| Plan Review Notes For Permit 16050792 |
| Permit Number |
16050792 |
|
| Review Stop |
B |
| Sequence Number |
2 |
|
| Notes |
| Date |
Text |
| 2016-06-29 15:21:22 | ****CORRECTIONS**** | | | | | | SAMANTHA HILL | | | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER | | | [email protected] | | | 561-805-6724 | | | | | | 1. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED ANCHORS FOR | | | THIS SIGN. "MIN" THREE PER LETTER ARE SPECIFIED, IT IS | | | NOT CLEAR HOW THIS WILL BE ADEQUATE, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR | | | THE LETTER "H". IS THE LOGO TO HAVE THE SAME FASTENING | | | PATTERN AS LETTERS? | | | | | | 2ND REVIEW, ENGINEER HAS ADDED A NOTE TO THE | | | CALCULATIONS "USE MIN 3 ANCHORS PER LETTER, OR MORE | | | WHERE NECESSARY (E.G. H, L, D, & HAWK LOGO)". | | | | | | IT APPEARS THAT CALCS FOR A RIGID SIGN WERE USED. | | | DEPENDING ON LOCATION OF FASTENERS, IN PARTICULAR THE | | | LARGER LETTERS, WOULDN'T A LOOSE END OF THE SIGN CREATE | | | A MORE FLEXIBLE CONDITION? THE NOTE ADDRESSES FOUR | | | ITEMS, BUT THE LETTERS K, D, AND G WERE NOT ADDRESSED. | | | NO INFORMATION REGARDING FASTENER LOCATION WAS | | | PROVIDED. WHO DECIDES WHEN IT IS "NECESSARY", AND HOW | | | MANY "MORE" ARE REQUIRED? IT APPEARS THAT, IF | | | ENGINEERING IS REQUIRED FOR SIGNS, THE ENGINEER SHOULD | | | BE SPECIFYING THE FASTENING PATTERN AND NUMBER OF | | | FASTENERS, NOT THE CONTRACTOR. | | | |
|
