| Date |
Text |
| 2003-08-04 00:00:00 | 3RD CHECKLIST.SEE THE ATTACHED FORM |
| | RE: FL. STATUTE 553.80(2)(B) AND FEE |
| | REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | THE STAIRS SHOWN AS #122 DO NOT PROVIDE |
| | A PROTECTED PATH TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE |
| | BUILDING AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY IN MY |
| | LISTSDATED 7/02/03 AND 7/24/03. |
| | |
| | THE ARCHITECT'S CORRIDOR DESIGN DOES |
| | NOT COMPLY WITH THAT REQUIRED FOR A |
| | STAIRSHAFT OR AN "EXIT PASSAGEWAY" AS |
| | DECLARED IN HIS LETTER DATED 7/29/03. |
| | |
| | AN EXIT PASSAGEWAY AS DESCRIBED IN FBC |
| | 1010.3 REQUIRES |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH FBC 1006.1.3 |
| | AND FBC 1006.1.3.1, FBC TABLE 705.1.2 |
| | AND FBC 704.2.1.2. |
| | |
| | 1006.1.3 STATES THAT THE STAIRWAY |
| | ENCLOSURE MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER |
| | PURPOSE THAN MEANS OF EGRESS. |
| | |
| | 1006.1.3.1 PROHIBITS ANY PENETRATIONS |
| | EXCEPT FOR THOSE NECESSARY FOR THE |
| | STAIR SHAFT ITSELF. |
| | |
| | THE ARCHITECT HAS AN ELEVATOR LOBBY, A/C |
| | RETURN FROM THE OFFICES AND AN A/C |
| | SUPPLY ABOVE THE CEILING WITHIN THE |
| | CORRIDOR. |
| | |
| | THE UL P 204 CEILING DESIGN IS WITHOUT |
| | STANDING BECAUSE IT IS A ROOF CEILING |
| | DESIGN, AND NOT A "SHAFT" DESIGN, IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH 704.2.1.2 AS NOTED IN |
| | FBC 1010.3 CITED ABOVE.EVEN THAT THE |
| | CEILING DESIGN WAS A FLOOR CEILING |
| | DESIGN WHICH MORE CLOSELY APPROXIMATES |
| | THIS SITUATION, IT IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE |
| | SOLUTION SINCE ITS INTENT IS TO PROTECT |
| | THE STRUCTURE ABOVE AND NOT PEOPLE |
| | WITHIN THE EXIT PASSAGE WAY LIKE A |
| | SHAFT DESIGN WOULD.PLEASE REVISE AS |
| | NECESSARY. |
| | |
| | FBC TABLE 705.1.2, FOR SHAFTS LESS THAN |
| | FOUR STORIES, REQUIRES 1 HOUR OPENING |
| | PROTECTIVES.THE ARCHITECT NOW SHOWS |
| | DOORS AS "C".SEE FBC 705.1.3.2.1, FOR |
| | FIRE DOOR CLASSIFICATIONS AS WAS |
| | PREVIOUSLY NOTED, AND REVISE AS |
| | NECESSARY.SEE ALSO FBC 705.1.3.4. |
| | |
| | THE SIX PAGES TITLED USA CALCULATIONS |
| | HAVING ONLY A "RECEIVED" DATE STAMP FOR |
| | AHRENS COMPANIES, ARE NOT SIGNED, SEALED |
| | OR DATED WITH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND |
| | AN EMBOSSED SEAL NOR ANY OF THE PAGES |
| | NUMBERED. |
| | |
| | SEVERAL COPIES OF PAGES OF THE FBC WERE |
| | INCLUDED WITH THE MOST RECENT SUBMITTAL. |
| | AMONGST THEM IS PAGE 2.10 WITH THE |
| | DEFINITION OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE HAVING A |
| | HIGHLIGHT, A CIRCLE, AN ARROW AND AN |
| | UNDERLINE. |
| | |
| | THE ARCHITECT'S LETTER OF 7/29/03 IN |
| | ITEM #7 TENDERS THE ARGUMENT THAT |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH "EITHER OF THE |
| | FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS" IS |
| | SATISFACTORY.I AGREE.NOW PLEASE |
| | DEMONSTRATE HOW THE FOAM "STRUCTURAL |
| | BASE" SANDWICHED WITHIN THOSE PANELS IS |
| | NON-COMBUSTIBLE WHEN TESTED TO E136 IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRST CLAUSE OF |
| | CONDITION #2.I STIPULATE THAT THE |
| | SURFACING OF ALUMINUM SKIN IS LESS THAN |
| | 1/8" THICK AND PASSES E84. |
| | |
| | THE ARCHITECT'S LETTER REFERENCES FBC |
| | 606, 707 AND 2603.4. AT ISSUE IS NOT |
| | THAT OF INSULATION, OR COMBUSTIBLES IN |
| | CONCEALED SPACES, BUT THAT OF A |
| | STRUCTURAL COMPONENT ASSEMBLY REQUIRED |
| | TO BE NON-COMBUSTIBLE BY TABLE 600. |
| | |
| | THIS IS THE THIRD REQUEST FOR THE |
| | SPECIALTY ENGINEER'S INVESTIGATION OF |
| | THE COMPONENTS AND CLADDING. |
| | |
| | I HAVE REVIEWED THE FACSIMILES FROM |
| | ALUMASHIELD DATED 7/29/03 WHICH STATES |
| | THE PRODUCT IS INELIGIBLE TO BE TESTED |
| | AS NON-COMBUSTIBLE. |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE THE CONSTRUCTION METHOD |
| | FOR THE THROUGH PENETRATION PROTECTION |
| | THE EXIT PASSAGEWAY BY THE BAR JOISTS. |
| | SEE FBC 705.5.1.2. |
