| Date |
Text |
| 2008-11-24 18:43:10 | REVIEW #: 5TH |
| | ACTION: DENIED |
| | |
| | FBC 2004 CODE FAMILY W/ 2007 SUPPLEMENTS |
| | FBC CH.1 AS AMENDED BY THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH |
| | |
| | THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE NUMBERED TO CORRESPOND WITH |
| | PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUITY. |
| | |
| | 1. OK |
| | |
| | 2 AND 12: COMMENT #2 AND #12 ARE BEING COMBINED IN THIS |
| | REVIEW AS THEY DEAL WITH THE SAME SUBJECT. THERE |
| | CONTINUES TO BE COORDINATION PROBLEMS BETWEEN |
| | ARCHITECTURAL, LIFE SAFETY AND MECHANICAL PLANS RELATED |
| | TO WALL TYPES, RATINGS AND DUCT PENETRATIONS OF WALLS: |
| | |
| | A) **THIS COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED** THE LOCATION OF RATED |
| | WALL ASSEMBLIES ON LS-1.0 AND A-102 DO NOT CORRESPOND. |
| | EXAMPLE: THE WALLS ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF |
| | CLASSROOM 160 ARE SHOWN TO BE 1-HOUR RATED (WALL TAG |
| | 1A) ON PAGE A-102 BUT NO RATING IS SHOWN OB PAGE LS |
| | 1.0. THERE ARE MULTIPLE DUCT PENETRATIONS OF THESE |
| | WALLS SHOWN ON PAGE M-2 WITH NO PROTECTION. IT WILL NOT |
| | BE CLEAR ON PLANS IF ALL DUCT PENETRATIONS WHICH |
| | REQUIRE PROTECTION ARE PROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH |
| | FBCM 607.5 UNTIL ALL PLANS ARE COORDINATED. |
| | |
| | B) **PARTIALLY ADDRESSED** THE 30X14 SUPPLY DUCT FROM |
| | AHU-3 IS PENETRATING A 1-HOUR CORRIDOR WALL AS IT |
| | ENTERS CLASSROOM 160 WITH NO PROTECTION OF THIS |
| | PENETRATION SHOWN ON FLOOR PLAN. SHOW HOW THIS OPENING |
| | IS TO BE PROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FBCM 607.5. |
| | **PLEASE ADDRESS: THERE IS STILL NO INDICATION ONPLANS |
| | WHETHER THIS IS A FIRE DAMPER OR A FIRE/SMOKE DAMPER. A |
| | FIRE/SMOKE DAMPER IS REQUIRED AT THIS LOCATION IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH FBCM 607.5 AND 607.5.4. |
| | |
| | C) OK |
| | |
| | D) **THIS COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED** MECHANICAL |
| | SPECIFICATIONS NOTE #10 ON PAGE M-1 INDICATES ALL FIRE |
| | DAMPERS ARE TO BE CORRIDOR COMBINATION FIRE/SMOKE |
| | DAMPERS. FLOOR PLAN ONLY HAS ONE SYMBOL USED FOR FIRE |
| | DAMPERS AT ALL LOCATIONS. IS THE DESIGN INTENT THAT ALL |
| | FIRE DAMPERS REGARDLESS OF LOCATION BE COMBINATION |
| | FIRE/SMOKE DAMPERS? NOT ALL FIRE DAMPERS ON PLANS ARE |
| | LOCATED AT A CORRIDOR WALL PENETRATION AND THERE IS NO |
| | MEANS ON PLANS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN CORRIDOR TYPE |
| | COMBINATION DAMPERS AND STANDARD FIRE DAMPERS. PLEASE |
| | CLARIFY, SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH FBCM 607.5.3 AND |
| | 607.5.4. |
| | |
| | 3 THROUGH 7: OK |
| | |
| | 8. OK |
| | |
| | 9. **THIS COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED** NEW COOLING LOAD |
| | CALCULATIONS HAVE STILL NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH ENERGY |
| | CALCULATIONS AS REQUIRED BY FBCB 13-407.1.ABC.1. |
| | **PLEASE ADDRESS: ONE SYSTEM SIZING SUMMARY SET WAS |
| | SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL SEAL AND SIGNATURE. THE OTHER |
| | TWO SETS HAVE PHOTOCOPIED SIGNATURES AND NO SEALS. |
| | PLEASE ATTACH A SIGNED AND SEALED SYSTEM SIZING SUMMARY |
| | SET TO EACH SET OF ENERGY CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH FBCB 13-407.1.ABC.1 AND FBCB 106.1. |
| | |
| | 10. OK |
| | |
| | 11. **PARTIALLY ADDRESSED** THIS COMMENT HAS NOT BEEN |
| | ADDRESSED. THERE IS NO INSTALLATION ATTACHMENT DETAIL |
| | FOR WIND RESISTANCE FOR THE OUTDOOR INSTALLED ERV AND |
| | NO INFORMATION ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ERV SHOWING |
| | IT IS DESIGNED TO RESIST WIND PRESSURES IN ACCORDANCE |
| | WITH FBCM 301.13. |
| | **PLEASE ADDRESS: ATTACHMENT INFORMATION ON PLANS OK. |
| | HOWEVER, NO INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED REGARDING WIND |
| | RESISTANCE OF THE ERV ITSELF. APPLIANCES EXPOSED TO |
| | WIND SHALL BE DESIGNED TO RESIST WIND PRESSURES IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH FBCM 301.13. |
| | |
| | 12. SEE COMMENT #2 ABOVE. |
| | |
| | PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH COMMENT IN WRITING WITH A |
| | DESCRIPTION OF HOW EACH COMMENT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AS |
| | WELL AS WHERE THE PROVIDED INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND. |
| | THIS WILL ASSIST IN PROVIDING A TIMELY REVIEW WITH AS |
| | FEW DELAYS AS POSSIBLE. |
| | |
| | IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT: |
| | RONALD J. REGUEIRO |
| | 561.805.6719 |
| | [email protected] |
