| Date |
Text |
| 2019-06-03 09:07:29 | 2017 FBC- BUILDING PLAN REVIEW |
| | W. P. B. PERMIT: 19030897 |
| | ADD: 1411 N. FLAGLER DRIVE SUITE 8900 |
| | CONT: LEIGHTON MCGINN |
| | TEL: 561863-4455 |
| | E-MAIL: [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
| | NOTE: |
| | IT LOOKS LIKE PLANS WERE NOT REVISED TO ADDRESS THE |
| | COMMENTS. SAME PLANS REVIEWED LAST TIME WERE |
| | RE-SUBMITTED. BUILDING REVIEW FAILED AGAIN . SAME |
| | COMMENTS APPLY. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 2017 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE W 2017 WEST PALM BEACH |
| | AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 1, |
| | ADMINISTRATION |
| | 2017 EXISTING BUILDING CODE. 801.3 COMPLIANCE. ALL NEW |
| | CONSTRUCTION ELEMENTS, COMPONENTS, SYSTEMS, AND SPACES |
| | SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA |
| | BUILDING CODE, BUILDING. |
| | |
| | |
| | ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS |
| | FLORIDA STATUTE 553.80(2)(B): |
| | WITH RESPECT TO EVALUATION OF DESIGN PROFESSIONALS |
| | DOCUMENTS, IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINDS IT NECESSARY, IN |
| | ORDER TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | CODE AND ISSUE A PERMIT, TO REJECT DESIGN DOCUMENTS |
| | REQUIRED BY THE CODE THREE OR MORE TIMES FOR FAILURE TO |
| | CORRECT A CODE VIOLATION SPECIFICALLY AND CONTINUOUSLY |
| | NOTED IN EACH REJECTION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, |
| | EGRESS, FIRE PROTECTION, STRUCTURAL STABILITY, ENERGY, |
| | ACCESSIBILITY, LIGHTING, VENTILATION, ELECTRICAL, |
| | MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND GAS SYSTEMS, OR OTHER |
| | REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED BY RULE OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | COMMISSION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 120, THE LOCAL |
| | GOVERNMENT SHALL IMPOSE, EACH TIME AFTER THE THIRD SUCH |
| | REVIEW THE PLANS ARE REJECTED FOR THAT CODE VIOLATION, |
| | A FEE OF FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPORTION OF THE |
| | PERMIT FEE ATTRIBUTED TO PLANS REVIEW |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 3RD REVIEW |
| | DATE: 06/03/19 |
| | ACTION: DENIED |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 1) THE COVERSHEET UNDER APPLICABLE CODES LIST THE |
| | BUILDING TYPE AS A TYPE V(A) UNSPRINKLERED. PLEASE |
| | REVIEW THE BUILDING AND SITE. THE VICTOR FARRIS |
| | BUILDING IS A 9 STORY HIGHRISE, FULLY SPRINKLERED. |
| | PLEASE UPDATE THE PLANS TO THE CORRECT BUILDING TYPE. |
| | SEE THE 2017 FBC-B TABLE 504.4. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | BUILDING TYPE WAS REVISED TO TYPE II(A)SPRINKLERED. |
| | THIS IS INCORRECT AGAIN. ACCORDING TO TABLE 504.4 |
| | FBC-BUILDING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES ABOVE GRADE |
| | PLANE ALLOWED FOR TYPE II(A) SPRINKLERED BUILDING FOR A |
| | BUSINESS OCCUPANCY IS 6 STORIES. SEE TABLE 504.4 AND |
| | REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | |
| | 2)OK. |
| | |
| | 3)OK. |
| | |
| | 4) OK. |
| | |
| | 5) LIFE SAFETY SHEET: |
| | |
| | 5A)OK. |
| | |
| | 5B)OK. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 5C) THE OTHER ISSUE WITH THE RECEPTION/ CONFERENCE ROOM |
| | OCCUPANT LOAD IS THE COMMON PATH OF TRAVEL. |
| | SEE TABLE 1006.2.1 THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANT LOAD OF 30 |
| | OCCUPANTS IN THE ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCY THE COMMON PATH OF |
| | TRAVEL IS LIMITED TO 75 FEET AND THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANT |
| | LOAD OF 49, TABLE 1006.1.2. |
| | |
| | PLEASE REVIEW SECTION 1006.2.1 EGRESS BASED ON OCCUPANT |
| | LOAD AND COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL DISTANCE. TWO |
| | EXITS OR EXIT ACCESS DOORWAYS FROM ANY SPACE SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED WHERE THE DESIGN OCCUPANT LOAD OR THE COMMON |
| | PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL DISTANCE EXCEEDS THE VALUES |
| | LISTED IN TABLE 1006.2.1. THE EXCEPTION FORI-2 DOES NOT |
| | WORK SINCE THIS IS NOT A CARE SUITE WITHIN A HOSPITAL. |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE 2 EXIT ACCESS DOORWAY THAT WILL BE IN |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH FBC-B 1007.1.1 EXCEPTION2. |
| | FBC-B 1007.1.1 EXCEPTION2. WHERE A BUILDING IS EQUIPPED |
| | THROUGHOUT WITH AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1.1 OR 903.3.1.2, THE |
| | SEPARATION DISTANCE SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN ONE-THIRD OF |
| | THE LENGTH OF THE MAXIMUM OVERALL DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF |
| | THE AREA SERVED. |
| | |
| | THERE ARE 2 AREAS OF CONCERN, 1ST IN THE CONFERENCE |
| | ROOM ITSELF REQUIRING 2 MEANS OF EGRESS, OUTSWING DOOR |
| | REQUIRED. THE 2ND AREA IS WITHIN THE TENANT SPACE |
| | ITSELF THE TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD IS OVER 49 REQUIRING |
| | ALSO 2 MEANS OF EGRESS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | PROPOSED SECOND MEANS OF EGRESS DOESN'T COMPLY WITH |
| | EXCEPTION #2 OF SEC. 1007.1.1 FBC-BUILDING. THE |
| | SEPARATION DISTANCE SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN ONE-THIRD OF |
| | THE LENGTH OF THE MAXIMUM OVERALL DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF |
| | THE AREA SERVED. THE DIAGONAL DISTANCE SHOWN IS 95'-0". |
| | ONE THIRD 1/3 OF 95'-0" IS 31'-8". THE DISTANCE BETWEEN |
| | THE TWO EXITS IS +/- 22'-0". THEREFORE, IT DOESN'T |
| | COMPLY. REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | NOTE: THE DISTANCE IS MEASURED THE SAME WAY THE |
| | DIAGONAL DIMENSION IS DIMENSIONED. IS THE DISTANCE |
| | BETWEEN THE TWO DOORS NOT THE TRAVEL DISTANCE BETWEEN |
| | THE TWO DOORS AS SHOWN ON PLAN. REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | ALSO, PLEASE CLEAN UP INFORMATION ON PLANS. THERE ARE |
| | SOME DIMENSIONS THAT CORRESPOND TO PREVIOUS PLANS THAT |
| | NO LONGER APPLIES. FOR EXAMPLE, SEE THE TRAVEL DISTANCE |
| | 95'-0" SHOWN BY THE CONFERENCE ROOM AND TOTAL TRAVEL |
| | DISTANCE SHOWN BY THE ENTRY DOOR. PLEASE MAKE SURE ALL |
| | REVISED FLOOR PLANS MATCH. OFFICE LAYOUT SHOWN BY THE |
| | SECOND PROPOSED EXIT DOESN'T MATCH. |
| | |
| | NOTE: SCALE SHOWN ON SHEET A2.0 AND A3.0 IS INCORRECT. |
| | REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 6) SHEET A6.0 ACCESSIBLE FEATURES: |
| | |
| | THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS APPLY TO THE SHOWER COMPARTMENT |
| | BASED ON REVISIONS DONE TO ADDRESSEES ORIGINAL COMMENTS |
| | REGARDING ACCESSIBLE FEATURES. |
| | |
| | SHOWER COMPARTMENT (SEC. 608 FBC-ACCESSIBILITY): |
| | A)THE SHOWER IN THE TOILET WITH SHOWER BATHROOM DOESN'T |
| | SEEM TO COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM SHOWER COMPARTMENT SIZE |
| | (30 INCHES BY 60 INCHES). SEC. 608.2. REVISE AS |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | B) THE SHOWER DOESN'T HAVE THE 30 INCHES BY 60 INCHES |
| | CLEARANCE REQUIRED BY SEC. 608.2.2.1 |
| | |
| | C) IT IS NOT CLEAR WHAT IS THE 2'-8" DIMENSION SHOWN BY |
| | THE SHOWER AREA. IS THERE A PARTITION BETWEEN THE WATER |
| | CLOSET AND THE SHOWER?. SEC. 107.2.1 CITY AMENDMENTS |
| | AND SEC. 608.2.2.1 |
| | |
| | D) ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN ON SHEET A6.0 AND ACCESSIBLE |
| | SHOWER DETAIL SHOWN ON SAME PAGE DON'T MATCH. SEE |
| | LOCATION OF GRAB BARS. REVISE AS REQUIRED TO MATCH. |
| | SEC. 107.2.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | E) GRAB BARS LOCATION SHOWN ON FLOOR PLAN DOESN'T |
| | COMPLY WITH SEC. 608.3. REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | F) SHOWER COMPARTMENT SEAT: SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 610.3 INCLUDING THE CLEARANCE AT |
| | THE COMPARTMENT ENTRY, WALL CLEARANCES FOR L SHAPED |
| | SEATS AND STRUCTURAL STRENGTH. |
| | |
| | 7) SHEET A7.0 DETAIL C IS TAKEN IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM |
| | BREAK AREA SINK. THE HEIGHT OF THE CABINET COUNTER TOP |
| | IS 36 INCHES FROM THE FLOOR PLUS THE THICKNESS OF THE |
| | SINK RIM. PLEASE SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH: |
| | |
| | 2017 FBC-ACCESS. CODE SECTION 606 LAVATORIES AND SINKS> |
| | 2017 FBC-ACCESSIBILITY CODE SECTION 606.3 HEIGHT. |
| | LAVATORIES AND SINKS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE FRONT |
| | OF THE HIGHER OF THE RIM OR COUNTER SURFACE 34 INCHES |
| | (865 MM) MAXIMUM ABOVE THE FINISH FLOOR OR GROUND. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | DETAIL SOWS 2'-10" HEIGHT TO THE TOP OF THE COUNTER. |
| | THE RIM OF THE SINK IS HIGHER. THE DIMENSION IS TO BE |
| | TAKEN TO THE HIGHER OF THE RIM OR COUNTER SURFACE. |
| | REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 8) WHEN RESUBMITTING PLANS PLEASE INDICATE THE REVISION |
| | & REMOVE ANY VOIDED SHEETS & REPLACE ANY PAGES AS |
| | NECESSARY. A TRANSMITTAL LETTER LISTING THE ORIGINAL |
| | REVIEW COMMENT NUMBER, WITH A DESCRIPTION OF THE |
| | REVISION MADE, IDENTIFYING THE SHEET OR SPECIFICATION |
| | PAGE WHERE THE CHANGES CAN BE FOUND WILL HELP TO |
| | EXPEDITE YOUR PERMIT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANTICIPATED |
| | COOPERATION. |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENTS: |
| | 1- PLANS ARE NOT CLEAR IN SHOWING THE SCOPE OF WORK TO |
| | BE DONE TO THE TENANT SPACES AND THEY DON'T SHOW THE |
| | NEW WALLS SEPARATING THE TENANTS. EXISTING BUILDING |
| | PLAN (SHEET A1.0) AND DEMOLITION PLAN (SHEET A1.1) SHOW |
| | WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE PROPOSED TENANT SEPARATION WALL, |
| | BUT PLANS DON'T SHOW SCOPE OF WORK. CLEARLY IDENTIFY |
| | WHAT IS GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED TO ALLOW FOR NEW TENT |
| | SEPARATION WALLS AND PROVIDE DETAILS/SPECIFICATIONS FOR |
| | SCOPE OF WORK ON EACH SIDE OF THE TENANT SEPARATION |
| | WALLS. |
| | NOTE: SEPARATE SUB-PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR PROPER |
| | INSPECTIONS ON BOTH SIDES OF TENANTS. SEC. 107.2.1 CITY |
| | AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | 2- CLARIFY WHY PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN ON SHEET A2.0 ONLY |
| | SHOWS AN ACCESSIBLE COUNTER AT THE CHECK OUT AREA AND |
| | NO ONE AT THE CHECK IN AREA. CHECK IN COUNTER AREA IS |
| | ALSO USED TO WRITE CHECKS, ETC. SEC. 227.3 |
| | FBC-ACCESSIBILITY. |
| | |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE THAT SUBMITTAL OF ADDITIONAL AND/OR REVISED |
| | MATERIALS MAY RESULT IN NEW PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | WHEN RESUBMITTING PLANS PLEASE INDICATE THE REVISION & |
| | REMOVE ANY VOIDED SHEETS & REPLACE ANY PAGES AS |
| | NECESSARY. A TRANSMITTAL LETTER LISTING THE ORIGINAL |
| | REVIEW COMMENT NUMBER, WITH A DESCRIPTION OF THE |
| | REVISION MADE, IDENTIFYING THE SHEET OR SPECIFICATION |
| | PAGE WHERE THE CHANGES CAN BE FOUND WILL HELP TO |
| | EXPEDITE YOUR PERMIT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANTICIPATED |
| | COOPERATION. |
| | |
| | PLEASE, INSERT CORRECTED PAGES INTO THE SUBMITTAL AND |
| | REMOVE/VOID THE PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED SHEETS. |
| | PLEASE DON'T STAPLE OLD DRAWINGS/DOCUMENTS . SUBMIT OLD |
| | DRAWINGS/DOCUMENTS FOR REFERENCE. |
| | |
| | IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT |
| | JULIO GOMEZ |
| | COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| | BUILDING DIVISION |
| | (561)805-6712 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
| | ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS |
| | FLORIDA STATUTE 553.80(2)(B): |
| | WITH RESPECT TO EVALUATION OF DESIGN PROFESSIONALS |
| | DOCUMENTS, IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINDS IT NECESSARY, IN |
| | ORDER TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | CODE AND ISSUE A PERMIT, TO REJECT DESIGN DOCUMENTS |
| | REQUIRED BY THE CODE THREE OR MORE TIMES FOR FAILURE TO |
| | CORRECT A CODE VIOLATION SPECIFICALLY AND CONTINUOUSLY |
| | NOTED IN EACH REJECTION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, |
| | EGRESS, FIRE PROTECTION, STRUCTURAL STABILITY, ENERGY, |
| | ACCESSIBILITY, LIGHTING, VENTILATION, ELECTRICAL, |
| | MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND GAS SYSTEMS, OR OTHER |
| | REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED BY RULE OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | COMMISSION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 120, THE LOCAL |
| | GOVERNMENT SHALL IMPOSE, EACH TIME AFTER THE THIRD SUCH |
| | REVIEW THE PLANS ARE REJECTED FOR THAT CODE VIOLATION, |
| | A FEE OF FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPORTION OF THE |
| | PERMIT FEE ATTRIBUTED TO PLANS REVIEW |
| | |
| | |
| | |
