| 2007-03-22 17:01:35 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL, BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | 561-805-6724 [email protected] |
| | |
| | FBC FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 |
| | FBC R FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 RESIDENTIAL |
| | FBC* CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH AMENDMENTS TO THE FBC2004 |
| | |
| | 1.)QUALITY ASSURANCE BY A THIRD PARTY ENTITY IS |
| | REQUIRED.THE APPLICATION STATES THE FLORIDA BUILDING |
| | COMMISSION APPROVED THIRD PARTY QUALITY ASSURANCE |
| | AGENCY IS RUSSELL GOULDY, PE, BUT I WAS UNABLE TO FIND |
| | THEIR APPROVAL NUMBER ON THE WEBSITE, |
| | WWW.FLORIDABIULDING.ORG. |
| | |
| | 2.)THERE IS NO APPLICANT ON THE APPLICATION.THIS |
| | SHOULD BE THE WINDOW MANUFACTURER. |
| | |
| | 3.)THE SHOP DRAWINGS ARE A PART OF THE EVALUATION |
| | REPORT AND SHOULD BE SIGNED, SEALED, AND DATED BY THE |
| | ENGINEER WHO IS DESIGNING THE WINDOW.ALL INFORMATION |
| | REQUIRED BY FAC61G15-23.002 SHOULD BE ON EACH SHEET. |
| | |
| | 4.)WHEN SUBMITTING, PLEASE PUT ALL SHEETS IN THE |
| | PACKAGE FACING THE SAME DIRECTION.SOME SHEETS WERE |
| | UPSIDE DOWN.HAVING THE PACKAGE EASILY READABLE HELPS |
| | TO EXPEDITE PLAN REVIEW. |
| | |
| | 5.)THE WINDOW DRAWINGS ARE NOT NUMBERED.THE |
| | EVAULATION REPORT SHOULD REFER TO THE DRAWINGS BY |
| | NUMBER, INCLUDING ALL SHEETS.THE DRAWINGS ARE |
| | DIFFICULT TO READ AND DO NOT HAVE ALL REQUIRED |
| | INFORMATION; SEE OTHER COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | 6.)THE ENGINEER STATES THAT THIS IS A RATIONAL |
| | ANALYSIS; NO RATIONAL ANALYSIS WAS PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 7.)THIS APPEARS TO BE A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BUT IS |
| | INCOMPLETE.THE REPORT FROM THE ENGINEER STATES FOR |
| | MANY ITEMS "NOT RATED".THE ENGINEER IS TO SHOW THAT |
| | THIS PRODUCT IS MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE DESIGN PRESSURE OF |
| | THE PRODUCT HE IS COMPARING TO.FOR INSTANCE, THE |
| | WINDOW MATERIAL IS PROVIDED, BUT NO ANALYSIS WAS |
| | PROVIDED TO SHOW THAT 1 3/4" MAHOGANY & SPANISH CEDAR |
| | IS EQUAL OR SUPERIOR TO WOOD FIBER.THE ENGINEER |
| | SPECIFIES "HEAVY DUTY BRASS HINGES", NO SIZE SPECIFIED. |
| | THE PRODUCT APPROVAL FOR THE ANDERSON WINDOW USED STEEL |
| | HINGES, BUT THE ENGINEER'S APPROVED PRODUCT INFORMATION |
| | STATES ONLY "NOT RATED" FOR HINGE INFORMATION. |
| | |
| | 8.)PROVIDE ALL COMPARATIVE INFORMATION FOR BOTH |
| | PRODUCTS. |
| | |
| | 9.)THE DRAWINGS ARE TO INCLUDE ALL STRUCTURAL |
| | INFORMATION FOR ALL COMPONENTS.FOR INSTANCE, THE |
| | FIRST SHEET STATES "SCREW".WHAT TYPE OF SCREW, WHAT |
| | SIZE, DIAMETER, LENGTH? |
| | |
| | 10.)A SET HAS BEEN RETAINED.A COMPLETE PLAN REVIEW |
| | CANNOT BE DONE AS INCOMPLETE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
