| Date |
Text |
| 2019-07-03 11:02:28 | THIS PLAN WAS REVIEWED AND FAILED BY PETER LEDUC, FIRE |
| | MARSHAL, WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | |
| | 1) IN READING THE RESPONSE TO FIRE COMMENTS FROM |
| | GLIDDEN SPINA, THERE APPEARS TO SOME |
| | MISCOMMUNICATIONS/MISUNDERSTANDINGS. |
| | |
| | THERE CAN NOT BE OPPOSING EXITS AS PROPOSED. EXITS |
| | SHALL BE IN ONE DIRECTION. |
| | |
| | THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THERE IS A CHALLANGE TO COMPLY |
| | WITH THE EXITING CODE WITH THIS CONFIGURATION. |
| | |
| | ONCE THE FRONT DOORS WERE REMOVED FROM THE EXPANSION |
| | AREA, IT CREATED A CONFLICT WITH THE CODE. I WAS |
| | ADVISED THAT THE BLDG. DEPT. REQUIRED THOSE DOORS TO BE |
| | REMOVED. I DO NOT SEE THOSE COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | PER THE PLANS, THERE IS A RATED WALL WITH THE DOOR |
| | OPENING BETWEEN THEM. ONCE THAT DOOR IS REMOVED IT |
| | CREATES ONE OCCUPANCY AND TWO EXITS ARE REQUIRED FROM |
| | THAT ONE OCCUPANCY. |
| | |
| | THE PROPOSED CONFLICTING DIRECTIONAL EXITS SIGNS ARE |
| | NONCOMPLIANT. |
| | |
| | |
| | THE FOLLOWING IS FOR RECOMMENDATION AND DISSCUSSION |
| | PURPOSES. |
| | |
| | 1) REPLACE THE DOOR WITH A RATED DOOR CONSISTENT WITH |
| | THE WALL SEPARATION RATING. THIS CREATES IN ESSENCE. |
| | TWO OCCUPANCIES. ONE ASSEMBLY (THE ORIGINAL SPACE) AND |
| | ONE MERCANTILE(THE NEW SPACE, ASSEMBLY UNDER 50) PER |
| | THE FFPC, AND ONE EXIT IS ACCEPTABLE. REMOVE THE EXIT |
| | SIGN FROM THE NEW SSPACE. THE NEW RATED DOOR WOULD |
| | SWING INTO THE NEW SPACE AND WOULD BE THE 2ND EXIT FROM |
| | THAT ORIGINAL AREA. |
| | |
| | |
| | 2) REMOVE THE EXIT SIGN FROM THE NEW SPACE AND REPLACE |
| | THE FRONT DOOR. TWO EXITS WOULD BE FROM EACH SPACE. |
| | |
| | |
| | RESPECTFULLY, |
| | |
| | |
| | PETER LEDUC |
| | FIRE MARSHAL |
| | 561-804-4709 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
