| Date |
Text |
| 2017-07-14 11:21:17 | THIS PLAN WAS REVIEWED AND FAILED BY PETER LEDUC, FIRE |
| | MARSHAL, WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | |
| | 1) LS 1.0 - THE PROPOSED PROJECT APPEARS TO BE AN |
| | OCCUPANY CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO BUSINESS. THE |
| | PROJECT SCOPE AND CODE ANALYSIS DOES NOT INDICATE THIS |
| | INFORMATION. |
| | |
| | 4.6.11 CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION. IN |
| | ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, WHETHER OR NOT A PHYSICAL |
| | ALTERATION IS NEEDED, A CHANGE FROM ONE USE OR |
| | OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION TO ANOTHER SHALL COMPLY WITH |
| | 4.6.7. |
| | |
| | 4.6.7 BUILDING REHABILITATION. |
| | 4.6.7.1 REHABILITATION WORK ON EXISTING BUILDINGS SHALL |
| | BE CLASSIFIED AS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WORK CATEGORIES |
| | IN ACCORDANCE WITH 43.2.2.1: |
| | (1) REPAIR |
| | (2) RENOVATION |
| | (3) MODIFICATION |
| | (4) RECONSTRUCTION |
| | (5) CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION |
| | (6) ADDITION |
| | |
| | PLEASE REVIEW AND PROVIDE THE NOTE/NARRATIVE INDICATING |
| | # 5 ABOVE. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 2) SHEET A 1.0.1 - THE FLOOR LAYOUT AND WALL LEGEND DO |
| | NOT INDICATED THE EXISTING FIRE RATING OF THE WALLS |
| | SEPARATING THE PROPOSED PROJECT. |
| | |
| | PER NFPA 101, CHAPTER 6 |
| | |
| | 6.1.14.4 SEPARATED OCCUPANCIES. |
| | 6.1.14.4.1 WHERE SEPARATED OCCUPANCIES ARE PROVIDED, |
| | EACH PART OF THE BUILDING COMPRISING A DISTINCT |
| | OCCUPANCY, AS DESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER, SHALL BE |
| | COMPLETELY SEPARATED FROM OTHER OCCUPANCIES BY |
| | FIRE-RESISTIVE ASSEMBLIES, AS SPECIFIED IN 6.1.14.4.2, |
| | 6.1.14.4.3, TABLE 6.1.14.4.1(A), AND TABLE |
| | 6.1.14.4.1(B), UNLESS SEPARATION IS PROVIDED BY |
| | APPROVED EXISTING SEPARATIONS. |
| | 6.1.14.4.2 OCCUPANCY SEPARATIONS SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS |
| | 3-HOUR FIRE RESISTANCE?RATED, 2-HOUR FIRE |
| | RESISTANCE?RATED, OR 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTANCE?RATED AND |
| | SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 8. |
| | 6.1.14.4.3 THE MINIMUM FIRE RESISTANCE RATING SPECIFIED |
| | IN TABLE 6.1.14.4.1(A) AND TABLE 6.1.14.4.1(B) SHALL BE |
| | PERMITTED TO BE REDUCED BY 1 HOUR, BUT IN NO CASE SHALL |
| | IT BE REDUCED TO LESS THAN 1 HOUR, WHERE THE BUILDING |
| | IS PROTECTED THROUGHOUT BY AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC |
| | SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH 9.7.1.1(1) AND |
| | SUPERVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 9.7.2, UNLESS PROHIBITED |
| | BY THE DOUBLE -DAGGER FOOTNOTE ENTRIES IN THE TABLES. |
| | |
| | THE TABLE INDICATES 2 HOURS. |
| | |
| | PLEASE REVIEW, CORRECT OR PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICABLE |
| | WALL TYPE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 3) SHEET A 1.0.1 - THE DOOR SCHEDULE DOES NOT INDICATE |
| | THE EXISTING FRONT ENTRANCE DOOR. THOUGH EXISTING IT |
| | NEEDS TO BE INDICATED AND THAT ITS MEETS THE |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF NFPA 101, CHAPTER 38, NEW BUISNESS |
| | OCCUPANCIES AND 7, MEANS OF EGRESS, INCLUDING LOCKS, |
| | LATCHES, & HARDWARE. |
| | |
| | 38.2.2 MEANS OF EGRESS COMPONENTS. |
| | 38.2.2.1 COMPONENTS PERMITTED. MEANS OF EGRESS |
| | COMPONENTS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE TYPES DESCRIBED IN |
| | 38.2.2.2 THROUGH 38.2.2.12. |
| | 38.2.2.2 DOORS. |
| | 38.2.2.2.1 DOORS COMPLYING WITH 7.2.1 SHALL BE |
| | PERMITTED. |
| | 38.2.2.2.2* LOCKS COMPLYING WITH 7.2.1.5.5 SHALL BE |
| | PERMITTED ONLY ON PRINCIPAL ENTRANCE/EXIT DOORS. |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS MEETING THE REQUIRERMENTS. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 4) SHEET E 3.1 - THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF FIRE ALARM |
| | EQUIPMENT. |
| | |
| | ALL FIRE ALARM WORK SHALL BE DONE UNDER SEPARATE SHOP |
| | DRAWING IN COMPLIANCE WITH NFPA 72 AND INSTALL BE |
| | CERTIFIED LIFE SAFETY CONTRACTORS. |
| | |
| | PLEASE REVIEW AND PROVIDE AN APPLICABLE NOTE. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 5) WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE PLAN SHEET |
| | REVISION CLOUDS OR NUMBERED NARRATIVE RESPONSES TO THE |
| | ABOVE. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 6) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MAY BE PROVIDED ON THE |
| | RE-SUBMITTAL OF THE ABOVE. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | PETER LEDUC |
| | FIRE MARSHAL |
| | 561-804-4709 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
