| Date |
Text |
| 2013-06-15 10:48:31 | BUILDING PLAN REVIEW |
| | PERMIT: 13060354 |
| | ADD: 1400 CENTREPARK BLVD. SUITE # 400 |
| | CONT: CHANDLER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY |
| | TEL: (561)791-6934 |
| | |
| | 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE W |
| | * WEST PALM BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS |
| | |
| | 2010 EXISTING BUILDING CODE LEVEL II 701.3 |
| | COMPLIANCE. ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION ELEMENTS, COMPONENTS, |
| | SYSTEMS, AND SPACES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS |
| | OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 1ST REVIEW |
| | DATE: JUNE 15/2013 |
| | ACTION: DENIED |
| | |
| | 1) THE PLANS SHEET A-2 INDICATE THE SINGLE TENANT FLOOR |
| | SPACE WILL BE SPLIT INTO TWO TENANT SUITES, SUITE # 410 |
| | TO BE A WHITE BOX. PLEASE SUBMIT A PERMIT APPLICATION |
| | FOR THE TENANT SEPERATION WALL AND ASSOCIATED FEES FOR |
| | THIS TENANT SUITE. PLEASE DEDUCT THAT SAME AMOUNT FROM |
| | THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE PERMIT FOR SUITE # 400. |
| | |
| | 2) 2010 FEBC LEVEL II ALTERATIONS, SECTION 703.2.2. |
| | 703.2.2 SUPPLEMENTAL SHAFT AND FLOOR OPENING ENCLOSURE |
| | REQUIREMENTS. WHERE THE WORK AREA ON ANY FLOOR EXCEEDS |
| | 50 PERCENT OF THAT FLOOR AREA, THE ENCLOSURE |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 703.2 SHALL APPLY TO VERTICAL |
| | OPENINGS OTHER THAN STAIRWAYS THROUGHOUT THE FLOOR. |
| | |
| | WHAT WE ARE REFERRING TO IS MISSING ELEVATOR LOBBIES |
| | FOR IN HIGH RISE CONSTRUCTION. PLEASE SEE THE |
| | MEMORANDUM SENT OUT BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL & FIRE |
| | MARSHALL OFFICE. |
| | |
| | MEMORANDUM |
| | |
| | TO: ALL INTERESTED PERSONS |
| | |
| | FROM: DOUG WISE, CONSTRUCTION SERVICES DIRECTOR, |
| | BUILDING OFFICIAL |
| | MIKE CARSILLO, BATTALION CHIEF FIRE RESCUE, FIRE |
| | MARSHAL |
| | |
| | RE: ELEVATOR LOBBIES IN EXISTING HIGH RISE |
| | CONSTRUCTION |
| | |
| | DATE: JANUARY 3, 2011 |
| | |
| | IT HAS RECENTLY BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT MANY |
| | EXISTING HIGH RISE STRUCTURES IN OUR COMMUNITY WERE |
| | INITIALLY CONSTRUCTED OR HAVE BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY |
| | MODIFIED SO AS TO BE WITHOUT ?ELEVATOR LOBBIES?. |
| | ELEVATOR LOBBIES ARE FIRE RATED ENCLOSURES, ENCLOSING |
| | THE ELEVATOR SHAFT ITSELF WITH EACH FLOOR ABOVE THE |
| | FIRST FLOOR. THE LACK OF AN ELEVATOR LOBBY CAN, UNDER |
| | CERTAIN CONDITIONS, CONSTITUTE A SERIOUS CONCERN BY |
| | CREATING INCREASED POTENTIAL FOR SPREAD OF SMOKE OR |
| | FIRE THOUGH AN EXISTING HIGH RISE STRUCTURE DURING A |
| | FIRE EVENT. |
| | RESEARCH BY CITY STAFF INDICATES THE REQUIREMENT FOR |
| | RATING OF ELEVATOR SHAFT ENCLOSURES WAS CLEARLY |
| | IDENTIFIED IN THE 1929 CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH BUILDING |
| | CODE IN SECTIONS 1807 AND 1907 RESPECTIVELY, FOR TYPE I |
| | AND TYPE II STRUCTURES OVER THREE (3) STORIES, AS TWO |
| | (2) HOURS MINIMUM, AND ONE (1) HOUR FOR TYPE III |
| | STRUCTURES (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1). BY 1965 THE |
| | SOUTHERN STANDARD BUILDING CODE IN EFFECT IN THE CITY |
| | REQUIRED ELEVATOR ENCLOSURES WHICH ENCLOSED NOT MORE |
| | THAN THREE (3) ELEVATORS TO BE ENCLOSED IN TWO (2) HOUR |
| | RATED ENCLOSURES IN A SINGLE SECTION WHICH WAS SECTION |
| | 701.3 (SEE EXHIBIT 2). INTERESTINGLY, THE TERM |
| | ?ELEVATOR LOBBY? ITSELF DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE BUILDING |
| | CODE ITSELF UNTIL SOMETIME BETWEEN THE 1973 AND 1978 |
| | EDITIONS. HOWEVER, AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE |
| | REQUIREMENT FOR FIRE RATING ELEVATOR SHAFT ENCLOSURES |
| | AND ALL OPENINGS THERETO DATES AS FAR BACK AS 1929. THE |
| | 1965 CODE ALSO REQUIRED THAT, ?THE PATH OF TRAVEL FROM |
| | ONE FLIGHT OF STAIRS TO THE NEXT SHALL NOT PASS |
| | DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ELEVATOR DOORS.? THIS CRITERIA IS |
| | CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENT WHICH PROVIDES |
| | THAT ONLY ONE OF THE TWO REQUIRED STAIRS MAY OPEN INTO |
| | THE ELEVATOR LOBBY AND THAT EACH TENANCY IN A MULTIPLE |
| | TENANT CONDITION SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO BOTH STAIRS, AT |
| | LEAST ONE OF WHICH MAY BE ACCESSED WITHOUT PASSING |
| | THROUGH THE ELEVATOR LOBBY. |
| | TO SUMMARIZE CITY STAFF?S RESEARCH, THE REQUIREMENT FOR |
| | FIRE RATING OF AN ELEVATOR SHAFT ENCLOSURE HAS BEEN |
| | IDENTIFIED TO EXIST IN EVERY BUILDING CODE ADOPTED IN |
| | THIS CITY FROM THE 1930?S TO THE PRESENT DAY WITH ONLY |
| | ONE NOTABLE EXCEPTION. ON OCTOBER 1, 2005 WITH THE |
| | ENACTMENT OF THE 2004 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, THE |
| | REQUIREMENT WAS AMENDED TO ALLOW THE ELIMINATION OF THE |
| | FIRE RATED ENCLOSURE IF THE CORRIDOR INTO WHICH THE |
| | ELEVATOR OPENED WAS NOT REQUIRED ITSELF TO BE RATED |
| | (SEE EXHIBIT 3). THIS REQUIREMENT WAS AMENDED AGAIN ON |
| | DECEMBER 8, 2006 WITH THE FIRST ?BLUE PAGE? AMENDMENTS |
| | TO THE 2004 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE (SEE EXHIBIT 4) WHICH |
| | RE-INSTITUTED THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FIRE RATED ELEVATOR |
| | LOBBY WITH THE SPECIFIC LIMITED EXCEPTIONS THAT EXIST |
| | TODAY (SEE EXHIBIT 5). THIS MEANS THAT BUILDINGS WHICH |
| | DO NOT MEET THE CURRENT (OR 1929) CODE MAY BE DEEMED |
| | ?LEGALLY-EXISTING NON-CONFORMING? IF A PERMIT WHICH |
| | DEMONSTRATES THE ELIMINATION OF SUCH A LOBBY CAN BE |
| | EVIDENCED WHICH WAS ISSUED ONLY DURING THE |
| | ABOVE-REFERENCED NARROW ?WINDOW? OF TIME BETWEEN |
| | OCTOBER 1, 2005 AND DECEMBER 8, 2006. HOWEVER, EVEN |
| | LEGALLY-EXISTING NON-CONFORMITIES MUST ALSO BE |
| | ADDRESSED AS RENOVATIONS OCCUR IN ACCORDANCE THE TERMS |
| | THAT FOLLOW. |
| | TO BETTER PREPARE BUILDING OWNERS, MANGERS, OPERATORS, |
| | AND DESIGN PROFESSIONALS TO ANTICIPATE AND ADDRESS |
| | THESE SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS, THE CONSTRUCTION |
| | SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND FIRE PREVENTION DEPARTMENT |
| | PROPOSE TO ADDRESS THE ABSENCE OF AN ELEVATOR LOBBY |
| | (WHEN REQUIRED) AS FOLLOWS: |
| | |
| | 1. IF A TENANT IMPROVEMENT IS SUBMITTED WHICH PROPOSES |
| | TO RECONFIGURE THE ENTIRE EXISTING BUILDING FLOOR, AN |
| | ELEVATOR LOBBY, OR COMPLIANCE WITH ONE OF THE SIX (6) |
| | EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER THE PRESENT CODE WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED. THIS IS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE |
| | ABSENCE OF AN ELEVATOR LOBBY CAN BE DEMONSTRATED WITH A |
| | VALID PERMIT ISSUED BETWEEN OCTOBER 1, 2005 AND |
| | DECEMBER 8, 2006. |
| | 2. IF A TENANT IMPROVEMENT IS SUBMITTED WHICH PROPOSES |
| | TO RECONFIGURE A PORTION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING FLOOR |
| | AREA, WITH NO WORK BEING PROPOSED IN THE AREA OF THE |
| | ELEVATOR LOBBY, AND NO ELEVATOR LOBBY IS FOUND TO EXIST |
| | ON THE FLOOR, AND A VALID PERMIT CAN BE EVIDENCED WHICH |
| | WAS ISSUED BETWEEN OCTOBER 1, 2005 AND DECEMBER 8, |
| | 2006, THE TENANT IMPROVEMENT PERMIT MAY BE APPROVED AND |
| | THE BUILDING SHALL REMAIN AS LAWFULLY CONFIGURED UNTIL |
| | THE MAJORITY OF THE EXISTING FLOOR PLAN, OR THE |
| | ELEVATOR LOBBY AREA ITSELF UNDERGOES RENOVATION. |
| | 3. IF A TENANT IMPROVEMENT IS SUBMITTED WHICH PROPOSES |
| | TO RECONFIGURE A PORTION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING FLOOR |
| | AREA, WITH NO WORK BEING PROPOSED IN THE AREA OF THE |
| | ELEVATOR LOBBY, AND NO ELEVATOR LOBBY IS FOUND TO EXIST |
| | ON THE FLOOR, AND NO VALID PERMIT CAN BE EVIDENCED |
| | WHICH WAS ISSUED BETWEEN OCTOBER 1, 2005 AND DECEMBER |
| | 8, 2006, THE TENANT IMPROVEMENT PERMIT MAY BE APPROVED. |
| | THE BUILDING OWNER WILL BE NOTIFIED OF AN UNSAFE |
| | CONDITION ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BY THE CITY FIRE |
| | MARSHAL?S OFFICE AND ASKED TO UNDERTAKE APPROPRIATE |
| | ACTIONS TO CORRECT THE SITUATION. |
| | 4. IF ANY RECONFIGURATION IS PROPOSED WHICH AFFECTS THE |
| | ELEVATOR LOBBY AREA ITSELF, AN ELEVATOR LOBBY, OR |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH ONE OF THE SIX (6) EXCEPTIONS LISTED IN |
| | THE CODE SHALL BE REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT CITY STAFF REMAINS COMMITTED TO |
| | ASSISTING BUILDING OWNERS, MANAGERS, AND DESIGN |
| | PROFESSIONALS IN SUCCEEDING IN CREATING AND MAINTAINING |
| | SAFE PLACES TO LIVE AND WORK IN OUR COMMUNITY. WE ARE |
| | READY AND WILLING TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN |
| | UNDERSTANDING THE OFTEN COMPLEX CRITERIA THAT AFFECT |
| | EXISTING AND NEW HIGH RISE BUILDINGS. IT MUST BE STATED |
| | THAT THE SIMPLE INSTALLATION OF A HOIST-WAY |
| | PRESSURIZATION SYSTEM MAY BE ONE POTENTIAL METHOD TO |
| | ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR AN ELEVATOR LOBBY THROUGHOUT AN |
| | ENTIRE BUILDING. ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE IS TO INSTALL FIRE |
| | SHUTTERS AT THE ELEVATOR DOOR OPENINGS. THESE |
| | METHODOLOGIES MAY OFFER THE ADDED POTENTIAL TO INCREASE |
| | THE LEASABLE FLOOR AREA WITHIN THESE BUILDINGS. |
| | |
| | PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT US DIRECTLY IF WE CAN |
| | ASSIST YOU FURTHER IN UNDERSTANDING THESE CRITERIA AND |
| | HELP YOU TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF YOUR RESIDENTS, |
| | TENANTS, AND PROPERTY. |
| | |
| | DOUG WISE ? 805-6650 ? [email protected] |
| | MIKE CARSILLO ? 804-4709 ? [email protected] |
| | |
| | 3) SHEET A-2 WALL LEGEND INDICATES THE DESIGNER OF |
| | RECORD HAS DESIGNED THE TENANT SEPERATION WALLS AS A |
| | ONE HOUR FIRE PARTITION, PLEASE COMPLY WITH; 2010 FBC-B |
| | 713.6 FIRE WALLS, FIRE BARRIERS, FIRE PARTITIONS, SMOKE |
| | BARRIERS AND SMOKE PARTITIONS OR ANY OTHER WALL |
| | REQUIRED TO HAVE PROTECTED OPENINGS SHALL BE |
| | EFFECTIVELY AND PERMANENTLY IDENTIFIED WITH SIGNS OR |
| | STENCILING IN A MANNER ACCEPTABLE TO THE AUTHORITY |
| | HAVING JURISDICTION. SUCH IDENTIFICATION SHALL BE ABOVE |
| | ANY DECORATIVE CEILING AND IN CONCEALED SPACES. |
| | SUGGESTED WORDING FOR FIRE AND SMOKE BARRIERS: ?FIRE |
| | AND SMOKE BARRIER ? PROTECT ALL OPENINGS.? |
| | |
| | 4) SHEET A-2 THE RECEPTION AREA DOES INDICATE WHAT |
| | APPEARS TO BE A RECEPTION DESK, THERE ARE NO DETAILS IN |
| | THE PLANS AND THE EXACT USAGE MAY BE IN QUESTION IF |
| | THIS CODE SECTION IS IRRELAVENT IF THE CLIENT DOES NOT |
| | NEED A PLACE TO WRITE CHECKS. 2010 FBC-ACCESSIBILITY |
| | CODE 904.3.3 CHECK WRITING SURFACES. WHERE PROVIDED, |
| | CHECK WRITING SURFACES SHALL COMPLY WITH 902.3 902.3 |
| | HEIGHT. THE TOPS OF DINING SURFACES AND WORK SURFACES |
| | SHALL BE 28 INCHES (710 MM) MINIMUM AND 34 INCHES (865 |
| | MM) MAXIMUM ABOVE THE FINISH FLOOR OR GROUND. |
| | |
| | 5) SHEET A5 INDICATES WORK TO BE COMPLETED IN THE |
| | RESTROOMS, NOTES INDICATE TILE ARE GOING TO BE REMOVED |
| | FROM THE WALL LINE. IF NEW BASE FOR WALL TILE IS |
| | INSTALLED IT NEEDS TO COMPLY WITH: |
| | 2010 FBC-B 2509.2 BASE FOR TILE. |
| | GLASS MAT WATER-RESISTANT GYPSUM BACKING PANELS, |
| | DISCRETE NONASBESTOS FIBER-CEMENT INTERIOR SUBSTRATE |
| | SHEETS OR NONASBESTOS FIBER-MAT REINFORCED CEMENT |
| | SUBSTRATE SHEETS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASTM C 1178, C 1288 |
| | OR C 1325 AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER |
| | RECOMMENDATIONS SHALL BE USED AS A BASE FOR WALL TILE |
| | IN TUB AND SHOWER AREAS AND WALL AND CEILING PANELS IN |
| | SHOWER AREAS. WATER-RESISTANT GYPSUM BACKING BOARD |
| | SHALL BE USED AS A BASE FOR TILE IN WATER CLOSET |
| | COMPARTMENT WALLS WHEN INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH |
| | GA-216 OR ASTM C 840 AND MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS. |
| | REGULAR GYPSUM WALLBOARD IS PERMITTED UNDER TILE OR |
| | WALL PANELS IN OTHER WALL AND CEILING AREAS WHEN |
| | INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GA-216 OR ASTM C 840. |
| | 2509.3 LIMITATIONS. |
| | WATER-RESISTANT GYPSUM BACKING BOARD SHALL NOT BE USED |
| | IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: |
| | 1. OVER A VAPOR RETARDER IN SHOWER OR BATHTUB |
| | COMPARTMENTS. |
| | 2. WHERE THERE WILL BE DIRECT EXPOSURE TO WATER OR IN |
| | AREAS SUBJECT TO CONTINUOUS HIGH HUMIDITY. |
| | 3. ON CEILINGS WHERE FRAME SPACING EXCEEDS 12 INCHES |
| | (305 MM) O.C. FOR 1/2-INCH-THICK (12.7 MM) |
| | WATER-RESISTANT GYPSUM BACKING BOARD AND MORE THAN 16 |
| | INCHES (406 MM) O.C. FOR 5/8-INCH-THICK (15.9 MM) |
| | WATER-RESISTANT GYPSUM BACKING BOARD. |
| | JAMES A. WITMER CBO |
| | SENIOR COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| | TEL: 561-805-6715 |
| | FAX: 561-805-6676 |
| | E-MAIL: [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
