| Date |
Text |
| 2016-05-26 12:56:35 | THIS PLAN WAS REVIEWED AND FAILED BY PETER LEDUC, FIRE |
| | MARSHAL, WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1) SHEET AS 203 - THE SUBMITTAL IS INDICATING 4 |
| | SEPARATE TCO'S. THE SHEET INDICATES A BOUNDARY LINE |
| | BETWEEN TCO # 3 AND TCO # 1; HOWEVER, THE TRAVEL |
| | DISTANCES APEAR TO REPRESENT DISTANCES FOR COMPLETE |
| | BUILDING TCO AND NOT IN PHASES. STAIR # 1 IS NOT |
| | FUNCTIONAL IN TCO # 1 BUT THE TRAVEL DISTNACES CAN NOT |
| | BE CONFIRMED DUE TO NO BUILKDING OR SPCE DIMENSIONS ARE |
| | INDICATED ON THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | THE TRAVEL DISTANCES CHANGE ON SHEET 208 THRUU 211, |
| | PLEASE EXPLAIN OR CLARIFY. |
| | |
| | PLEASE CONFIRM ALL TRAVEL DISTANCES FOR EACH TCO PHASE. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 2) SHEET AS 203-208 - A GREEN LINE INDICATED AS PATH OF |
| | TRAVEL TO EXIT APPEARS IN THE AREA OF THE EAST STAIR # |
| | 1 WHICH IS PART OF TCO # ! AND # 2. THE GREEN LINE IS |
| | INDICATING AN EGRESS DIRECTION ARROW FROM THE EST |
| | APARTMENTS THROUGH THE GARAGE AREA. |
| | |
| | PER NFPA 101 CHAPTER 7, MEANS OF EGRESS, 7.1.1.6 DOES |
| | NOT PROVIDE EXITING THROUGH A AREA OF HIGHER HAZARD. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 3) SHEET AS 202-208 - THE EXIT STAIR SEPARATION ALONG |
| | THE PARKING GARAGE WALL INDICATES A PROPOSED CURTAIN |
| | WALL. THIS IS A NON-COMPLIANT SEPARATION INSTALLATION. |
| | A WATER CURTAIN IS ALLOWED PER NFPA 13, 8.15.4* |
| | VERTICAL OPENINGS. |
| | 8.15.4.1* GENERAL. UNLESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 8.15.4.4 |
| | ARE MET, WHERE MOVING STAIRWAYS, STAIRCASES, OR SIMILAR |
| | FLOOR OPENINGS ARE UNENCLOSED AND WHERE SPRINKLER |
| | PROTECTION IS SERVING AS THE ALTERNATIVE TO ENCLOSURE |
| | OF THE VERTICAL OPENING, THE |
| | FLOOR OPENINGS INVOLVED SHALL BE PROTECTED BY CLOSELY |
| | SPACED SPRINKLERS IN COMBINATION WITH DRAFT STOPS IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH 8.15.4.2 AND 8.15.4.3. |
| | |
| | THE PROPOSED APPLICATION IS NOT AN UNENCLOSED FLOOR |
| | OPENING. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 4) SHEET AS212 & 212A - THESE PLAN INDICATED TWO |
| | DIFFERENT OCCUPANCY LOADS.ONE FROM THE FBC AND ONE FOR |
| | FFPC. WHICH ONE IS BEING SUBMITTED? |
| | |
| | ACCORDING TO NFPA 101, 1.8, 1.8 FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION |
| | CODE AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE INTERRELATION. THE |
| | FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE CONTAINS SEVERAL |
| | PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS THAT MAY INTERRELATE WITH |
| | THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS |
| | CODE THAT SUCH INTERRELATION RESULT IN DUPLICATE |
| | REVIEWS AND INSPECTIONS BY EITHER THE FIRESAFETY |
| | AUTHORITY OR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. THE AUTHORITY |
| | HAVING JURISDICTION OVER FIRESAFETY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR |
| | ENFORCEMENT OF THE FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE HEREOF, |
| | AND, IN THE EVENT THAT A DISPUTE ARISES REGARDING THE |
| | ENFORCEMENT OF THE FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE AS |
| | RELATED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | CODE, THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION OVER FIRESAFETY |
| | SHALL RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BY THE PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN |
| | CHAPTER 633 AND CHAPTER 553, FLORIDA STATUTES, AS |
| | REQUIRED BY SECTION 633.104(5), FLORIDA STATUTES. |
| | |
| | F.S 533.73(D) STATES CONFLICTING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN |
| | THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND THE FLORIDA FIRE |
| | PREVENTION CODE AND LIFE SAFETY CODE OF THE STATE SHALL |
| | BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT OFFERS THE |
| | GREATEST DEGREE OF LIFESAFETY OR ALTERNATIVES THAT |
| | WOULD PROVIDE AN EQUIVALENT DEGREE OF LIFESAFETY AND AN |
| | EQUIVALENT METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION. |
| | |
| | THE FBC OCCUPANY LOAD SHALL APPLY. WITH THE OCCUPANCY |
| | LAOD 655 + 38 FOR THE POOL, THRE (3) EXITS ARE REQUIRED |
| | FOR THE DECK AREA. ONLY TWO(2) ARE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 7.4* NUMBER OF MEANS OF EGRESS. |
| | 7.4.1 GENERAL. |
| | 7.4.1.2 THE NUMBER OF MEANS OF EGRESS FROM ANY STORY OR |
| | PORTION |
| | THEREOF, OTHER THAN FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS AS PERMITTED |
| | IN CHAPTERS |
| | 11 THROUGH 43, SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: |
| | (1) OCCUPANT LOAD MORE THAN 500 BUT NOT MORE THAN 1000 |
| | ? |
| | NOT LESS THAN 3 |
| | (2) OCCUPANT LOAD MORE THAN 1000 ? NOT LESS THAN 4 |
| | |
| | WITH THE OCCUPANCY LAOD 655 + 38 FOR THE POOL, THRE (3) |
| | EXITS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE DECK AREA. ONLY TWO(2) ARE |
| | PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE THREE (3) CODE COMPLAINT EXITS. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 5) SHEET AS 801 - THERE IS NO STAIR DETAIL IN THE |
| | SUBMITTAL; HOWEVER, ON THIS SHEET TYPICAL RAILINGS ARE |
| | INDICATED ON THE OPEN EXIT STAIRWELL. |
| | |
| | 7.2.2.6.2* VISUAL PROTECTION. OUTSIDE STAIRS SHALL BE |
| | ARRANGED TO AVOID ANY IMPEDIMENTS TO THEIR USE BY |
| | PERSONS HAVING A FEAR OF HIGH PLACES. OUTSIDE STAIRS |
| | MORE THAN 36 FT (11 M) ABOVE THE FINISHED GROUND LEVEL, |
| | OTHER THAN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED EXISTING STAIRS, SHALL |
| | BE PROVIDED WITH AN OPAQUE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION NOT LESS |
| | THAN 48. IN. (1220 MM) IN HEIGHT. |
| | |
| | 7.2.2.6.6 OPENNESS. OUTSIDE STAIRS, OTHER THAN EXISTING |
| | OUTSIDE STAIRS, SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 50 PERCENT OPEN |
| | ON ONE SIDE. OUTSIDE STAIRS SHALL BE ARRANGED TO |
| | RESTRICT THE ACCUMULATION OF SMOKE. |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE INDICATIONS AND DRAWNINGS THAT COMPLY |
| | WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 6) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MAY BE PROVIDED WITH THE |
| | RE-SUBMITTAL OF THE BAOVE. |
| | |
| | |
| | PETER LEDUC |
| | FIRE MARSHAL |
| | 561-804-4709 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
