGINEERING STILL HAS A PHOTOCOPY
 SIGNATURE.ALSO ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY
 FAC61G15-23.002 IS REQUIRED TO BE ON EACH SHEET
 (CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION).
  
 THE FOOTERS, SITEWORK, AND STRUCTURE (PANELS, STEEL
 STRUCTURE) WERE ISSUED UNDER SEPARATE PERMITS.HAVE
 THE CHANGES SHOWN ON THE CIVIL DRAWINGS BEEN MADE TO
 THE ISSUED SITEWORK PERMIT?PLEASE PROVIDE A PERMIT
 NUMBER FOR THE SITEWORK.
  
 THE PANEL PLANS AND STEEL STRUCTURAL PLANS ARE NOT
 REQUIRED FOR THIS PERMIT AS THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE
 SCOPE OF WORK OF ANOTHER PERMIT.IF EITHER PLAN IS
 CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THESE COMMENTS, THE CHANGES
 SHOULD BE SUBMITTED AS REVISIONS TO THE ISSUED PERMIT.
 ALSO HAVING A SET INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE (AS LONG AS IT
 MATCHES THE PERMIT SET) WILL ASSIST IN PLAN REVIEW.
  
 32-36.) ADDRESSED.
  
 37.)SEE ATTACHED FS553.80(2)(B).NOTE THAT THIS IS A
 MANDATORY FINE AND CANNOT BE WAIVED.NOTE THAT SOME
 COMMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE THREE TIMES (ENERGY
 CALCS, LIFE SAFETY).A 4X PLAN REVIEW FEE HAS BEEN
 CHARGED.
  
 NEW COMMENTS:
  
 38.)SEE CIVIL SHEET 17 OF 29 PREPARED BY BOYER
 SINGLETON.THIS SHEET HAS A DATE OF FEBRUARY 12, 2007,
 NO CHANGES CLOUDED.THE SECOND BUILDING REVIEW WAS
 JANUARY 30, 2007.THIS IS EITHER A NEW SHEET OR
 CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE SHEET AND NOT INDICATED.ALL
 CHANGES TO THE PLAN ARE TO BE CLEARLY INDICATED WITH
 CLOUDS AND REVISION NUMBERS.WHEN CHANGES ARE
 SUBMITTED A COMPLETE NEW PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS I
 CANNOT DETERMINE SPECIFICALLY WHAT HAS CHANGED.NOTE
 THAT THE ARCHITECT (CORRECTLY) CLOUDED THE PAGE NUMBER
 TO SHOW NEW SHEETS.
  
 THE "TURNSTILE & HANDICAPPED SECURITY GATE" DETAIL ON
 SHEET 17 IS ILLEGIBLE.AS THIS DETAIL IS REQUIRED TO
 SHOW CODE COMPLIANCE (ACCESSIBILITY, EGRESS) PLEASE
 PROVIDE LEGIBLE DETAILS.
  
 4/12/07 ** IN THE MEETING WITH ARCHITECT ON 4/11/7, IT
 WAS DISCUSSED THAT THIS DETAIL IS ALSO IN THE ELECTRIC
 DRAWINGS.TO AVOID FURTHER PERMITTING DELAYS, DO NOT
 ADDRESS THIS COMMENT AT THIS TIME.FOR THE FUTURE,
 PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL DETAILS ARE REQUIRED TO BE
 LEGIBLE!!!WHEN ISSUING THE PERMIT I WILL MAKE A NOTE
 ON THE PLAN REFERRING TO THE APPROPRIATE ELECTRIC
 SHEET.
  
 39.)SHEET 18 OF 24 OF THE CIVIL DRAWINGS CONTAINS
 INFORMATION IN REGARDS TO THE FUEL TANK.THIS IS
 CURRENTLY IN THE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS UNDER SEPARATE
 PERMIT.AS THIS SHEET HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY ALL
 TRADES FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, AND TO AVOID HAVING
 INFORMATION IN THIS PERMIT WHICH CONFLICTS WITH OTHER
 PERMITS, PLEASE REMOVE THIS SHEET.
  
 40.)A3.0, THERE IS A NEW NOTE STATING THAT A
 SATELLITE DISH IS TO BE INSTALLED AND A SLEEVE PROVIDED
 IN THE TILT WALL PANEL.PROVIDE A DETAIL FOR THE
 SATELLITE DISH AND A SPECIFICATION FOR THE SLEEVE.THE
 WALL PANEL ENGINEER IS TO INCLUDE THIS INFORMATION IN
 HIS STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS.SEE SHEET PN10; THERE IS A
 NOTE ADDRESSING CORE DRILLING AFTER ERECTION.IT IS
 NOT CLEAR IF THIS SLEEVE IS TO BE PROVIDED IN THE PANEL
 WHEN IT IS CONSTRUCTED OR IF IT IS DRILLED AFTER
 ERECTION.IN EITHER CASE, IT REQUIRES THE APPROVAL OF
 THE WALL PANEL ENGINEER AND SHOULD ALSO BE ADDRESSED ON
 HIS DRAWINGS SO THAT THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS ARE
 CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS.
  
 **4/12/07** IN THE MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECT, IT WAS
 AGREED THAT THE STRUCTURE/WALL PANEL PERMIT IS TO BE
 REVISED AND THAT THIS PLAN WILL BE REVISED TO SHOW
 METHOD OF ATTACHMENT AND ALSO WILL STATE THAT SHOP
 DRAWINGS WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE.
  
 41.)A4.0, ELEVATION AND ENTRY DETAIL, SEE
 FBC11-4.13.7.WHEN SCALED, IT APPEARS TO MEET THE
 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT EXACTLY BUT PLEASE NOTE THAT
 REQUIREMENT ON THE PLAN.
  
 42.)SEE THE STRUCTURAL PAGES PREPARED AND SIGNED BY
 BRADLEY B. JOHNSON, PE.FS471, FAC61G15-23, THE SEAL
 IS NOT LEGIBLE.
  
 **4/12/07**IN THE MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECT AND
 CONTRACTOR, IT WAS AGREED THAT THE BEST COURSE OF
 ACTION WOULD BE TO SUBMIT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.THE
 ENGINEER HAS ORDERED A NEW SEAL.IF NEWLY SEALED
 SHEETS ARE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF RESUBMITTAL, I
 WILL ALLOW THE CONTRACTOR OR ARCHITECT TO BRING IN THE
 NEW SHEETS (NEW SEAL ONLY, NO CHANGE TO DRAWING) AFTER
 RESUBMITTAL PROVIDED THAT ALL OTHER COMMENTS FROM ALL
 PLANS EXAMINERS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.
  
 43.)***NEW COMMENT 4/12/07***THE ARCHITECT'S
 OBJECTION TO SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH ALL EXITING
 REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSIBLE EXITS IS NOTED.AS
 DISCUSSED, THE NEW LIFE SAFETY PLAN WILL SHOW
 COMPLIANCE AS REQUESTED ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT DOES NOT
 AGREE WITH THE REQUIREMENT.
  
 HOWEVER, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT REGARDING ITEMS #17 AND
 18.MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE ARCHITECT AGREES THAT
 TWO ARE REQUIRED AND ONLY ACCESSIBLE EXIT SERVING THE
 DISTRIBUTION AREAIS SHOWN ON THE PLAN, FOUR REVIEWS.
  
  
 TO EXPEDITE PLAN REVIEW, INCLUDE A RESPONSE LETTER
 INDICATING HOW EACH ITEM WAS ADDRESSED WHEN
 RESUBMITTING.


Account Summary | Usage Policy | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2005 – 2014, SunGard Pentamation, Inc & City of West Palm Beach, FL – All Rights Reserved