| Date |
Text |
| 2022-08-24 14:41:41 | THIS PLAN WAS REVIEWED AND FAILED BY PETER LEDUC, FIRE |
| | MARSHAL, WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | |
| | ON REVEIW OF FIRE COMMENT RESPONSES, FIRE COMMENT # 1 |
| | HAS NOT BEEN TOTALY ADDRESSED . |
| | |
| | THOUGH THE DOOR IS AN EXISTING DOOR LEADING TO A EXIT |
| | STAIR AS PER 7.2.1.4.3 (1), HOWVER (2) IS NOT ADDRESS. |
| | |
| | THE APPLICABLE DOOR MUST HAVE HARDWARE THAT ALLOWS THE |
| | DOOR TO FULLY OPEN, 180 DEGREES |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | ******************************************************* |
| | ************************************** |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1) |
| | |
| | PER 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, 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 REQUIREMENT OF |
| | 7.2.1.4.3.2. |
| | |
| | 7.2.1.4.3.2 WHEN FULLY OPEN, ANY DOOR LEAF IN A MEANS |
| | OF EGRESS SHALL |
| | NOT PROJECT MORE THAN 7 IN. (180 MM) INTO THE REQUIRED |
| | WIDTH OF AN AISLE, |
| | A CORRIDOR, A PASSAGEWAY, OR A LANDING, UNLESS THE DOOR |
| | LEAF IS EQUIPPED |
| | WITH AN APPROVED SELF-CLOSING DEVICE AND IS NOT |
| | REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS |
| | OF 7.2.1.4.2 TO SWING IN THE DIRECTION OF EGRESS |
| | TRAVEL. |
| | |
| | PLEASE REVIEW AND PROVIDE FOR THE REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | |
| | 1A) COMPLIED |
| | |
| | |
| | 2) WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE PLAN SHEET |
| | REVISION CLOUDS OR NUMBERED NARRATIVE RESPONSES TO THE |
| | ABOVE. |
| | |
| | |
| | 3) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MAY BE PROVIDED ON THE |
| | RE-SUBMITTAL OF THE ABOVE. |
| | |
| | |
| | PETER LEDUC |
| | FIRE MARSHAL |
| | 561-804-4709 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
