Date |
Text |
2008-12-22 09:45:29 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| |
| SAMANTHA HILL, BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| 561-805-6724 [email protected] |
| |
| FBC FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 |
| FBC EB FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 EXISTING BUILDING |
| CODE |
| FBC R FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 RESIDENTIAL |
| FBC* CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH AMENDMENTS TO THE FBC2004 |
| FAC FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE |
| FS FLORIDA STATUTE |
| |
| 1-5.) ADDRESSED. |
| |
| 6.) PROVIDE A SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT FBC1802.2. TWO |
| ORIGINALS REQUIRED. |
| |
| 2ND REVIEW, SEE THE SOILS REPORT AND FAC61G15-23.002, |
| ENGINEERING REPORTS MUST BE SIGNED, SEALED AND DATED ON |
| A SIGNATURE PAGE OR COVER LETTER BY EACH PROFESSIONAL |
| ENGINEER WHO IS IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OF ANY PORTION OF |
| THE REPORT, AND IF PRACTICING THROUGH A DULY AUTHORIZED |
| ENGINEERING BUSINESS, THE NAME, ADDRESS AND CERTIFICATE |
| OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER OF THE ENGINEERING BUSINESS. |
| THE SIGNATURES ARE TO BE ORIGINALS, NOT PHOTOCOPIES. |
| |
| 3RD REVIEW, CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NOT INCLUDED |
| ON THE REPORT AND SIGNATURE IS A PHOTOCOPY, |
| FAC61G15-23.002. |
| |
| 4TH REVIEW, SAME PAPERWORK SUBMITTED. CERTIFICATE OF |
| AUTHORIZATION IS TO BE INCLUDED ON THE SOILS REPORT, |
| ORIGINAL SIGNATURE REQUIRED FAC61G15-23.002. |
| |
| 7.) ADDRESSED. |
| |
| 8.) PARKING STRIPING IS TO COMPLY WITH CITY OF WEST |
| PALM BEACH STANDARD, SEE ATTACHED DETAIL. REVISE C1. |
| |
| ENGINEER?S RESPONSE IS THAT THE CONTRACTOR WILL |
| ADDRESS. AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IS REQUIRED, AS WELL AS |
| ACCESSIBLE PARKING. THEREFORE, IT APPEARS THAT THE SITE |
| PLAN PREPARED BY AB DESIGN IS REQUIRED FOR CODE |
| COMPLIANCE. |
| |
| SHEET 1, THE PARKING DETAIL DOES NOT MATCH THE SITE |
| PLAN ON THE SAME PAGE. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS A WHEEL |
| STOP, PARKING DETAIL SHOWS A VEHICLE OVERHANG. |
| COMPLIANCE NOT CLEAR, SEE FBC11-4.6.3, OVERHANG SHALL |
| NOT REDUCE THE CLEAR WIDTH OF ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. |
| |
| SEE ALSO COMMENT 23 FROM FIRST LIST; SHOW THE WIDTH OF |
| THE SIDEWALK (ROUTE FROM THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING TO THE |
| FRONT ENTRY), FBC11-4.6.2(1). |
| |
| 3RD REVIEW, SIDEWALK WIDTH NOT INDICATED |
| FBC11-4.6.2(1). STRIPING DETAIL NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH |
| CITY STANDARDS. |
| |
| 4TH REVIEW, IT IS UNCLEAR WHAT YOU ARE USING FOR A SITE |
| PLAN. SAME PLANS SUBMITTED, SOME PHOTOCOPY PLANS WERE |
| SUBMITTED (DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY AN ENGINEER TO BE |
| SIGNED,SEALED, DATED ORIGINALS FS471), COMMENTS NOT |
| ADDRESSED. PLEASE VOID OUT SHEETS SUBMITTED AS |
| REFERENCE AND PROVIDE PLANS WHICH SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH |
| THE ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. |
| |
| 9-22.) ADDRESSED. |
| |
| 23.) FROM FIRST LIST; COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED. SHOW THE |
| SIDEWALK WIDTH ON THE PLAN, SIDEWALK BETWEEN ACCESSIBLE |
| PARKING AND THE BUILDING. C1 SHOWS A 44INCH SIDEWALK, |
| WITH A NOTE "SIDEWALK AS SHOWN ON PLAN" BUT THE |
| ENGINEER'S PLAN DOESN'T SHOW ANY SIDEWALKS. THE |
| LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S PLAN DOES NOT DIMENSION THE |
| SIDEWALK ALTHOUGH IT IS THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE, AND THERE |
| IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PARKING DETAIL AND THE |
| PARKING SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN, BOTH ON AB DESIGN PAGE |
| 1. THE PARKING DETAIL SHOWS A VEHICLE OVERHANG, PLAN |
| SHOWS A WHEEL STOP. SEE FBC11-4.6.3, VEHICLE OVERHANGS |
| CANNOT REDUCE THE CLEAR WIDTH. DESIGN INTENT IS NOT |
| CLEAR. |
| |
| 2ND REVIEW, ENGINEER REMOVED SIDEWALK FROM PLAN, |
| RESPONSE LETTER STATES THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED BY |
| CONTRACTOR. PLEASE REVISE SITE PLAN TO SHOW CODE |
| COMPLIANCE. |
| |
| 3RD REVIEW, CIVIL SHEETS SUBMITTED AND OTHER SITE PLANS |
| PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED REMOVED. THE NEW SHEETS DO NOT |
| SHOW THE SIDEWALK WIDTH, FBC11-4.6.2(1), SEE ALSO |
| COMMENT 8. |
| |
| 4TH REVIEW, SEE ITEM 8. |
| |
| 24-39.) ADDRESSED. |
| |
| 40.) AS DISCUSSED, ALL GLAZING WILL BE IMPACT RATED. |
| PLEASE SUBMIT PRODUCT APPROVALS FOR THE STOREFRONT |
| GLASS AND FRONT DOOR. PRODUCT APPROVALS ARE TO BE |
| REVIEWED BY THE DESIGNER OF RECORD PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL |
| FBC*106. |
| |
| 4TH REVIEW, PLANS WERE SUBMITTED WITH A RESPONSE |
| STATING THAT THE GLAZING WILL BE NON IMPACT WITH |
| ACCORDIONS. THE DOOR IS AN OUTSWING DOOR SO CANNOT BE |
| OPERATED FROM THE INSIDE, SEE FBC1003.6, FBC1008.1.3.5. |
| PLEASE ADVISE AS TO WHERE IN THE CODE BLOCKING A |
| REQUIRED EXIT IS PERMISSIBLE. |
| |
| 41.) FOR THE ROOF, SELECT THE APPROVED ASSEMBLY AND |
| SPECIFY ENHANCED FASTENING FOR ZONES 2 AND 3. THIS CAN |
| BE DONE AT THE TIME OF ROOF PERMIT APPLICATION. |
| |
| THE PRODUCT APPROVAL FOR THE ROOF HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM |
| THE PACKAGE. THIS IS REQUIRED, REVIEWED BY DESIGNER OF |
| RECORD. OTHER INFORMATION (ASSEMBLY, ENHANCED |
| FASTENING) CAN BE SUBMITTED WITH THE ROOF PERMIT. |
| |
| 4TH REVIEW, ALL PRODUCT APPROVALS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY |
| DESIGNER OF RECORD FBC*106. |
| |
| 42.) SOME OF THE NOAS SUBMITTED ARE DIFFICULT TO READ. |
| PLEASE PROVIDE LEGIBLE COPIES. THEY MAY BE AVAILABLE AT |
| WWW.BUILDINGCODEONLINE.COM. |
| |
| PLEASE SEE THE ROLLUP DOOR PRODUCT APPROVAL. IT IS |
| ILLEGIBLE AND I CANNOT FIND/READ DESIGN PRESSURES. |
| PLEASE MARK ON THE FLORIDA STATE PRODUCT APPROVAL WHICH |
| PRODUCT YOU ARE USING AND SUBMIT COMPLETE, LEGIBLE |
| DOCUMENTS FOR THAT PRODUCT. THIS IS AVAILABLE AT |
| WWW.FLORIDABUILDING.ORG |
| |
| 3RD REVIEW, THE GARAGE DOOR PRODUCT APPROVAL HAS A |
| DESIGN PRESSURE LIMITATION OF +-30PSF. +33.7/-36.7 |
| REQUIRED, SEE PAGE A3. |
| |
| 4TH REVIEW, DESIGNER OF RECORD TO REVIEW ALL PRODUCT |
| APPROVALS FBC*106. THE GARAGE DOOR PRODUCT APPROVAL |
| SUBMITTED DOES NOT MEET THE DESIGN PRESSURE |
| REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| |
| 43.) ADDRESSED. |
| |
| 44-45.) AS DISCUSSED, ALL GLAZING WILL BE IMPACT RATED. |
| |
| 4TH REVIEW, THE RESPONSE LETTER STATES THAT ACCORDIONS |
| WILL BE USED. A SEPARATE PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED. THE |
| EXIT DOORS ARE TO BE IMPACT, FBC1003.6, FBC1008.1.3.5. |
| |
| 46-51.) ADDRESSED. |
| |
| NEW COMMENT: |
| |
| THE CONTRACTOR MAY CONTACT ME TO DISCUSS HOW THESE |
| ITEMS COULD BE RESOLVED. |
| |