| Date |
Text |
| 2007-09-23 19:46:24 | BUILDING PLAN REVIEW |
| | *******DENIED******* |
| | ROBERT BROWN(561) 805 6652 |
| | E-MAIL: [email protected] |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW OF REVISION FOR INCREASE IN NUMBER OF |
| | STORIES FROM 5 TO 8 STORIES. |
| | |
| | FBC = FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2001 |
| | FBC*= FLORIDA BUILD'G CODE (CITY AMEND) |
| | F.S.= FLORIDA (STATE) STATUTE |
| | |
| | FOR CONSISTENCY, THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE NUMBERED AS |
| | PER THE BUILDING PLAN REVIEW OF 12/10/06: |
| | |
| | 1) FBC* 104.6.5BUILDING PERMIT VALUATION.THE |
| | PROPOSED INCREASE IN BUILDING AREA WILL INCREASE THE |
| | VALUE OF THE PROJECT FOR PERMIT FEE CALCULATION |
| | PURPOSES.THE VALUE CURRENTLY STATED IS $5,362,279 AND |
| | THE FEES PAID TO DATE WERE BASED ON THAT VALUE.THE |
| | VALUE, CALCULATED USING THE SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE |
| | CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL (SBCCI) VALUATION TABLES FOR THE |
| | PROPOSED INCREASED BUILDING AREA, IS $8,268,362.IN |
| | ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE PROPOSED REVISION, THE PERMIT |
| | APPLICATION FEE WOULD HAVE TO BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY, |
| | SO THERE WOULD BE AN OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF $32,257.53. |
| | THIS ADDITIONAL FEE AMOUNT WILL HAVE TO BE PAID BEFORE |
| | THE PLANS REVISED PLANS CAN BE STAMPED. |
| | |
| | 2) RADON FEES.THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN BUILDING AREA |
| | WILL INCREASE THE RADON FEES.THE RADON FEES PAID TO |
| | DATE AMOUNT TO $532.96.THE TOTAL RADON FEES FOR THE |
| | PROPOSED BUILDING AREA WOULD BE $799.72.THE |
| | DIFFERENCE IS $266.76 AND THIS AMOUNT WOULD HAVE TO BE |
| | PAIDBEFORE THE REVISED PLANS CAN BE STAMPED. |
| | |
| | 3)IMPACT FEES. THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN BUILDING AREA |
| | WILL INCREASE THE IMPACT FEES DUE.THE PLANS SHALL BE |
| | TAKEN TO PALM BEACH COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR |
| | CALCULATION OF THE ADDITIONAL IMPACT FEES. THEY SHALL |
| | BE STAMPED AT THAT OFFICE AND A COPY OF THE PAID |
| | RECEIPT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH DEPT |
| | OF CONSTRUCTION SERVICES BEFORE THE REVISED PLANS CAN |
| | BE STAMPED. |
| | |
| | 4) FBC TABLE 500ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT.CONTRARY |
| | TO THE SUBMITTED RESPONSE LETTER, THE ARCHITECTURAL |
| | PLANS DO NOT SHOW THAT THE COLUMNS WILL HAVE 3-HOUR |
| | FIRE RESISTANCE RATING.THERE IS NO NOTE IN THE |
| | ARCHOTECTURAL OR STRUCTURAL PLANS STATING THAT THE |
| | COLUMN FIRE RESISTANCE RATING IS 3-HOURS.NO "VOIDED" |
| | (PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED) STRUCTURAL SHEETS, AND NOT ALL |
| | "VOIDED" ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS, WERE SUBMITTED FOR |
| | COMPARISON WITH THE PROPOSED PLANS, AND SHEETS S-1 AND |
| | S-2 DO NOT INDICATE ANY CHANGE TO THE COLUMN SIZES. |
| | 3-HOUR FIRE RESISTANCE RATED COLUMNS ARE REQUIRED |
| | THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING BECUSE FOR RESIDENTIAL |
| | OCCUPANCY (INCLUDING R-1 HOTEL) THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A |
| | BUILDING OF TYPE II CONSTRUCTION IS 80 FEET UNLESS |
| | FOOTNOTE (A) ALLOWS HEIGHT MODIFICATION. FOOTNOTE |
| | (A)(7) REFERS TO FBC 503.2.6 FOR RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY. |
| | FBC 503.2.6 STATES THAT THE HEIGHT OF RESIDENTIAL |
| | OCCUPANCY, IN BUILDINGS OF TYPE II CONSTRUCTION, CAN BE |
| | UNLIMITED PROVIDED THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF ALL COLUMNS |
| | IS NOT LESS THAN 3 HOURS. THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF THE |
| | BUILDING DOES EXCEED 80 FEET, SO THE PLANS MUST BE |
| | AMENDED TO SHOW ALL COLUMNS TO HAVE A FIRE RESISTANCE |
| | RATING OF NOT LESS THAN THREE HOURS. |
| | |
| | 6) FBC 412.6.1ELEVATOR LOBBY DOORS ARE REQUIRED TO |
| | HAVE A 20-MINUTE FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING.THE NOTE |
| | ADDED TO SHEET A-125 DOES SHOW A REQUIREMENT FOR A |
| | 20-MINUTE FIRE RESISTANCE RATED DOOR AT THE ELEVATOR |
| | LOBBY/CORRIDOR BUT IT HAS NO ANNOTATION AT THE ELEVATOR |
| | LOBBY/VESTIBULE.ALSO, THE DOOR SCHEDULE HAS NOT BEEN |
| | UPDATED TO CORRELATE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT.DOORS |
| | 299D, 299E, 399C, 399E, 499C, 499E, 599C, 599E, 699C, |
| | 699E, 799C, 799E, 899C AND 899E ARE ALL REQUIRED TO BE |
| | 20-MINUTE DOORS.THE DOOR SCHEDULE ON SHEET A-604 DOES |
| | NOT SHOW THESE DOORS AS FIRE RESISTANCE RATED.AMEND |
| | THE DOOR SCHEDULE TO CLEARLY SHOW THE REQUIRED FIRE |
| | RESISTANCE RATINGS FOR THESE DOORS.20-MINUTE FIRE |
| | RESISTANCE RATED DOORS ARE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE |
| | BUILDING AS REVISED WILL BE CLASSIFIED AS 'HIGH RISE' |
| | BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE OCCUPIED FLOORS MORE THAN 75 FEET |
| | ABOVE FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS LEVEL.1-HOUR FIRE |
| | RESISTANT ELEVATOR LOBBIES, WITH 20-MINUTE LOBBY DOORS, |
| | ARE REQUIRED ON ALL FLOORS ABOVE THE MAIN ENTRANCE |
| | LEVEL. |
| | |
| | 11) FBC 11-4.1.3(5)ELEVATOR ACCESS TO ROOF UPPER |
| | DECK.IT IS NOTED THAT SHEET A-111 HAS BEEN REVISED TO |
| | SHOW AN ACCESSIBLE RAMP FROM THE UPPER DECK TO THE |
| | LOWER DECK.HOWEVER, NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO |
| | SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH RAMP SLOPE, LANDING AND HANDRAIL |
| | REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 13) FBC 13-103.1.2THIS COMMENT HAS NOT BEEN |
| | ADDRESSED.THE SUBMITTED REVISED ENERGY CODE |
| | COMPLIANCE FORM SHALL BE SIGNED (ON PAGE 2) BY THE |
| | BUILDING OWNER, THE OWNER'S ARCHITECT OR OTHER |
| | AUTHORIZED AGENT LEGALLY DESIGNATED BY THE OWNER. ALSO, |
| | THREE SIGNED COPIES OF THE ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE FORM |
| | ARE REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 14) FBC* 104.2.1CROSS-SECTIONS A-302/B-B AND |
| | A-304/D-D HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT THE FACT THE |
| | THAT ELEVATOR STOPS AT THE UPPER DECK LEVEL AND THAT |
| | THERE IS NOW AN ACCESSIBLE RAMP FROM THE UPPER DECK TO |
| | THE LOWER DECK. |
| | |
| | |
| | **QUOTE PERMIT# ON ALL CORRESPONDENCE** |
| | |
| | END OF REVIEW COMMENTS |
| | THE CODE REFERENCES GIVE ADDITIONAL INFO TELEPHONE: |
| | (561) 805 6652ROBERT BROWN |
| | E-MAIL: [email protected] |
