| 2020-01-03 14:09:08 | ***CORRECTIONS*** |
| | PETER E VALENTI |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-805-6673 |
| | |
| | FBC = FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 6TH EDITION (2017) |
| | FBC B = FBC BUILDING |
| | FBC EB = FBC EXISTING BUILDING |
| | FBC A = FBC ACCESSIBILITY |
| | FBC EC = FBC ENERGY CONSERVATION |
| | FBC R = FBC RESIDENTIAL |
| | FBC M = FBC MECHANICAL |
| | |
| | BUILDING REVIEW DENIED: |
| | |
| | THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE |
| | NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. |
| | PLEASE SEE (BELOW) COPY OF THE CONCERNS FROM THE |
| | BUILDING OFFICIAL (ROBERT BROWN) SENT OUT TO RICHARD |
| | ANDERSON BY EMAIL ON JUNE 14, 2019 AND HAVE THEM |
| | ADDRESSED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. |
| | |
| | SUBJECT: RE: PERMIT #18060021 AND REVISION #19050782 |
| | |
| | HELLO RICHARD, |
| | |
| | YOU HAVE REQUESTED A MEETING ON SITE. AS NONE OF THE |
| | PROPOSED ATTENDEES ARE ENGINEERS, SUCH A MEETING WOULD |
| | NOT BE PRODUCTIVE UNTIL WE GET A RESPONSE FROM YOUR |
| | ENGINEER ON THE FOLLOWING FUNDAMENTAL DETAILS THAT ARE |
| | MISSING FROM THE ENGINEER?S PLAN SHEET S-1. IN FACT |
| | HAVING THE ENGINEER ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS WOULD MAKE |
| | THE MEETING UNNECESSARY BECAUSE WE COULD THEN PASS THE |
| | PLANS AND DO THE INSPECTIONS. |
| | |
| | I SEE THAT DOUG HARVEY, ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL, |
| | DID THE INSPECTION ON 8/24/18 AND ENTERED THE NOTES |
| | THAT YOU INCLUDED IN YOUR EMAIL. I TRUST THAT YOU AND |
| | YOUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER (MASOOD HAJALI) HAVE REVIEWED |
| | THE ORIGINALLY PERMITTED PLANS AND ELEVATOR |
| | MANUFACTURER?S SPECIFICATION AND CAN SEE WHAT |
| | INFORMATION IS NEEDED FORM YOUR ENGINEER BECAUSE IT IS |
| | NOT INCLUDED IN THE ARCHITECT?S (NADER GOUBRAN) PLAN, |
| | OR THE ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER?S SPEC SHEETS. I HAVE |
| | LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENTS AND I FIND THAT THE ARCHITECTS? |
| | PLAN (SEE SCREEN SHOT BELOW) SIMPLY STATES THAT THE |
| | ELEVATOR LOAD CALCULATIONS WILL BE ENGINEERED PROVIDED |
| | ?BY OTHERS?, AND I HAVE ALSO LOOKED AT YOUR ENGINEER?S |
| | PLANS SUBMITTED UNDER REVISION #19050782. |
| | |
| | LOOKING AT ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE, I CAN SEE |
| | THAT THE FOLLOWING NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY HAVING YOUR |
| | ENGINEER SUBMIT ADDITIONAL DETAILS: |
| | |
| | POINT LOAD - THE ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER ADDRESSES THE |
| | REQUIRED SUPPORT AS A DISTRIBUTED LOAD INSTEAD OF A |
| | POINT LOAD, AND THAT IS OK, BUT THEIR SPECIFICATION |
| | STATES THAT THE FLOOR MUST BE ABLE TO SUPPORT 15 PSI |
| | (DRAWING D-PVE-KR-01 INSTALLATION SHEET AND |
| | SPECIFICATION SHEET ). THAT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF 2,160 |
| | PSF, WHICH EXCEEDS TYPICAL FLOOR SLAB LOADING. THE |
| | MANUFACTURER?S SPECIFICATION IS NOT VERY CLEAR, BUT IT |
| | WOULD APPEAR THAT THE LOADING WILL BE LOCALIZED AT FOUR |
| | COLUMNS WITHIN THE ELEVATOR CYLINDER. YOUR ENGINEER?S |
| | PLANS DO NOT ADDRESS THE REQUIRED SUPPORT LOADING AT |
| | ALL. WE WILL REQUIRE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING |
| | CALCULATIONS AND DETAILS TO SHOW HOW THE ELEVATOR CAN |
| | BE SAFELY SUPPORTED BY THE FLOOR SLAB. |
| | |
| | ATTACHMENT TO FLOOR - THE ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER |
| | SPECIFICATION DOES NOT STATE HOW THE ELEVATOR IS TO BE |
| | ANCHORED TO THE SLAB TO STOP IS FROM SHIFTING AND/OR |
| | VIBRATING ON THE SLAB. AGAIN, YOUR ENGINEER?S PLANS DO |
| | NOT ADDRESS THIS AT ALL. |
| | |
| | ATTACHMENT TO MID RAIL - THE ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER |
| | SPECIFICATION (DRAWING D-TYP-H-04 MOUNTING OPTIONS |
| | SHEET) STATES THAT THE ?BALCONY BAND? SHOULD BE A 2? |
| | WIDE STEEL STRAP OR ?EQUAL OR GREATER SUBSTITUTE?. YOUR |
| | ENGINEER?S PLAN SHOWS THE SUBSTITUTE AS ?? DIA. CABLE |
| | STRAP ?BY MANUFACTURER?. THE MANUFACTURER HAS NOT |
| | SPECIFIED ?? DIA. CABLE STRAP AND HAS NOT STATED THAT |
| | THE EXTERNAL CYLINDER OF THE ELEVATOR CAN WITHSTAND THE |
| | APPLIED RESTRAINT PRESSURE FROM A ?? DIA. CABLE WHICH |
| | WILL BE MORE THAN FOUR TIMES THE PRESSURE THAT WOULD BE |
| | APPLIED BY THE RECOMMENDED 2? WIDE STEEL STRAP. THE |
| | ENGINEER WOULD HAVE TO JUSTIFY THE SUBSTITUTION BY |
| | LOOKING AT THE CRUSHING PRESSURE DUE TO USING A ?? DIA. |
| | CABLE INSTEAD A 2? WIDE STEEL STRAP WHICH HAS MUCH MORE |
| | CONTACT AREA AGAINST THAT ELEVATOR CYLINDER. |
| | |
| | WOOD LANDING - THE ENGINEER?S PLAN SHEET S-1 SHOWS A |
| | NEW WOOD LANDING CANTILEVERED UP TO 16? OFF THE EDGE OF |
| | THE EXISTING SLAB WITH THE ?WOOD HEADER? HAVING ONLY |
| | ONE SCREW AT MID-DEPTH ATTACHING IT TO THE EDGE OF THE |
| | SLAB, AND THE WOOD ?RAFTERS? (WHICH ARE ACTUALLY |
| | CANTILEVERS) ARE NOT EVEN POSITIVELY ATTACHED TO THE |
| | ?WOOD HEADER?. THE ENGINEER?S DETAIL D3 SHOWS THEM |
| | SIMPLY SITTING IN AN UNSPECIFIED ?SIMPSON BRACKET? THAT |
| | IS SHOWN AS A JOIST HANGER. A CANTILEVER STRUCTURE |
| | CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BY JOIST HANGERS BECAUSE SUCH |
| | HANGERS ARE ONLY DESIGNED FOR GRAVITY LOAD, NOT |
| | CANTILEVER MOMENT LOAD. |
| | |
| | GUARDRAIL FOR NEW LANDING - THE ENGINEER SHALL ADD MORE |
| | INFORMATION TO DETAIL D1 AND D2 TO SHOW HOW THE |
| | GUARDRAIL IS SUPPORTED FROM THE WOOD LANDING. THE WOOD |
| | LANDING AS CURRENTLY DETAILED DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE |
| | CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE GUARDRAIL AND THE LOADS AT |
| | WOULD BE INDUCED BY PEOPLE LEANING ON THE GAURDRAIL |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | REGARDS, |
| | |
| | ROBERT BROWN, CBO |
| | BUILDING OFFICIAL / BUILDING DIVISION MANAGER |
| | CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH |
| | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ? BUILDING DIVISION |
| | (561) 805 6652 |
| | MEMBER OF BOAF: BUILDING OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION OF |
| | FLORIDA SAVING LIVES AND PROPERTY SINCE 1953 |
| | |
| | PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO COMPLETE OUR ANONYMOUS ON-LINE |
| | CUSTOMER SERVICE SURVEY AT: |
| | HTTP://WWW.SURVEYMONKEY.COM/WESTPALMBEACHCONSTRUCTIONSE |
| | RVICES |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE: FLORIDA HAS A VERY BROAD PUBLIC RECORDS |
| | LAW. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM LOCAL OFFICIALS |
| | REGARDING CITY BUSINESS ARE PUBLIC RECORD, AVAILABLE TO |
| | THE PUBLIC UPON REQUEST. YOUR E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS ARE |
| | THEREFORE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. |
| | |
