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] |
| |