Comment 5 brought over from original building plan review.
Unable to locate atrium engineering analysis. Point out engineering analysis. 101:8.6.7(5)
NOTE: If a smoke control system is to be provided, make sure 101:8.6.7(6) and 101:9.3 are addressed.
Friday, August 13, 2021 Response to comments from Design Development indicate "The atrium space included in this project is limited to connecting two stories. In accordance with the exception as written in FBC paragraph 404.5, smoke control is not required for atriums that connect only two stories."
The Code is not requiring smoke control. I was just stating if it is to be provided point it out. What I am looking to check is compliance with your "atrium". Unfortunately I do not enforce or utilize the Building Code. If there is a corresponding section in FFPC you are welcome to provide it and show compliance with that section. Do you mean to call this a convenience opening? If so, show compliance with that section.
Wednesday, August 18, 2021 I met with Designer Scott Fraser. He is now going to call this an atrium and wants this space to follow 101:8.6.7.
Tuesday, August 24, 2021 Designer requested (via letter dated 8 18 21) a hold be added for engineering analysis (in accord with 101:8.6.7(6)) to be performed. Hold added at request of designer and oked by Plan Review Supervisor.
Tuesday, February 15, 2022 Multiple pages submitted as revision. Unable to locate where this has been confirmed this is to be an atrium. I will review this as an atrium.
5a) Confirm this is an atrium.
5b) Unable to locate engineering analysis to determine if smoke control system is required. Point out engineering analysis (101:8.6.7(5)) and if needed provide engineered smoke control system in accord with 101:9.3 and 101:8.6.7(1)(b) (101:8.6.7(6)).
5c) Looks like travel distance from 3rd floor to 1st floor, through atrium, to exit will be atleast 300'. Show compliance with 101:38.2.6.3. (101:8.6.7(2))
5d) Do not see FP pages updated addressing how storefront atrium glass is to be 1 hour fire resistance rated. 101:8.6.7(1)(c)
Wednesday, March 9, 2022 Response to comments indicate "
5a This is an Atrium
5b) Engineering analysis for smoke control will be performed by Neptune Fire Protection Engineering Smoke control system will be installed if required by analysis.
5c) Section 38.2.6.3 requires that travel distance to not less than one exit shall not exceed the distance specified in Section 7.6.7, which is 300ft.
There is no space on the third floor where travel distance to an exit, as defined by 7.6.1(3)(b), exceeds 300ft. even when the 36ft. of travel distance is added for the path from the interior stair enclosure through the atrium to the exit to the exterior.
Exits are enclosed, so travel distances are calculated to the point at which the exit begins, at the entrance to the stair enclosure. per Section 7.6.1(3)(B), not per Section 7.6.3 regarding open stairways or ramps. Exiting meets all requirements of Section 7.2.2
See revised and clouded Sheet A-1.3, Third Floor Plan, for travel distances to the most remove exits. (Clouded revisions have been marked "5").
MME Response to 5c: Glass will be indicated to be 1 hour resistance rated. 5d)"
Regarding 5c, FP1.2 updated design critiera to show sprinkler coverage of glass. I also spoke with Supervisor Anthony Gedris and pointed out they are already at framing inspections regarding the deadline for smoke analysis. He said he has a meeting with building owner next week and contractor.
Monday, February 27, 2023 Received revision with narrative from Designer that reads "The purpose of this revision is to eliminate the design of a Smoke Evacuation System and to redefine the open two-story open space at the building's entrance as a Communicating Space per the Florida Fire Prevention Code." Nothing provided outlining how each of the communicating space requirements met. I do not see compliance with the following:
5a) Do not see how 101:8.6.6(8) is met. Currently 1st floor phlebotomy (12203559) and 2nd floor neurology waiting area (12205106) must use the communicating space as their only exit access according to permitted exit pages and outlined locking arrangements.
5b) While occupants outside and inside the communicating space have access to a 2nd exit stair, I do not see how any occupant that chooses to use this marked exit would know the discharge through the communicating space would be compromised until someone opened the door at the base of the exit stair (that opens into the communicating space). Their only option for independent exit would require them to trek back upto the 3rd floor and over to the other 2nd exit stair. How will occupants be notified this exit is compromised prior to entering the interior exit stair or what protection will be provided? 101:7.1.3.2.2 and 101:7.1.3.2.3
5c) Plan page A-1.1 shows communicating space 1 hour walls have window glazing in them. Show that the windows are 1 hour rated. 101:8.3.3.2.2