| Date |
Text |
| 2009-01-23 16:36:26 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL, BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | 561-805-6724 [email protected] |
| | |
| | FBC FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 |
| | FBC EB FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 EXISTING BUILDING |
| | CODE |
| | FBC R FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 RESIDENTIAL |
| | FBC* CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH AMENDMENTS TO THE FBC2004 |
| | FAC FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE |
| | FS FLORIDA STATUTE |
| | |
| | 1-10. ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 11. FBC1008.1, THE DOOR CANNOT BLOCK MORE THAN HALF THE |
| | REQUIRED WIDTH. PROVIDE DIMENSIONS TO SHOW COMPLIANCE. |
| | |
| | COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED. RESPONSE LETTER STATES THAT IT |
| | IS STRUCTURALLY INFEASIBLE TO MODIFY THE EXISTING |
| | STRUCTURE TO PROVIDE THE PROPER WIDTH, AND THIS IS AN |
| | EXISTING CONDITION. NOTE THAT THIS APPEARS TO BE A |
| | CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY WITH AN INCREASE IN OCCUPANT LOAD |
| | AND THE CORRIDOR WIDTH IS BEING DECREASED DUE TO |
| | INSTALLATION OF HANDRAILS. THEREFORE, THE STATEMENT |
| | THAT ???THIS IS AN EXISTING CONDITION AND WE HAVE NOT |
| | MADE IT WORSE??? IS NOT CORRECT. ALL MODIFICATIONS MUST |
| | COMPLY WITH THE CODE, FBC1001.1, EVEN WHEN THE LEVEL OF |
| | SAFETY/CODE COMPLIANCE IS KEPT THE SAME UNLESS |
| | PROVISIONS MADE FOR THAT SITUATION IN THE CODE (OR |
| | PROPOSED THROUGH ALTERNATE MATERIALS AND METHODS). SOME |
| | WAYS WHICH THIS COULD BE ADDRESSED WOULD BE TO RECESS |
| | THE DOORS, CHANGE THE DOOR LOCATION (IF AFFECTED BY THE |
| | COLUMN), CHANGE THE PROPOSED RAILING LOCATION, INSWING |
| | DOOR. SUGGESTIONS FOR RESOLUTION SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY |
| | INVESTIGATED BY DOR AS FULL RESEARCH INTO EACH OF THESE |
| | HYPOTHETICAL OPTIONS HAS NOT BEEN DONE. |
| | |
| | SCOPE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BECAUSE SHEETS A1 AND A3 ARE |
| | NOT CONSISTENT REGARDING THE DOOR SWING AT ROOMS 110 |
| | AND 109. LIFE SAFETY PLAN SHOWS THESE DOORS AS THE SAME |
| | SWING AS THE DEMO PLAN. DEPENDING ON WHICH CHANGE IS |
| | MADE, A DOOR IS POSSIBLY AFFECTED BY THE COLUMN OR |
| | OTHER DOOR SWING. AT THIS POINT, IT CANNOT BE |
| | DETERMINED WHAT NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED AS THE EXISTING |
| | DOOR SWING AND PROPOSED DOOR SWING ARE NOT CLEAR. |
| | |
| | REGARDING CHANGING THE DOOR SWING WITHOUT COMPLYING |
| | WITH THE CODE, ANY REQUEST TO PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE TO |
| | THE CODE IS TO BE DONE THROUGH ALTERNATE MATERIALS AND |
| | METHODS AND MUST BE MADE THROUGH A WRITTEN, USUALLY BY |
| | LETTER STATING THE CODE SECTION CITED IN THE COMMENT |
| | LIST, AND THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF AN ALTERNATE METHOD. |
| | IF THE CODE ALLOWS FOR AN EXCEPTION, THIS EXCEPTION |
| | SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 12. SHOW MANEUVERING CLEARANCE FOR DOORS, FBC FIGURE |
| | 11-25, PULL SIDE. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE LETTER STATES THAT THE AREA IS 5FT 8IN X 14FT. |
| | IT IS NOT CLEAR WHAT DIMENSION YOU REFER TO AS THESE |
| | DIMENSIONS ARE NOT NOTED ON THE PLAN. THE WALKWAY AREA |
| | APPEARS TO BE 4FT 7IN DUE TO THE HANDRAIL, BUT AT THE |
| | COLUMN IT IS NARROWER. PLEASE PROVIDE THAT DIMENSION. |
| | NOTE THE REQUIREMENT OF 54IN IF THE DOOR HAS A CLOSER |
| | FOR A SIDE APPROACH. AS THE ACTUAL DIMENSION IS LESS |
| | THAN 60INCHES, FRONT APPROACH CANNOT BE USED WHERE |
| | THERE IS A HANDRAIL. WHEN ALTERING THE DOOR, THE DOOR |
| | ALTERATION IS TO COMPLY WITH FBC REQUIREMENTS, BOTH CH |
| | 10 AND CH 11. |
| | |
| | GATE 116 DOES NOT COMPLY WITH MANEUVERING CLEARANCE |
| | REQUIREMENT OF 18IN ON THE PULL SIDE, 12 IN ON THE PUSH |
| | SIDE. IT IS NOT CLEAR IF DOOR 112 COMPLIES WITH THE |
| | 12IN REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | 13-14. ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 15. NOTE ANY REQUIRED FIRE RESISTANCE RATINGS ON THE |
| | PLAN. FOR INSTANCE, CORRIDOR PROTECTION MAY BE REQUIRED |
| | FBC TABLE 1016.1. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE LETTER STATES FIRE RESISTANCE NOT REQUIRED FOR |
| | THE CORRIDOR AS IT IS OPEN. IF THIS IS A TYPE IIIA |
| | BUILDING, SHOULDN???T THE COLUMNS BE 1 HOUR, EXTERIOR |
| | BEARING WALLS 2 HOUR, ETC. PER FBC TABLE 601? PLEASE |
| | NOTE FIRE RATINGS ON THE PLAN TO AVOID FIELD CONFLICTS. |
| | |
| | 16-21. ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 22. THE OCCUPANT LOAD OF CLASSROOMS 108, 109, AND 110 |
| | (WHICH ALL EXIT THROUGH THE RAMP SINCE THE OPEN |
| | BREEZEWAY HAS NOW BEEN BLOCKED) EXCEEDS 50, SO TWO |
| | EXITS ARE REQUIRED FBC1018.1. |
| | |
| | 23. ALTHOUGH THE GATE IN THE BREEZEWAY HAS BEEN NOTED |
| | ???NOT AN EXIT???, IT IS STILL IN THE EXIT CORRIDOR AND |
| | MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE. IF THE |
| | GATE IS PERMANENTLY LOCKED, IT CREATES A DEAD END WHICH |
| | EXCEEDS 20FEET FBC1016.3. |
| | |
| | 24. FBC1003.5.2, WHEN A CHANGE IN ELEVATION OF 12INCHES |
| | OR LESS OCCURS IN AN EXIT ACCESS CORRIDOR, A RAMP SHALL |
| | BE PROVIDED. THE STEP IS IN THE EXIT ACCESS CORRIDOR, |
| | TWO EXITS ARE REQUIRED SO THE OCCUPANTS OF ROOMS 108, |
| | 109, AND 110 NEED THIS AS A SECOND EXIT. EVEN IF THIS |
| | IS MARKED AS NOT AN EXIT, THIS IS STILL LOCATED IN THE |
| | EXIT ACCESS CORRIDOR. |
| | |
| | 25. THE EXTERIOR DOORS ARE BEING ALTERED, PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE PRODUCT APPROVAL FOR THE DOORS, FBC EB 507.3, |
| | FAC9B72. |
| | |
| | 26. IS THIS A CHANGE OF USE/OCCUPANCY? PLEASE SEE FBC |
| | EB CHAPTER 8. SOME CODE REQUIREMENTS CANNOT BE |
| | DETERMINED WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION. |
| | |
| | 27. WHAT IS THE AREA IN THE OPEN COURTYARD? PART OF IT |
| | IS LABELED STORAGE, IS THIS CROSS SHAPED AREA A PART OF |
| | THE EXISTING CLASSROOM BUILDING BEING RENOVATED? WHAT |
| | ARE THE LINES WITH THE ARC? |
| | |
| | 28. ANOTHER REVIEWER HAS MADE NOTES THAT THIS AREA WILL |
| | BE USED FOR ADULT DAY CARE, SEE FBC313.2.3. PLEASE NOTE |
| | THAT OCCUPANT LOAD FBC1004 IS BASED ON ANTICIPATED |
| | NUMBER OF PEOPLE BASED ON ACTIVITY, AND OCCUPANCY |
| | CLASSIFICATION FBC CHAPTER 3 IS BASED ON CLASSIFICATION |
| | AS TO USE. IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE AN ASSEMBLY TYPE OF |
| | OCCUPANT LOAD IN ANOTHER OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION. |
| | |
| | 29. SEE ALSO FBC1033.6. IT CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS |
| | POINT IF THE DOORS WOULD BE CONSIDERED DIRECTLY TO THE |
| | OUTSIDE; DO THE WINDOWS COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT? IT |
| | SEEMS THAT AT THIS POINT REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT CLEAR |
| | BECAUSE OCCUPANCY DECLARED IS IN QUESTION. |
| | |
| | |
