| Date |
Text |
| 2013-12-06 14:00:19 | BUILDING PLAN REVIEW |
| | PERMIT: 13120009 |
| | ADD: 250 S AUSTRALIAN AVE SUITE # 1504 |
| | CONT: TO BE DETERMINED |
| | TEL: (561)436-4733 |
| | CONTACT: KIM LIDDELL |
| | |
| | 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE W |
| | * 2010 WEST PALM BEACH AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA |
| | BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION, 2010 EDITION |
| | 2012 FBC SUPPLEMENTS ADOPTED APRIL 25/2013. |
| | |
| | 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: FRIDAY DEC. 06/2013 |
| | ACTION: DENIED |
| | |
| | 1) THE DESIGNER OF RECORD HAS NOT DECLAIRED AS TO WHAT |
| | COMPLIANCE METHOD UNDER THE 2010 EXST BLDG CODE THIS |
| | RENOVATION WAS DESIGNED. 2010 EXST BLDG CODE 101.5 |
| | COMPLIANCE METHODS. |
| | FOR THE SAKE OF THIS REVIEW I WILL BE USING THE WORK |
| | AREA COMPLIANCE METHOD AND A LEVEL II ALTERATION. |
| | |
| | 2) ELEVATOR SHAFTS PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLIANCE WITH 2010 |
| | EXST BLDG CODE: 703.2.1 EXISTING VERTICAL OPENINGS. |
| | ALL EXISTING INTERIOR VERTICAL OPENINGS CONNECTING TWO |
| | OR MORE FLOORS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE APPROPRIATE |
| | SECTIONS OF THE FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE. |
| | |
| | 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. |
| | |
| | |
| | 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 G-0115 THE LIFE SAFETY SHEET APPEARS THAT A |
| | FEW EXIT DIRECTIONAL LIGHTS ARE MISSING, THE 100 FT |
| | REQUIREMENT IS MET BUT THE LINE OF SIGHT IS MISSING, |
| | SEE CORRIDORS IN FRONT OF OFFICE 115 AND 1527 ALTHOUGH |
| | THERE IS A DIRECTIONAL TO THE LEFT THE SHORTEST EXIT |
| | ACCESS DOOR IS LOCATED TO THE RIGHT WHICH CAN NOT BE |
| | SEEN FROM THIS CORRIDOR. |
| | |
| | 4) PLEASE PROVIDE THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE 3 |
| | CONFERENCE ROOMS AND THE BREAK ROOM, THESE ARE ASSEMLY |
| | USAGE AREAS AS WELL AS THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE |
| | FLOOR TO SEE IF THIS IS STILL A ACCESSORY OCCUPANCY OR |
| | NOT SEE 2010 FBC-B 508.2.1. PLEASE DECLARE IF A MIXED |
| | OCCUPANCY IF DESIGNED TO MEET 508.3 OR 508.4. |
| | |
| | JAMES A. WITMER CBO |
| | SENIOR COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| | TEL: 561-805-6715 |
| | FAX: 561-805-6676 |
| | E-MAIL: [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
