| Date |
Text |
| 2016-07-14 11:34:42 | SAMANTHA HILL |
| | BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-805-6724 |
| | |
| | ***PROVISOS*** |
| | |
| | 1. PERMIT ISSUED AT CONTRACTOR'S RISK |
| | |
| | THE PLAN SUBMITTED DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CALCULATIONS |
| | REQUESTED REGARDING NON RIGID SIGN (OR THE ISSUE OF |
| | PORTIONS OF LETTERS ACTING AS A CANTALEVER SUPPORTED ON |
| | ONE SIDE). THE FASTENING PATTERN PROPOSED DOES NOT |
| | APPEAR ADEQUATE AND ENGINEER HAS FAILED TO HELP ME TO |
| | UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE DESIGN. THE |
| | CALCULATIONS PROVIDED WERE FOR WIND PRESSURES ONLY, |
| | WHICH DOES NOT ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN PREVIOUS |
| | PLAN REVIEWS. |
| | |
| | A FASTENING PATTERN WAS PROVIDED, BUT FASTENERS ARE |
| | LACKING AT THE TOP LEFT SCRIPT PORTION OF THE LETTER |
| | CAPITAL "H" (BICKHAM SCRIPT FONT), THE BOTTOM LEFT |
| | PORTION OF THE LETTER CAPITAL "H", LOWER PORTION OF THE |
| | LOWER CASE "G". |
| | |
| | 2. THE PLANS FROM SUBMITTAL #3 UTILIZE A DIFFERENT |
| | FASTENER THAN PREVIOUS REVIEWS. REVIEW #2 CALCULATIONS |
| | WERE FOR #14 SMS FOR PLYWOOD. SUBMITTAL #3 SPECIFIES A |
| | "3/16 (#10) THREADED STUDS WITH ADHESIVE LIQUID". |
| | |
| | THE SUBSTRATE IS NOT CLEAR. A THREADED STUD WITH |
| | ADHESIVE LIQUID IN A PLYWOOD SUBSTRATE DOES NOT APPEAR |
| | TO BE APPROPRIATE. IF THIS IS CONCRETE OR BLOCK, IT IS |
| | NOT CLEAR WHY CALCS FOR A PLYWOOD SUBSTRATE WERE |
| | SUBMITTED. NO MINIMUM EMBEDMENT WAS SPECIFIED. A |
| | BRAND/PRODUCT OR OTHER SPECIFICATION FOR THE "THREADED |
| | STUD" AND THE "ADHESIVE LIQUID" WERE NOT PROVIDED. DO |
| | THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES AND STRENGTH, |
| | REGARDLESS OF MATERIAL AND BRAND? |
| | |
| | 3. THIS PLAN HAS BEEN SENT FOR PEER REVIEW (FBPE). IF |
| | IT IS DETERMINED THAT ADDITIONAL FASTENERS ARE |
| | REQUIRED, OR THAT THE FASTENER SPECIFIED IS NOT |
| | APPROPRIATE OR ADEQUATE, CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO ADD |
| | OR CHANGE FASTENERS AT LOCATIONS DETERMINED BY THE PEER |
| | REVIEW ENGINEER. IF ANY OTHER DEFICIENCIES ARE FOUND IN |
| | PEER REVIEW, CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO CORRECT ANY NON |
| | COMPLIANT INSTALLATION. IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED TO THE |
| | CONTRACTOR TO ADD THE THREE (OR MORE) FASTENERS WHICH |
| | ARE AT DISPUTE, COST OF WHICH SHOULD BE MINIMAL, AND |
| | TAKE GOOD PHOTOGRAPHS. |
| | |
| | 4. AS THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THAT THE SAME DEFICIENCY |
| | WAS NOTED IN THE PLAN (BUT ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR DO |
| | NOT AGREE PER MY DISCUSSION WITH CONTRACTOR), IF PEER |
| | REVIEW DETERMINES THAT THE SUBMITTALS WERE |
| | INSUFFICIENT, A 4X PLAN REVIEW FEE SHALL BE ASSESSED |
| | RETROACTIVELY AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE |
| | 553.80.2(B). |
| | |
| | THIS ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE CONTRACTOR, WHO |
| | STATED THAT HE DREW THE FASTENER PATTERN WHICH WAS THEN |
| | SEALED BY THE ENGINEER, DISCUSSED, AND DETERMINED |
| | ADEQUATE BY BOTH THE CONTRACTOR AND THE ENGINEER. |
| | |
| | |
