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] |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |