| Date |
Text |
| 2008-05-08 17:12:47 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL, BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | 561-805-6724 [email protected] |
| | |
| | FBCFLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 |
| | FBC EBFLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 EXISTING BUILDING |
| | CODE |
| | FBC RFLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 RESIDENTIAL FBC* |
| | CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH AMENDMENTS TO THE FBC2004 |
| | |
| | FAC FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE |
| | FSFLORIDA STATUTE |
| | |
| | 1.GOVERNING CODE SHOULD INCLUDE 2007 |
| | REVISIONS/SUPPLEMENTS; PLEASE REVISE, G2. |
| | |
| | 2.G2, 60PSF DECLARED FOR GANGWAYS.PLEASE SEE FBC |
| | TABLE 1607.1, ASCE7.FOR ALL USES INVOLVING EXITING IN |
| | THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND ASCE7, 100PSF IS |
| | REQUIRED.THE ASCE DESIGN OF MARINE FACILITES FOR THE |
| | BERTHING, MOORING, AND REPAIR OF VESSELS STATES: "PIERS |
| | LIMITED TO PEDESTRIAN USE . . . SHOULD BE DESIGNED FOR |
| | A MINIMUM OF 100PSF."THE FACT THAT THE TEXT GOES ON |
| | TO SAY THAT GANGWAYS SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO 60 - 100PSF |
| | IS ACKNOWLEDGED.HOWEVER, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE LOGIC OF |
| | THE REQUIREMENT OF 100PSF FOR THE PIER, BUT ONLY 85 (AS |
| | DISCUSSED) FOR THE GANGWAYS WHEN THE GANGWAYS SERVE THE |
| | SAME OCCUPANT LOAD AS THE PIER.THE ENGINEER WHO |
| | WROTE THE BOOK, JOHN GAYTHWAITE PE, STATES (VIA EMAIL) |
| | THAT PIERS AND GANGWAYS WITH OPEN ACCESS SHOULD BE |
| | DESIGNED FOR 100PSF. |
| | |
| | PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER |
| | IF THE ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT, CH2M HILL, DOES NOT |
| | AGREE WITH THE 100PSF REQUIREMENT.ANY FURTHER |
| | DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPPORT THE DESIGNOF 85PSF PROPOSED |
| | WOULD BE CONSIDERED. |
| | |
| | 3.FOR ALL FUTURE PERMITS, ISSUED PERMITS, AND |
| | SUBMITTALS RELATED TO THIS PROJECT, PLEASE HAVE THE |
| | ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT, CH2M HILL, REVIEW THE PLANS |
| | AND SUBMITTALS PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO THE CITY (OR, IN |
| | THE CASE OF THE PIER PERMIT, PROVIDE AS A SUBMITTAL TO |
| | AVOID PERMITTING DELAYS). THIS CAN BE DONE WITH A SHOP |
| | DRAWING REVIEW STAMP OR A LETTER.THIS IS REQUIRED FOR |
| | ALL ITEMS CURRENTLY IN PROCESS, IS A PROVISO ITEM FOR |
| | THE PASSED BUILDING REVIEW FOR THE PIERS. |
| | |
| | 4.PLEASE CLARIFY LIVE LOAD DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE |
| | FLOATING DOCKS FBC*106.3.5.1.1(8). |
| | |
| | 5.DECLARE AN ANTICIPATED OCCUPANT LOAD, |
| | FBC*106.3.5.1.1(7).THIS STRUCTURE SERVES AS A MEANS |
| | OF EGRESS, BUT NO INFORMATION REGARDING ANTICIPATED USE |
| | WAS PROVIDED.IN DETERMINING LIVE LOAD REQUIREMENTS, |
| | THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE USEFUL. |
| | |
| | 6.LOCATION OF GUARDS IS NOT CLEAR. PLEASE SHOW |
| | LOCATION AND DESIGN CRITERIA OF GUARDRAILS AND |
| | HANDRAILS, FBC1607, FBC1009, FBC1012, FBC11-4.8. |
| | |
| | 7.THE PERMIT FOR THE PIERS STATED THAT THE RAILS AND |
| | GANGWAY WERE "BY OTHERS" AND THEREFORE NOT INCLUDED |
| | WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THAT PERMIT.THIS PERMIT |
| | APPLICATION STATES THAT IT IS FOR FLOATING DOCKS.DOES |
| | THIS INCLUDE THE GANGWAYS AND GUARD/HAND RAILS?THE |
| | PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED WITH SHOPS/ENGINEERING SUBMITTED |
| | PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
