Legal Report August 21, 2006
DCA06-DEC-153 by Kenneth E. Thorndyke, CBO Panama City Beach
DCA06-DEC-160 by Kirk Grundahl , PE , WTCA
DCA06-DEC-162 by Clark M. Stranahan, C4 Architecture
DCA06-DEC-174 by Emil Veksenfeld, PE
DCA06-DEC-175 by Clark M. Stranahan, C4 Architecture
DCA06-DEC-176 by Jeff Alloway , U.S. Air Conditioning
DCA06-DEC-179 by Michael P. Morris, CEO, Roll-A-Cover International
DCA06-DEC-180 by Gordon G. Lyle, R2 Self, Inc.
DCA06-DEC-181 by James S. Luke, PE, Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.
DCA06-DEC-182 by Michael Thompson, HPA Consulting Engineers Inc.
DCA06-DEC-153 by Kenneth E. Thorndyke, CBO Panama City Beach
Deferred to the local appeals board.
DCA06-DEC-160 by Kirk Grundahl , PE , WTCA
Request: The Petitioner is requesting that the Commission clarify that the intent of FBC 2004 Table 1607.1, Item number 27, “Residential one-and two family dwellings, Uninhabitable attics without storage” and FBCR 2004 in Table R301.5, “Attics without storage” is to provide consideration of the application of a minimum uniformly distributed attic non-storage live load, 10 psf in this case, be applied non-concurrently with roof live load or wind load.
Answer: The 2004 Florida Building Code , Residential (Section R802.10.2), and the 2004 Florida Building Code , Building (Sections 2306.1 and 2319.2.1.1), adopt by reference the ANSI/TPI 1-2002, National Design Standard for Metal Plate Connected Wood Truss Construction, as the specific design standard for metal plate connected wood trusses. Since ANSI/TPI 1 is more specific in addressing the issue in question than the FBC (FBC, Building Table 1607.1 and FRC Table 301.5), the ANSI/TPI 1 would prevail on this issue (see Section 102.1 of the FBC, Building). Therefore, it is the intent of the FBC 2004 Table 1607.1, Item number 27, “Residential one-and two-family dwellings, uninhabitable attics without storage” and FBCR 2004 in Table R301.5, “Attics without storage” to provide consideration of the application of minimum uniformly distributed attic non-storage live load, 10 psf in this case, be applied non-concurrently with other live loads.
DCA06-DEC-162 by Clark M. Stranahan, C4 Architecture
Question: Is it the intent of the Florida Building – Section 910 to require smoke and heat venting for ESFR sprinkler protected buildings as specifically for Crossroads- Lot 4 Lot 1 building?
Answer: Yes. According to Section 910.2.1 and 903.2.8, both a smoke and heat vents, and an automatic sprinkler system are required to be installed in the project in question. In addition to the requirements of Section 910.2.1 and 903.2.8, the project in question must also comply with the requirements of Sections 910.2.3 and 413.1. However, section 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment, may be used to allow for other alternates subject to approval from the building official.
DCA06-DEC-174 by Emil Veksenfeld, PE
Recommend dismissal because The Florida Building Commission has no authority address FS 471 and FAC 6G-15 which is the Florida Board of Engineers regulations.
DCA06-DEC-175 by Clark M. Stranahan, C4 Architecture
Question #1: Is the correct allowable travel distance in Table 1015.1 for an S-1 Occupancy supposed to be 400 feet?
Answer: No. According to Table 1015.1, the maximum exist access travel distance for the project in question is 200 feet (without sprinkler system) and 250 feet (with sprinkler system).
Question #2: If not, is the travel distance allowed to be increased to 400 feet if smoke and heat vents are installed?
Answer: Yes. There is a Scribner's error in section 1015.2 where the reference to S1 was deleted unintentionally. Therefore, it was the intent of the code to allow the travel distance to be increased to 400 feet for S1 occupancy when smoke and heat vents are installed.
DC06-DEC-176 by Jeff Alloway , U.S. Air Conditioning
Question #1: When changing the air handler unit only of the split system located in New Port Richey in the Park Lake Estates subdivision, does it constitute as a repair or a replacement?
Answer: It constitutes a REPLACEMENT because a major component is replaced that would change the performance of the system.
Question #2: If it constitutes a replacement, does the combined efficiency of the outdoor/indoor unit have to meet the minimum efficiency listed for that type of equipment in Table 13-607.1.ABC.3.2A?
Answer: The answer is NO, Section 509.1 of the FBC- Existing Building , requires existing mechanical systems undergoing alteration to comply with Section 301.11 of the FBC-Mechanical , which requires defective material or parts to be replaced or repaired in such manner so as to preserve the original approval or listing of the equipment.
DCA06-DEC-179 by Michael P. Morris, CEO, Roll-A-Cover International
Request : the Petitioner is requesting clarification relative to whether the full range of structures manufactured by Roll-A-Cover fall under the roof panel, wall panel and glazing sub-categories required for a Florida Product Approval.
Answer : In accordance with Commission's action on DCA04-DEC-070 (see Item #. 3 above), the buildings in question are custom fabricated buildings in accordance with Section 553.842(11), Florida Statutes. Thus, separate approval for individual building per Rule 9B-72 is outside the scope of Rule 9B-72. However, local approval for components of the building, which are required to be designed and fabricated in accordance with specification standards referenced in the Florida Building Code , may be achieved through building plans review and inspection providing such product/ components are inspected by an approved inspection agency in accordance with Rule 9B-72. In addition, deck-roof and wall/siding of the buildings in question are within the scope of Rule 9B-72 and must demonstrate compliance through local or optional state approval. Furthermore, accessory components such as windows, doors, etc. are also within the scope of Rule 9B-72.
DCA06-DEC-180 by Gordon G. Lyle, R2 Self, Inc.
Question #1: Why was the language of the 2001 FBC changed?
Answer: No change was made to the 2001 FBC with regard to this issue. However, as part of the 2005 Supplement to the 2004 FBC, the provision in question was transferred from the 2001 FBC into the 2005 Supplement to the 2004 FBC and integrated into R311.5.3.1 as noted in Item 2 above.
Question #2: What is the intent of the new language in Section R311.5.3?
Answer: By adding the Florida specific provision, “Tread and risers of stairs shall be permitted to be so proportional that the sum of two risers and a tread, exclusive of projection of nosing, is not less than 24 inches nor more than 25 inches”, to Section R311.5.3 as noted in Item 2 above, it is the intent that Section R311.5.3 provides for two design options with regard to the stair tread depth and riser height. The two design options are as follows:
Design option #1: The maximum riser height must be 7 ¾ inches and the minimum tread depth, exclusive of nosing must not be less than 9 inches.
Design option #2: The treads and risers are permitted to be so proportional that the sum of two risers and a tread, exclusive of projection of nosing, is not less than 24 inches nor more than 25 inches.
DCA06-DEC-181 by James S. Luke, PE, Rolf Jensen & Associates
Question #1: Is it the intent of the Section 902.3 of the 2004 Florida Building Code , Existing Building, that the existing warehouse be renovated with draft curtains or/and an ESFR sprinkler system, and be provided with roof vents in accordance with the requirements of Section 910 of the Florida Building Code , if an addition is to be provided without a 4 hour fire resistive rated building separation wall?
Answer: Yes. As per Sections 910.2.1 and 903.2.8, the project in question will be required to provide for smoke and heat vents and an automatic sprinkler system for both the addition and the existing building.
Question #2: Is the intent of the 2004 Florida Building Code that additions cannot be provided for warehouses of non-rated construction, built following the unlimited area provisions of the 2001 FBC, unless the existing facility is altered to meet the new building code requirements for venting in Section 910 of the 2004 FBC, or bringing the existing structure up to Type I-A construction?
Answer: In order for the proposed project to be built following the unlimited area provisions of Section 507.2 or Table 503, both the existing warehouse and the addition will be required to meet the requirements of Section 507.2 or be of Type I-A construction.
DCA06-DEC-182 by Michael Thompson, CHPA Consulting Engineers Inc.
Question 1: Is the guest room corridor an occupied space?
Answer: NO, Section 602.1 defines plenums as being unoccupiable spaces and cavities; thus, a corridor is never a plenum.
Question 2: Does the referenced code allow the transfer of bathroom exhaust make up air from the corridor to the guest room?
Answer: NO, Section 601.2 prohibits corridors from serving as supply, return, exhaust, relief or ventilation air ducts except in rooms that open directly onto such corridors, including toilet rooms, bathrooms, dressing rooms, smoking lounges and janitor closets.
Question 3: Does the referenced code allow the transfer of bathroom exhaust from the guest room to the bathroom?
Answer: YES, the code does allow transfer of air from the guest room to be used for bathroom exhaust.
Question 4: Does the referenced code allow the bathroom exhaust to be supplied through the corridor?
Answer: NO, not unless the bathroom opens directly onto the corridor.