Date |
Text |
2015-11-25 11:24:41 | THIS PLAN WAS REVIEWED AND FAILED BY PETER LEDUC, FIRE |
| MARSHAL, WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: |
| |
| 1. A FIRE SPRINKLER PLAN SCHEMATIC IS NOT PROVIDED, |
| SEPARATE SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED |
| |
| 2. A FIRE ALARM SCHEMATIC IS NOT PROVIDED, SEPARATE |
| SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED |
| |
| 3. A STAIR AND RAILING DETAIL IS NOT PROVIDED FOR |
| EITHER STAIR. |
| |
| 4. ALL EXIT SIGN LOCATIONS ARE NOT PROVIDED. |
| |
| 5. EMERGENCY LIGHT LOCATIONS ARE NOT PROVIDED. |
| |
| 6. A DOOR SCHEDULE, INCLUDING HARDWARE, EXIT HARDWARE, |
| FRAME TYPE, FIRE RATING, LOCKING MECHANISM, IS NOT |
| PROVIDED. |
| |
| 7. FIRE EXTINGUISHER LOCATIONS ARE NOT PROVIDED. |
| |
| 8. PROVIDE A NOTE: ALL COOKING EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY |
| WITH NFPA 96, INCLUDING VENTILATION AND SUPPRESSION |
| SYSTEMS, UNDER SEPARATE SHOP DRAWINGS, SHALL BE |
| SUBMITTED. |
| |
| 9. AT THE 1ST FLOOR EXIT CORRIDOR, THE KITCHEN DOOR AND |
| THE TWO DOUBLE DOORS OPEN INTO THE CORRIDOR AND |
| ENCROUCH INTO THE EXIT CORRIDOR. NO DIMENSIONS ARE |
| PROVIDED. |
| |
| NFPA 101 CHAPTER 7, MEANS OF EGRESS |
| |
| 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 DIMESNIONS INDICATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE |
| OR PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE DOOR OPTIONS. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |