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] |
| |