• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Search results

  1. P

    "Break Room" Occupancy Load Factor

    Then I guess the whole world is a dance floor.
  2. P

    Phasing issue re 705.3

    At face value, I'd have no problem with it. If the demo doesn't happen, the new store won't stay open. Seems like motiviation enough. A written explanation that the owner understands the need to follow through with the demolition seems reasonable. Planning might want to know where customers...
  3. P

    Water Purveyor Rejects Multipurpose Sprinkler Taps

    In the real world, people are rarely thrown out of their homes for having their water shut off. Even in the rare case that the process is initiated, it usually takes weeks to go through the legalities of notifying them of a property maintenance code violation, giving them time to respond, etc...
  4. P

    Water Purveyor Rejects Multipurpose Sprinkler Taps

    I think fireguy was pointing out that the sprinkler tap could be made upstream of the meter, without a seperate tap on the main. This way, shutting the domestic water off at the meter (for non-payment, etc.) would still allow water to reach sprinklers. I really don't see water purveyors...
  5. P

    Non-Required Shaft Protection

    Hmmmmmm . . . Seeing the drawing, I'm not sure if you can call it a shaft. Since it is outside the footprint of the main building, it doesn't seem to meet the definition. It does not connect vertical openings in successive floors since the floors appear to continue all the way to the wall. It...
  6. P

    Non-Required Shaft Protection

    For clarification, the OP is referencing the '06 IBC. Code references should be from the '06. The reason for protecting a shaft is to keep fire from extending to multiple floors. The reason for protecting an exit enclosures is to keep fire from extending to multiple floors and to give the...
  7. P

    Non-Required Shaft Protection

    Successive stair landings do not compromise stories. A 25-story building with intermediate level landings between each floor in the stairwell does not suddenly become a 50-story building. If every space between two stair landings was considered a story, we'd have to install fire resistive...
  8. P

    Non-Required Shaft Protection

    Once again, how do you know that based on the information provided? If the only stories being connected are the basement and first floor, then it is only connecting two stories. If you measure the tower in terms of stories, it is one story tall regardless of how many flights are present within.
  9. P

    Non-Required Shaft Protection

    Maybe I'm missing something. How do you know the roof is a story? An occupiable roof without a ceiling or rafters above is not a story. An attic could be a story. STORY. That portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next...
  10. P

    Non-Required Shaft Protection

    I'm envisioning a tower connected to a one-story building with a basement. If that is the case, the shaft can only connect 2 stories at the most (basement and main floor). Is this incorrect? I wouldn't call it a "4-story" tower for code purposes. Individual landings in a stairwell are not...
  11. P

    construction costs and permit fees

    You still seem to be inferring that the amount you write the check for is all a building permit fee. That is rarely the case. For example, in my last jurisdiciton water tap fees were higher than neighboring jurisdictions due to impact fees. These were necessary to secure contracts and ensure...
  12. P

    construction costs and permit fees

    Besides the various non-permit related fees probably included in that total, don't forget that this is what the elected officials approved. If people are upset enough about it, they'll vote in someone who will change it. They do have to, if you ask correctly, which they will usually help you...
  13. P

    Common Path of Travel

    No. You'd be violating other sections of the code (1021.1, 1021.2). Once those sections establish the requirement for a second exit, then CPOET does apply.
  14. P

    Operational and Non Operational Permits

    Are you with a building department? Did you get additional resources to complete these tasks?
  15. P

    construction costs and permit fees

    This is what I am used to. Works well.
  16. P

    Possible building scenario

    For a fully sprinklered 2 story B occupancy? No. Yes. N/A. No. Condo ownership is generally handled through a condominium declaration, properly recorded. There may be a condo map, but they aren't platted property lines in the traditional sense. Just treat it like any other 2-story...
  17. P

    Operational and Non Operational Permits

    There are two types of permit specified in the fire code: construction and operational. Most jurisdictions that have a fire marshal's office issue construction permits. Use of operational permits is wildly inconsistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some issue them, some don't. Some...
  18. P

    Boiler plated plans

    I don't want to pull this off topic, but it reminds me of the debate over when to terminate an inspection as "not ready". Some jurisdictions are perfectly comfortable being a checklist agency for contractors who call for inspections prematurely, and will spend hours on-site writing up page...
  19. P

    Boiler plated plans

    I'll rephrase. If they are so extraneous that I can't figure out what's going on (skilled as I am ;) ) in a reasonable amount of time, then I'm going to have them removed. Sure, I could eventually verify compliance, but I do have responsibilities beyond this one set of plans. Now you're...
  20. P

    Boiler plated plans

    But it is the job I'm paid to do. There can be too little information so a reviewer can't verify compliance, or there can be so much gibberish present that a reviewer can't verify compliance. Either plan should be rejected on the grounds that it lacks sufficient clarity. If there are a couple...
  21. P

    Boiler plated plans

    It takes me almost no time to tell you to remove notes and details that do not pertain to the project, or to tell you to correctly reflect the edition of the code the project was designed to. Doing so will save much more time than it will cost the many individuals involved in the remainder of...
  22. P

    Boiler plated plans

    I don't call it enforcing "good drawing practice". I call it enforcing "sufficient clarity". Sorry, but you aren't going to bog down the operation of this department and cost the taxpayers more money than justified all so you can bill your client a few more dollars than the project was...
  23. P

    Minimum Submittal Requirements

    I've never had that problem when scanning or copying. If you're that concerned about having your own proof, I guess you could keep the jobsite set. The copies in the building department will still exist as well.
  24. P

    Minimum Submittal Requirements

    I know I'm not Jake, but this is an apples and oranges comparison. It can be said that both are doing the best they can with what they have, but the similarities stop there. There has been a lot of discussion in this thread about due dilligence on the part of designers. We can argue about...
  25. P

    Define this space:

    I don't live or work down there. It isn't worth my time to dig into the legislative history of code development in FL, but I was curious and so I asked the question. I got an answer, too. That's how you learn, which I shouldn't have to explain, but am glad to do since you tend to be a little...
Back
Top