| Date |
Text |
| 2016-02-09 14:23:25 | THIS PLAN WAS REVIEWED AND FAILED BY PETER LEDUC, FIRE |
| | MARSHAL, WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. SHEET 1.1 SECTION 2.2 INDICATES "NOT SPRINKLERED", |
| | HOWEVER, GENERAL NOTES INCLUDE MAJOR CONSTRUCTION FIRE |
| | SPRINKLERS. |
| | SHEET 3.1 INDICATES A TABLE NOTE "NOT SPRINKLERED"; |
| | HOWEVER, A NOTE BOX INDICATES FIRE SPRINKLERS IN COMMON |
| | AREA. |
| | |
| | PLEASE BETTER CLARIFY AND PROVIDE CONSISTENT NOTES ON |
| | EACH SHEET. |
| | |
| | 2. SHEET 3.1 INDICATES A NEW DOOR LEADING TO THE |
| | CORRIDOR. IT ALSO INDICATES AN EXISTING DOUBLE DOOR |
| | NEXT TO IT THAT INDICATES A FIXED DOOR LEAF. |
| | |
| | PER NFPA 101, CHAPTER 7, DOOR SWING DIRECTION, |
| | 7.2.1.4.2, DOOR IS REQUIRED TO SWING IN THE DIRECTION |
| | OF EGRESS TRAVEL FOR AN OCCUPANT LOAD OF 50 OR GREATER |
| | PERSONS. |
| | |
| | 7.2.1.4.3 DOOR LEAF ENCROACHMENT |
| | 7.2.1.4.3.1 DURING ITS SWING, ANY DOOR LEAF IN A MEANS |
| | OF EGRESS SHALL LEAVE NOT LESS THAN ONE-HALF OF THE |
| | REQUIRED WIDTH OF AN AISLE, A CORRIDOR, A PASSAGEWAY, |
| | OR A LANDING UNOBSTRUCTED AND SHALL NOT PROJECT NOT |
| | MORE THAN 7 IN. INTO THE REQUIRED WIDTH OF AN AISLE, A |
| | CORRIDOR, A PASSAGE WAY, OR A LANDING, WHEN FULLY OPEN, |
| | UNLESS BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET: |
| | (1) THE DOOR OPENING PROVIDES ACCESS TO A STAIR IN AN |
| | EXISTING BUILDING. |
| | (2) THE DOOR OPENING MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS THAT LIMITS |
| | PROJECTION TO NOT MORE THAN 7 IN. INTO THE REQUIRED |
| | WIDTH OF THE STAIR LANDING WHEN THE DOOR LEAF IS FULLY |
| | OPEN. |
| | |
| | PROVIDE OCCUPANCY LOAD CALCULATIONS FOR THE EXISTING |
| | BUSINESS AND WITH LIFE SAFETY PLAN DETAILS THAT SHOW |
| | THAT THE DOUBLE DOOR LEAF CAN BE FIXED AND THAT BOTH |
| | DOORS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE OPENED FOR EGRESS |
| | CALCULATIONS. OTHERWISE THE NEW DOOR PLACEMENT EGRESS |
| | IS IN VIOLATION DUE TO THE THAT DOUBLE DOOR LEAF BEING |
| | OPENED. |
| | |
| | 3. SHEET 10.1 DOOR SCHEDULE AND EXIT DEVICE NOTE. |
| | PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION THAT THE EXIT DEVICE ON DOORS 218 |
| | AND 218A ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE PANIC HARDWARE |
| | INSTALLED. SHOULD PANIC HARDWARE BE REQUIRED, PROVIDE |
| | AN ACCURATE NOTE. |
| | |
| | PER NFPA 101, CHAPTERE 7, 7.2.1.5.1 DOOR LEAVES SHALL |
| | BE ARRANGED TO BE OPENED READILY FROM THE EGRESS SIDE |
| | WHENEVER THE BUILDING IS OCCUPIED. |
| | 7.2.1.5.3 LOCKS, IF PROVIDED, SHALL NOT REQUIRE THE USE |
| | OF A KEY, A TOOL, OR SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OR EFFORT FOR |
| | OPERATION FROM THE EGRESS SIDE. |
| | 7.2.1.5.10 A LATCH OR OTHER FASTENING DEVICE ON A DOOR |
| | LEAF SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A RELEASING DEVICE THAT HAS |
| | AN OBVIOUS METHOD OF OPERATION AND THAT IS READILY |
| | OPERATED UNDER ALL LIGHTING CONDITIONS. |
| | 7.2.1.5.10.2 THE RELEASING MECHANISM SHALL OPEN THE |
| | DOOR LEAF WITH NOT MORE THAN ONE RELEASING OPERATION. |
| | |
| | 4. SHEET 10.1 DOOR SCHEDULE. A DOOR CLOSER IS NOT |
| | INDICATED ON DOOR 218A; HOWEVER, IT IS A RATED DOOR AND |
| | REQUIRED TO HAVE A CLOSER PER NFPA 101, CHAPTER 7, |
| | 7.2.1.8 |
| | |
| | PETER LEDUC |
| | FIRE MARSHAL |
| | 561-804-4709 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
