| Date |
Text |
| 2007-09-15 14:22:11 | REVISION 11 1ST REVIEW |
| | ACTION: DENIED |
| | |
| | FBC 2004 W/ 2005 SUPPLEMENTS |
| | FBC CH.1 AS AMENDED BY THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH |
| | |
| | NOTE: A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OR NARRATIVE OF CHANGES |
| | BEING MADE AS PART OF A REVISION, WHILE NOT REQUIRED, |
| | WOULD BE HELPFUL IN DETERMINING THE NATURE AND EXTENT |
| | OF CHANGES AND WOULD HELP EXPEDITE THE REVIEW PROCESS. |
| | THIS IS ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE SEVERAL AREAS ON |
| | PLANS WHICH ARE CLOUDED, YET CONTAIN NO DISCERNABLE |
| | DIFFERENCES FROM THE PREVIOUS PERMIT SET OF PLANS |
| | (REV.8). |
| | |
| | 1. THERE ARE SOME MECHANICAL PAGES INCLUDED IN THIS |
| | REVISION WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN REV.10. COMMENTS FROM |
| | THE REVIEW OF REV.10 MECHANICAL PLANS HAVE NOT BEEN |
| | ADDRESSED. THEREFORE, ANY PAGES WHICH HAVE OUTSTANDING |
| | COMMENTS FROM REV.10 WILL NOT BE REVIEWED AT THIS |
| | TIME: |
| | M1-1.3, M1-2.3, M1-3.3, M1-4.3, M1-5.3 |
| | |
| | THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE BASED ON A SET OF REV.11 |
| | PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN MARKED-UP TO DEMONSTRATE THE |
| | EXTENT AND LOCATION OF CODE DEFICIENCIES. PER A |
| | CONVERSATION WITH WPB FIRE MARSHAL MIKE CARSILLO AND |
| | GEORGE WANDOVER OF MEINHART ENGINEERS, A MEETING MAY BE |
| | NECESSARY TO GO OVER THE COMMENTS AND DETERMINE THE |
| | BEST COURSE OF ACTION IN ADDRESSING THE COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | 2. M1-1.1: THERE ARE NUMEROUS DUCT PENETRATIONS AND |
| | TRANSFER OPENINGS WHICH ARE CURRENTLY PROTECTED BY FIRE |
| | DAMPERS BUT ALSO REQUIRE PROTECTION BY SMOKE DAMPERS. |
| | BASED ON THE LOCATION OF FIRE RATED CORRIDORS AS SHOWN |
| | ON LS1-1.1, SMOKE DAMPERS ARE REQUIRED AT ALL DUCT |
| | PENETRATIONS AND AIR TRANSFER OPENINGS IN SMOKE |
| | BARRIERS OR CORRIDORS WHICH REQUIRE SMOKE AND DRAFT |
| | CONTROL DOORS IN ACORDANCE WITH FBC, BUILDING. SEE |
| | FBC,M 607.5.4 AND FBC 715.3.3. AT LEAST ONE DUCT (AT |
| | ROOM A1.207 IS MISSING BOTH FIRE AND SMOKE DAMPERS. SEE |
| | MARKED-UP PLAN FOR LOCATIONS. |
| | |
| | 3. M1-1.1: EXHAUST DUCTS FOR EF-1 AND EF-5 ARE |
| | PENETRATING A SHAFT ENCLOSURE AT THE 2ND FLOOR/CEILING |
| | ASSEMBLY ABOVE ROOM A1.207. THESE PENETRATIONS SHALL BE |
| | PROTECTED BY BOTH FIRE AND SMOKE DAMPERS IN ACCORDANCE |
| | WITH FBC,M 607.5.5.1. NO OPENING PROTECTIVES ARE SHOWN |
| | ON PLAN. |
| | |
| | 4. M1-1.2: SEE COMMENT #2 REGARDING DUCT PENETRATIONS |
| | AND AIR TRANSFER OPENINGS PENETRATING LOBBY C1.008. SEE |
| | MARKED-UP PLANS FOR LOCATION. |
| | |
| | 5. M1-1.2: EF-4 RISER DUCT IS REQUIRED TO BE ENCLOSED |
| | IN SHAFT CONSTRUCTION PER FBC 707.2. DUCTS PENETRATING |
| | THIS ENCLOSURE REQUIRE FIRE AND SMOKE DAMPERS AS |
| | OPENING PROTECTIVES PER FBC,M 607.5.5.1. |
| | |
| | 6. M1-2.1: SEE COMMENT #2 REGARDING DUCT PENETRATIONS |
| | AND AIR TRANSFER OPENINGS PENETRATING CORRIDOR A2.007 |
| | AND STAIR A2.003. SEE MARKED-UP PLAN FOR LOCATIONS. |
| | |
| | 7. M1-2.1: THERE ARE AT LEAST 5 SMOKE DAMPERS SHOWN ON |
| | PLANS WHICH ARE NOT REQUIRED BY CODE AS THEY ARE NOT |
| | LOCATED IN EITHER A SMOKE BARRIER OR A FIRE-RATED |
| | CORRIDOR. SEE MARKED-UP PLANS FOR LOCATIONS. THEY MAY |
| | STILL BE INSTALLED IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY DESIGN. |
| | HOWEVER, A DETERMINATION IS NEEDED DUE TO THE |
| | OUTSTANDING ISSUE OF HOW SMOKE DAMPERS IN THIS BUILDING |
| | ARE TO BE CONTROLLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FBC,M 607.5.4.1 |
| | ABSENT FULL-COVERAGE SMOKE DETECTION IN THE BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 8. M1-2.1: OFFICE A2.404 HAS NO SUPPLY AIR. THE SUPPLY |
| | DROP FOR THIS ROOM APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MISTAKENLY |
| | SHOWN IN CONFERENCE A2.405. PLEASE CORRECT. |
| | |
| | 9.M1-2.1: SMOKE EXHAUST DUCTS AT THE ATRIUM SHOW FIRE |
| | DAMPERS AT WALL PENETRATIONS. WHERE THE INSTALLATION OF |
| | A FIRE DAMPER WILL INTERFERE WITH THE OPERATION OF A |
| | REQUIRED SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH FBC,M |
| | SECTION 513, APPROVED ALTERNATIVE PROTECTION SHALL BE |
| | UTILIZED PER FBC,M 607.2.1. COMBINATION FIRE/SMOKE |
| | DAMPERS WHICH ARE CONTROLLED BY THE SMOKE CONTROL |
| | SYSTEM ARE CALLED FOR ON THE SMOKE CONTROL RISER |
| | DIAGRAM ON M4-1.0 AND WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENT FOR |
| | APPROVED ALTERNATIVE PROTECTION. |
| | |
| | 10. M1-2.2: EF-4 RISER, EXHAUST DUCT PENETRATION OF |
| | SHAFT REQUIRES FIRE AND SMOKE DAMPERS AS OPENING |
| | PROTECTIVE PER FBC,M 607.5.5.1 |
| | |
| | 11. M1-2.3 WAS NOT REVIEWED. HOWEVER, SEE MARKED-UP |
| | PLANS FOR CONCERNS PRIOR TO RESUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 12. M1-3.1: SEE COMMENT #7 REGARDING SMOKE DAMPERS. SEE |
| | MARKED-UP PLAN FOR LOCATIONS. |
| | |
| | 13. M1-3.2: STAIR 10 C3.001 HAS DUCTS FROM RTU-1 ABOVE |
| | WITHIN THE STAIR ENCLOSURE. PENETRATIONS OF STAIR |
| | ENCLOSURES BY DUCTS OTHER THAN THOSE REQUIRED FOR |
| | INDEPENDENT PRESSURIZATIONAND VENTILATION OF THE |
| | STAIR ARE PROHIBITED BY FBC 1019.1.2 AND 1019.1.2. |
| | |
| | 14. M1-3.2: SEE COMMENT #2 REGARDING DUCT PENETRATIONS |
| | AND AIR TRANSFER OPENINGS PENETRATING MULTIPLE |
| | CORRIDORS AND LOBBY C3.303. SEE MARKED-UP PLANS FOR |
| | LOCATION. |
| | |
| | 15. M1-3.2: SEE COMMENT #7 REGARDING SMOKE DAMPERS. SEE |
| | MARKED-UP PLAN FOR LOCATIONS. |
| | |
| | 16. M1-4.1: SERVER ROOM A4.416, ALL DUCT PENETRATIONS |
| | OF THIS ROOM EXCEPT ONE ARE PROTECTED WITH BOTH FIRE |
| | AND SMOKE DAMPERS. ONE TRANSFER DUCT COMMUNICATING WITH |
| | OPEN WORK A4.311 HAS A FIRE DAMPER BUT NO SMOKE DAMPER. |
| | WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS TRANSFER AND WHY DOES IT |
| | NOT REQUIRE THE SAME PROTECTION AS THE OTHER DUCTS? |
| | |
| | 17. M1-4.1: SEE COMMENT #7 REGARDING SMOKE DAMPERS. SEE |
| | MARKED-UP PLAN FOR LOCATIONS. |
| | |
| | 18. M1-5.1: SEE COMMENT #7 REGARDING SMOKE DAMPERS. SEE |
| | MARKED-UP PLAN FOR LOCATIONS. |
| | |
| | THE FOLLOWING PAGES HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE |
| | COMPLIANCE AND STAMPED: |
| | |
| | M2-1.0, M2-2.0, M2-3.0, M3-1.0, M3-2.0 |
| | |
| | IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT: |
| | RONALD J. REGUEIRO |
| | 561.805.6719 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
