| Date |
Text |
| 2014-11-08 14:02:23 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-805-6724 |
| | |
| | 1. SEE FAC 61G15-30 AND FAC61G15-18.001 AND OTHER |
| | PLACES. ENGINEER OF RECORD NOT CLEAR. ENGINEER OF |
| | RECORD IS TO REVIEW DELEGATED ENGINEERING AND SHOP |
| | DRAWINGS. THIS MAY BE DONE EITHER WITH A SHOP DRAWING |
| | REVIEW STAMP OR A LETTER. |
| | |
| | 2. SHEET 1 OF 4 SHOWS LOCATION OF PROPOSED LIGHT POLES. |
| | IT APPEARS THAT THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF |
| | POLES PROPOSED. PLANS DESCRIBE LOCATION OF POLES WITH |
| | BANNER ARM, ANOTHER NOTE INDICATES THAT THE POLE WITH |
| | BASE IS TO BE INSTALLED IN "RAIN GARDEN ONLY" BUT SITE |
| | PLAN DOES NOT SPECIFY LOCATION OF "RAIN GARDEN". |
| | |
| | REVISE PLAN TO INDICATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED POLE |
| | TYPES. EOR IS TO REVIEW SPECIFICATIONS & ENGINEERING |
| | FOR PROPOSED POLES (SEE COMMENT #1). |
| | |
| | 3. SHEET 1 SHOWS LOCATION OF POLES WITH BANNER ARMS. |
| | THE MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS AGAINST THE INSTALLATION OF |
| | BANNER ARMS AT 4'10" ABOVE GRADE. ENGINEER IS TO |
| | ACKNOWLEDGE STATEMENT AND PROVIDE RATIONALE FOR |
| | INSTALLATION. IS THIS DUE TO PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICULAR |
| | HAZARD, OR BECAUSE THE BANNER IS TO BE REMOVED AT WINDS |
| | EXCEEDING 70MPH? |
| | |
| | IF THIS IS DUE TO POTENTIAL HAZARD TO PEDESTRIANS AND |
| | THIS IS NOT NEAR A PEDESTRIAN PATH, IT IS RECOMMENDED |
| | THAT THE PLAN BE CLARIFIED TO INDICATE THAT THE |
| | POTENTIAL HAZARD HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. BASED ON THE |
| | LOCATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN, IT APPEARS THAT THE |
| | PROPOSED LOCATION MAY PRESENT A HAZARD TO VEHICLES. |
| | |
| | IF THIS BANNER IS TO BE REMOVED AT WINDS EXCEEDING |
| | 70MPH AS STATED ON CALCS, PLAN PREPARED BY ENGINEER OF |
| | RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THIS IN HIS DESIGN CRITERIA. WHO |
| | IS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS REMOVAL? IS THIS ALSO IN |
| | AASHTO LTS-6, OR AN EXCEPTION ELSEWHERE IN THE FBC? |
| | WILL THE ARM OF THE BANNER FAIL IF THE BANNER IS NOT |
| | REMOVED? HOW DOES FAILURE OF THE BANNER AFFECT THE |
| | LIGHT POLE? |
| | |
| | 4. IF THE REMOVABLE BANNER IS NOT INCLUDED IN AASHTO |
| | LTS-6 OR AS AN EXCEPTION IN FBC 2010, THIS WOULD NEED |
| | TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND |
| | METHODS FBC 104.11. THIS INSTALLATION WOULD MOST LIKELY |
| | BE HANDLED LIKE AN AWNING. THIS REQUIRES A REMOVAL |
| | LETTER BY THE OWNER ACKNOWLEDGING RESPONSIBILITY AND |
| | LABELING AS WELL AS REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS. UNLESS |
| | COVERED UNDER AN FBC OR AASHTO, THIS WOULD REQUIRE |
| | BUILDING OFFICIAL APPROVAL. |
| | |
| | 5. REVISE PLAN TO INCLUDE WIND DESIGN CRITERIA, FBC |
| | 2010 1603.1.4. WIND SPEED IS INCLUDED ON CALCS BUT I |
| | WAS UNABLE TO LOCATE EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATION ON THE |
| | PLAN OR IN THE CALCS. PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| | |
| | 6. BANNER ARMS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE ENGINEER'S PLANS |
| | OTHER THAN THE NOTE ON SHEET 1. FBC 107, INCLUDE |
| | DIMENSIONS, SPECIFICATIONS. SEE ALSO ITEM 3. |
| | |
| | 7. THERE ARE NOTES IN THE CALCS WHICH STATE THAT 140MPH |
| | (VASD) = 170MPH (VULT). THIS IS ACKNOWLEDGED. WHAT IS |
| | NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT IS WHETHER OR NOT 140MPH |
| | EXPOSURE ??? WITH A .77 IMPORTANCE FACTOR IS MORE |
| | CONSERVATIVE THAN 150MPH (VULT) EXPOSURE C. PLANS STATE |
| | THAT A .77 IMPORTANCE FACTOR WAS USED, BUT ISN'T THIS |
| | USED IN THE ASD, BUT BUILT INTO THE MAP FOR STRENGTH |
| | DESIGN, SO 150MPH IS USED, NOT 170MPH? DESIGN CRITERIA |
| | NOT CLEAR. |
| | |
| | AS I AM NOT AN ENGINEER, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME |
| | TO DISCUSS AND EXPLAIN THE USE OF .77 IMPORTANCE FACTOR |
| | IN AASHTO LTS-6 (ASCE7-05??) AND SEPARATE WIND MAPS FOR |
| | RISK CATEGORIES AND THE EFFECT ON CALCULATIONS. AS I |
| | DON'T HAVE A COPY OF AASHTO LTS-6 (AND, IF WE ORDER A |
| | COPY OF AASHTO WILL MOST LIKELY ORDER THE VERSION |
| | REFERENCED IN THE FBC), I AM UNABLE TO COMPARE THE |
| | CALCULATIONS. |
| | |
| | 8. FBC 1609.1.1 EXCEPTION 7, AASHTO LTS-4 IS LISTED AS |
| | AN EXCEPTION; CALCS WERE SUBMITTED USING AASHTO LTS-6. |
| | THIS IS CONSIDERED UNDER ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND |
| | METHODS FBC 104.11. PLEASE HAVE ENGINEER SUBMIT A |
| | LETTER FOR CONSIDERATION. |
| | |
| | 9. REVISE SITE PLAN TO CLARIFY LOCATION AND RELATION TO |
| | PRIVATE PROPERTY LINES, FBC 1609. IT APPEARS TO BE |
| | LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BUT NO PROPERTY |
| | LINES ARE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 10. SEE FAC61G15-23, CALCULATIONS TO BE IN A FORMAT |
| | ACCEPTABLE TO FBPE. EITHER EACH SHEET IS TO INCLUDE A |
| | TITLE BLOCK AND BE SIGNED, SEALED, AND DATED OR AN |
| | INDEX SHEET USED WHICH INDENTIFIES EACH SHEET. SOME |
| | CALCULATIONS HAVE NEITHER A TITLE BLOCK NOR |
| | SIGNED/SEALED; NOT CLEAR WHO IS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY |
| | FOR THOSE CALCULATIONS. OTHER SHEETS ARE SIGNED AND |
| | SEALED ON COVER SHEET ONLY BUT LACK THE INDEX SHEET. |
| | |
| | FOR INSTANCE, "STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS FOR ROUND FLUTED |
| | PRESTRESSED CONCRET LUMINAIRE ELECTROLILER", 9 PAGES - |
| | NO TITLE BLOCK, NO INDEX, NOT SIGNED, SEALED & DATED. |
| | THIS FOLLOWS SHEET 1A OF 10 FOR A LIGHT POLE. THE SHEET |
| | FOR THE LIGHT POLE HAS A CATALOG NUMBER AND APPEARS TO |
| | BE ONE OF THE THREE AMERON POLES PROPOSED, BUT NOTHING |
| | ON THE SHEET TIES THIS DRAWING BACK TO THE THREE |
| | DIFFERENT LIGHT POLES PROPOSED WHICH ARE NAMED ON THE |
| | MANUFACTURER'S LETTER (AMERON DRAWING 1408-003, ETC.). |
| | IF THIS IS 1A OF 10, WHERE ARE THE OTHER SHEETS? DOES |
| | THE SHEET FROM THE ENGINEER COVER THIS SHEET? WITHOUT |
| | AN INDEX SHEET AND PAGES WITH CONSECUTIVE PAGE NUMBERS, |
| | IT IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHICH SHEETS THIS ENGINEER |
| | IS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR. |
| | |
| | |
