Boiler plated plans

[gbhammer]

Am I in the minority for requiring RDP's to remove general and keyed notes that that do not apply or are not actually located on the page?

 

[brudgers]

Minority or majority doesn't matter...you are still in the wrong. I'm not saying it's good practice, I'm just saying that enforcing good drawing practice is outside the scope of the typical building department's authority.

 

[gbhammer]

So do you think that comments should even be written?

For instance the DP is doing some commercial work because the housing industry has taken a dive, and he throws every general note he has ever used on the set of plans. Now this nice little commercial building is being designed to the IRC or maybe BOCA or probably a mix of both, just saying he should get a comment back telling him to remove the bogus notes.

You think I should just send it back and say 'Not Approved please see the submitted complaint to the Architectural Review Board'.

 

[mjesse]

If there is conflicting or incorrect information, is should be removed. That is different than "enforcing good drawing practice"

I see a lot of boiler plate info, if it is extraneous or not applicable I don't have a problem with it. If it's "wrong" it needs to go.

mj

 

[cda]

so when you see a comment like will meet ""city of BBBB" requirements and they are building in the " city of LLLLLL" does the comment need to be changed??

 

[gbhammer]

I get it.

We should not be "enforcing good drawing practice", it just drives me nuts to read a set of plans 100 pages thick and find that every other page has 10-20 extraneous keyed notes. I read them all I look for them all and if they aren't on the page it is a big waste of my time, and when I stamp them and send the plans into the field it may be create a waste of the inspectors time.

At what point is our time worth a comment to the RDP. :banghd

 

[atomahutna]

Minority or majority doesn't matter...you are still in the wrong. I'm not saying it's good practice, I'm just saying that enforcing good drawing practice is outside the scope of the typical building department's authority.

Comment # 423: Please revise note: "code analysis per IBC 2006 U.N.O." to reflect the currently adopted code year.

 

[mjesse]

so when you see a comment like will meet ""city of BBBB" requirements and they are building in the " city of LLLLLL" does the comment need to be changed??

In my opinion, yes.

 

[righter101]

I have dealt with this issue a lot. Similar to the "stairs to be build per code".

If there are a ton of outdated boiler plate notes, one option is to note that the cited references are incorrect and current codes will apply and the contractor is responsible for knowing them.

Another option, that I have used, is found in chapter 1 of the IRC (similar in the IBC)

R106.1.1 Information on construction documents. Construction

documents shall be drawn upon suitable material.

Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted

when approved by the building official. Construction documents

shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location,

nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail

that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant

laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined

by the building official.

Sufficient clarity to indicate ........that it will conform to the provisions of THIS code.

You can infact request that they change or update them.

One issue though, is that the project may have been in for design under 2006, but when submitted, we had adopted 2009.

Sufficient clarity. I use that as a catch all for generally poor submissions.

Just my $0.02

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

IMO...If it is a conflicting or non-applicable code/standard being referenced for design criteria that is not specifically called out in the submitted construction documents, then you are not wrong to have them remove it (i.e., handrail requirements in the IRC are different than the IBC and have no place being in a commercial plan set). I would also add, that if an RDP is going to reference a design based upon an adopted code from another jurisdiction, it is the RDP's responsibility to equivicate the referenced code with that of the jurisdiction they are working in, especially in regards to amendments. It is not the plans examiners job to verify that the State of Florida's 2007 IBC and amendments is equivalent to that of a local jurisdictions 2006 IBC and amendments in Nebraska. On the other hand, if it is an additional reference, and is noted that the locally adopted codes are to be adhered to in the event of a conflict, or as the most stringent, then they could write in their mama's name as a part of their boiler plate and I wouldn't care.

 

[brudgers]

, it just drives me nuts to read a set of plans 100 pages thick and find that every other page has 10-20 extraneous keyed notes.

I doubt the plans are why you are nuts...

 

[gbhammer]

:agree Takes one to know one....

I doubt the plans are why you are nuts...

 

[brudgers]

I'm not just a member...

 

[chris kennedy]

I recently finished a large commercial project and one of the boiler plates said;

"Contact UNCLE before any excavation."

UNCLE hasn't been our locators for about a decade. Makes me wonder which notes I really need to comply with when I see kind of garbage.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I recently finished a large commercial project and one of the boiler plates said;"Contact UNCLE before any excavation."

UNCLE hasn't been our locators for about a decade. Makes me wonder which notes I really need to comply with when I see kind of garbage.

Boy did you bring back memories with UNCLE. I remember talking with Mr. Shelton when he was starting up his locator company. He was ahead of the times back in the 80's

 

[ICE]

How about the extraneous drawings? What's green about wasting all that paper? Is it all about the sizzle because the steak is meager?

Goofy things like a front elevation for a rear addition that is obscured, a complete floor plan of the house for a patio cover, section drawings that have nothing to do with the proposed work, thirty-six detail drawings with fourteen referenced, makes me think that the DP is up to something.

I have encountered several pages of elevator details on a single story building plan.

Recently, I pointed to a footing detail that showed the depth to be 24". The "contractor" pointed to a different detail that showed the depth to be 18". The 18" detail was for an interior footing which this building lacked. The contractor thought that the plans are a smörgåsbord of choices and he picked that one. That is not the first time, nor will it be the last. We know the difference but this industry should appease the lowest common denominator.

I was inspecting a senior housing complex and found an acoustical note that stated that all plumbing pipes shall be isolated from framing. Unfortunately I found it during a roughs inspection and the builder missed it. His argument for missing it was the size of the plans and that there were notes scattered throughout. The rolled plans must have been ten inches thick. I advised him that when he approaches my office manager he should remind him that most of the future occupants can't hear anyway.

 

[peach]

I have no problem with boiler plate plans.. just scratch out the details which don't apply (if it happens to be the entire sheet, please pull it out). Same with standard notes and details. No need to have 50 pages of plans for a simple tenant fit out.

 

[Yankee]

I ask for the applicant to clean up the submittal. If I don't need it or don't want it, I ask for it to be remove and resubmitted. All three sets. I actually like to have just one set submitted as a pre-review so I am not throwing out so much paper. I can't think of too many projects that go through without some amount of reworking.

 

[brudgers]

Goofy things like a front elevation for a rear addition that is obscured, a complete floor plan of the house for a patio cover, section drawings that have nothing to do with the proposed work,

All part of the minimum requirements checklist of a building department somewhere and without which plans shall not cross the counter.

 

[permitguy]

I don't call it enforcing "good drawing practice". I call it enforcing "sufficient clarity". Sorry, but you aren't going to bog down the operation of this department and cost the taxpayers more money than justified all so you can bill your client a few more dollars than the project was actually worth. If due dilligence can catch an unpublished code interpretation, it can certainly catch which boiler plate details may be omitted from a drawing before submittal.

 

[brudgers]

I don't call it enforcing "good drawing practice". I call it enforcing "sufficient clarity". Sorry, but you aren't going to bog down the operation of this department and cost the taxpayers more money than justified all so you can bill your client a few more dollars than the project was actually worth. If due dilligence can catch an unpublished code interpretation, it can certainly catch which boiler plate details may be omitted from a drawing before submittal.

Sure handling resubmittals and processing them through the building department saves the taxpayers money...and you get to make people dance.

But then again, maybe it is costing too much because you are overpaid?

 

[gbhammer]

Sure handling resubmittals and processing them through the building department saves the taxpayers money...and you get to make people dance.But then again, maybe it is costing too much because you are overpaid?

The last thing I want to do is ...."make people dance".

It is absolutely wrong to come off as hostile to the general public and design professionals.

Do some AHJs get jaded and move in that direction; sure they do.

You have to ask why that happens, because most maybe not all of us who go into public service, enter into our jobs with nothing but the best of intentions.

I believe that most of the design professionals have every intention to the best job they can when they sit down do design a set of drawings. Some however slip just like some AHJs.

Back to the OP: the whole point was to see if I was going too far by asking for the extraneous notes to be removed from the plans. The notes that might confuse or waste the time of ‘any’ one involved in the processes of reading the plans.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Sure handling resubmittals and processing them through the building department saves the taxpayers money...and you get to make people dance.

Not requiring plans to be submitted at all would save the taxpayers the most money, but then again maybe the RDPs are overpaid.

 

[permitguy]

Sure handling resubmittals and processing them through the building department saves the taxpayers money.

It takes me almost no time to tell you to remove notes and details that do not pertain to the project, or to tell you to correctly reflect the edition of the code the project was designed to. Doing so will save much more time than it will cost the many individuals involved in the remainder of the project, including those who hold positions funded by taxpayers. This thread already contains examples of the problems caused by "boiler plating".

Back to the OP: the whole point was to see if I was going too far by asking for the extraneous notes to be removed from the plans. The notes that might confuse or waste the time of ‘any’ one involved in the processes of reading the plans.

No, you aren't going too far. It is absolutely appropriate to do so.