24 replies to this topic

[Thomas Roman]

well... since we never found a fire-rated clothes chute requirement in the codes, here is how we replied to the plan check comment:

 

NOTE THAT THE CBC VERTICAL SHAFT REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO LAUNDRY CHUTES IN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AS PER LAUNDRY CHUTES SECTION 713.13 EXCEPTION 1 – NOTE THAT WE SEE NO SUCH FIRE RATED LAUNDRY CHUTE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CRC (RESIDENTIAL CODE).

 

HOWEVER, WE HAVE REVISED THE PLANS TO INDICATE THE FOLLOWING:

 

1. PROVIDE A CONTINUOUS ENCLOSED NON-COMBUSTIBLE SHEET METAL CLOTHES CHUTE COMPLETELY SEALED EXCEPT FOR TOP AND BOTTOM OPENINGS.

 

2. WHERE THE SHEET METAL CHUTE PASSES THROUGH THE FLOOR, THE OPENING THROUGH THE FLOOR SHALL BE COMPLETELY SEALED AND FIRE-BLOCKED AROUND THE SHEET METAL CHUTE SO AS TO PREVENT THE PASSAGE OF SMOKE.

 

3. THE TOP OPENING OF THE CLOTHES CHUTE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH SOLID, TIGHT FITTING, SELF-CLOSING HOPPER-TYPE DOOR. THIS DOOR SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE BOTTOM HINGE AT A MINIMUM OF 48” ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL, SO AS TO PREVENT SMALL CHILDREN FROM ACCESSING THE CHUTE.

 

4. BOTTOM OPENING SHALL BE ENCLOSED WITHIN A SOLID CABINET. THIS CABINET SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A SOLID, TIGHT FITTING, SELF-CLOSING DOOR.

[Keith Almond]

Seems like you have covered all the requirements that the plans checker needed. It does however seem like overkill for a laundry chute.

[Thomas Roman]

he was asking for one hour fire-rated enclosure... we don't want to go there, but I feel we made it far safer..

[Michael Collazo]

Here in Utah, the legislature passed a new law last year that plan reviewers are REQUIRED to site the specific code reference if they find a deficiency on plans.   Inspectors are required to do the same thing during an inspection.   If they can't prove that is in the code or required by city ordinance, they can't enforce it.

 

 

Yes I agree. That is the way we work in Florida. I rarely ever reference things in code. It is my job to assure that the design meets the applicable regulations. I am not supposed to tell the AHJ what the code is. They are supposed to cite specific deficiencies using their internal checklists.

 

  But... I did a development for a large home builder in California and I tell you, that was all turned upside down. They required I cite in the plans all applicable code references. Of course not all of them. But its typical in Ca. that the plan reviewers are told by the architects what codes are applicable, and the reviewers just check that they do in fact meet code. I should move to California and become a plans examiner. 

[Michael Collazo]

he was asking for one hour fire-rated enclosure... we don't want to go there, but I feel we made it far safer..

 

 

 Tom, you do know that by the time you put the sheet metal, plywood, & wood studs, you are probably 1 layer of plywood away from meeting a 1-hour prescriptive fire rating anyway. Especially if you did add batt insulation.  You did a good job of not showing resistance with the plans examiner while showing that you are addressing smoke, Always better to give them something to compomise.