Date |
Text |
2022-02-15 17:07:56 | PLAN |
| REVIEW COMMENTS |
| |
| 1ST REVIEW: BC SEVENTH EDITION (2020) |
| ROBERT MCDOUGAL, CBO |
| COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| (561) 805-6714 |
| [email protected] |
| |
| DENIED BY BUILDING |
| PLEASE ADDRESS THE ITEMS NOTED BELOW: |
| |
| 1) THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN SHOWS ONLY ONE EXIT. IT APPEARS |
| THAT THE MOST REMOTE EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE WOULD |
| BE FROM THE WORK ROOM #113, RATHER THAN THE SALES |
| BALCONY #108. PLEASE SHOW THE COMMON PATH OF TRAVEL |
| DISTANCE FROM THE MOST REMOTE POINT IN THE WORK ROOM TO |
| THE SINGLE EXIT. FBC 1017.3 |
| |
| 2) FBC 1006.2.1 REQUIRES TWO EXITS FROM ANY SPACE THAT |
| EXCEEDS THE OCCUPANT LOAD OR THE COMMON PATH OF EGRESS |
| TRAVEL DISTANCE VALUES LISTED IN TABLE 1006.2.1. FOR A |
| BUSINESS OCCUPANCY THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANT LOAD IS 49 AND |
| THE MAXIMUM COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL DISTANCE IN A |
| FULLY SPRINKLERED BUILDING IS100 FEET. IF THE MAXIMUM |
| COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL DISTANCE FROM THE WORK |
| ROOM EXCEEDS 100 FEET ANOTHER EXIT WILL BE REQUIRED. |
| |
| 3) THE ORIGINAL PLANS FOR THE BUILDING SHOWS TWO SETS |
| OF IN-SWING DOUBLE DOORS AT THE WEST SIDE OF THIS AREA. |
| THE FLOOR PLAN SHOWS ONE SET OF THE DOORS EITHER BEING |
| INOPERABLE OR REPLACED WITH STOREFRONT WINDOWS AND THE |
| SOUTH SET OF DOORS BEING OUT-SWING. ARE THESE DOORS |
| BEING REPLACED OR CHANGED? PLEASE CLARIFY. FBC |
| AMENDMENTS 107.2.1 |
| |
| 4) ALL OF THE GLAZED DOORS, INTERIOR STOREFRONTS AND |
| ELSEWHERE THAT ARE CONSIDERED AS HAZARDOUS LOCATIONS |
| PER FBC 2406.4 ARE REQUIRED TO BE SAFETY GLAZING. |
| SPECIFY THESE ON THE PLANS. |
| |
| 5) THE FLOOR PLAN SHOWS STEPS FROM THE SIDE WALK TO THE |
| ENTRANCE, HOWEVER, NO RAMPS ARE SHOWN. SHOW THE |
| ACCESSIBILE ROUTE TO THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE SPACE. |
| FBC ACCESSIBILITY 201.1.1 AND 402 |
| |
| 6) PLEASE PROVIDE A RESPONSE LETTER INDICATING HOW EACH |
| OF THE REVIEW COMMENTS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. |
| |
| |