Laserfiche WebLink
� - r <br />I trust that this will provide the information which you require for presentation to the <br />Commission. Please let me know if additional input is needed. <br />Sincerely, <br />F1 5.71ZJT D; iZ05 <br />Jam Lusgrave <br />actor-4f-,AichitectAe&EngJneering <br />Chairman Bird led discussion regarding Item #3. <br />William H. S. Murray, representative of Pierce Goodwin <br />Alexander & Linville, explained that there was a change in the way <br />the code was interpreted. The occupancy load of the building was <br />addressed and calculated in the original design. When the permit <br />application was pulled for the job, the building department and <br />fire marshallIs office recalculated the total occupancy load of the <br />building. Mr. Murray explained that he did not attend those <br />meetings but he gave one example of a change in occupancy load. In <br />the original calculation it was determined that a judge's suite <br />would not be occupied while the judge was holding court, but later <br />that determination was changed. He stated that there were several <br />similar instances. The final calculation was based on gross square <br />footage which called for an additional vertical means of egress. <br />The solution was to add automatic fire doors in the entry rotunda <br />along with the necessary exit signs and alarm systems and other <br />integrated parts. <br />Chairman Bird asked whether the code was misinterpreted <br />originally, or is there a possibility that it is being incorrectly <br />interpreted now. <br />Mr. Murray thought the explanation was that the current <br />interpretation follows the letter of the most recent code. The <br />original design was presented before the codes were updated and <br />some leeway was allowed in the execution of the code requirements. <br />Commissioner Macht asked whether the fire marshall rejected <br />the interpretation which allowed leeway, and Mr. Murray responded <br />that he was not at the meetings and was not sure how the decisions <br />were made. <br />Commissioner Eggert was concerned that the project proceeded <br />so far before this problem was discovered. <br />Mr. Murray emphasized that the County is getting more for that <br />money. Additional exit doors will be included at a cost which <br />would have been incurred even if they were included in the original <br />design. <br />57 <br />SEP 7 1993 BOOK 90 FnIN-3,9 <br />