• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Boiler plated plans

permitguy said:
It takes me almost no time to tell you to remove notes and details that do not pertain to the project,
Yes. That's probably why you do it rather than the job you are paid to do.
 
But it is the job I'm paid to do. There can be too little information so a reviewer can't verify compliance, or there can be so much gibberish present that a reviewer can't verify compliance. Either plan should be rejected on the grounds that it lacks sufficient clarity. If there are a couple of boiler plate notes that aren't wrong and don't hurt anything, then I wouldn't sweat it. If they are so extraneous that I can't figure out what's going on (skilled as I am ;) ), then I'm going to have them removed. I know you don't like it, but for the purpose of this discussion, that's just the way it is.
 
brudgers said:
Yes. That's probably why you do it rather than the job you are paid to do.
one more time for the record...and in your opinion, what is the job a plans examiner is paid to do?
 
There is a jurisdiction we work in locally that has a simple letter that the submitter of the permit package is required to read and sign with each application.

It simply says, you the applicant have reviewed all the documents, all required documentation is within the documents and plans and that no unwarranted information is within the documents.

You will be billed for the review of all information submitted.

If you submitted documents with elevator information, they will bill you for that document to be reviewed, thus if there is no elevator in the building, you will still pay for the review and by the way, you will get the documents back to be re-submitted.

If you are a submitter that provides a long list of garbage to read your documents take a long time to be reviewed.

If you present a very well laid out set of documents, plans and engineering, your stuff just seems to fly through the department.

When they first started the clamp down, many a DP complained, but in time they just came around to it because clients started making the DP's reimburse them for the additional charges for the documents provided.

Like it or not, boiler plate documentation needs to be there for what is needed only, it takes less than an hour to do a basic document review and strike garbage for a DP who is organized on most light IBC and IRC projects.
 
permitguy said:
But it is the job I'm paid to do. There can be too little information so a reviewer can't verify compliance, or there can be so much gibberish present that a reviewer can't verify compliance. Either plan should be rejected on the grounds that it lacks sufficient clarity. If there are a couple of boiler plate notes that aren't wrong and don't hurt anything, then I wouldn't sweat it. If they are so extraneous that I can't figure out what's going on (skilled as I am ;) ), then I'm going to have them removed. I know you don't like it, but for the purpose of this discussion, that's just the way it is.
Let me get this straight...you are certain which notes don't apply, but somehow cannot verify compliance because of their presence on the plans? Yeah right.
 
Papio Bldg Dept said:
one more time for the record...and in your opinion, what is the job a plans examiner is paid to do?
Determine if the design complies with code. Let's be clear.

The original argument wasn't that such a determination could not be made.

It was that the code official has better things to do that to make that determination.
 
Just to be clear, I started this post because I felt that the current set of plans that I am reviewing has far too many boiler plated keyed notes on each page. When you have a set of plans 134 pages thick, a spec manual as thick as the IBC, and almost every architectural page of the plans has boiler notes in excess of 10-20 notes that are not located on the page or they are wrong because they boiler plated the notes instead of creating notes that pertained to the document. It becomes a bit of a seek and find, and its no where near as fun as finding Waldo. I have not completed my review yet have not sent comments, and still: The architect just sent me a 63 page pdf with revisions, because the plans went out to bid and the contractors called him out on his mistakes. He has changed a few of the keyed notes that were blatantly wrong, but does not indicate that he will remove the notes that do not appear on the page.
 
gbhammer said:
The architect just sent me a 63 page pdf with revisions, ...
That's a whole 'nuther problem right there.

I don't think Officials are asking too much to get a "complete" set to be stamped Approved.

That +/- 50% "do-over" would be enough for me to reject the entire first set. How can I approve pages 1-5, 27, 63-82, 95-98, and 134 when half are paper and half are PDF?

Brudgers, I agree with you on many things, but it's not reasonable to assume that EVERY DP has his act together, and it's ALWAYS the BO's problem. Just by percentages, there has to be some good BO's out there, no?

mj
 
mjesse said:
That's a whole 'nuther problem right there. I don't think Officials are asking too much to get a "complete" set to be stamped Approved. That +/- 50% "do-over" would be enough for me to reject the entire first set. How can I approve pages 1-5, 27, 63-82, 95-98, and 134 when half are paper and half are PDF? Brudgers, I agree with you on many things, but it's not reasonable to assume that EVERY DP has his act together, and it's ALWAYS the BO's problem. Just by percentages, there has to be some good BO's out there, no? mj
If you go back to my original response, I did not indicate that I believed the architect had his act together. Only that not having his act together was not a legitimate basis for denying a permit. However, dealing with less than perfect plans is indeed always the BO's problem. It's why they make the big bucks.

Look, I'm not unreasonable...63 pages of revisions is worthy of a "you can come down, pick up your plans and resubmit them with the changes, or you can wait for me to finish my review of the previous submittal and you can resubmit revised drawings addressing these comments along with any other when I'm done in a week or two," phone call.
 
Let me get this straight...you are certain which notes don't apply, but somehow cannot verify compliance because of their presence on the plans? Yeah right.
I'll rephrase. If they are so extraneous that I can't figure out what's going on (skilled as I am ;) ) in a reasonable amount of time, then I'm going to have them removed. Sure, I could eventually verify compliance, but I do have responsibilities beyond this one set of plans.

Look, I'm not unreasonable...63 pages of revisions is worthy of a "you can come down, pick up your plans and resubmit them with the changes, or you can wait for me to finish my review of the previous submittal and you can resubmit revised drawings addressing these comments along with any other when I'm done in a week or two," phone call.
Now you're getting it! At some point it makes more sense to tell the architect that the project will get approved more quickly and the project will proceed much smoother if the gibberish is removed.

Granted, any two building officials may have different opinions about that tipping point. I understand how that is frustrating, but at least we all agree that the tipping point exists.
 
No doubt that the cleaner the submittal, the faster it gets processes. This is not rocket science.
 
Any owner that signs a contract with the contractor before he has a permit is setting himself up for significant change orders but that is not the concern of the building official.

Brudgers is right in that the focus of the building official should be on reviewing the documents for compliance. Where notes cause confusion or suggest nonconformance with the code it would be appropriate to ask for clarification. It is not appropriate to impose your idea of drawing purity.

Project manuals twice as thick as the IBC are not uncommon and this is not proof of unnecessary boiler plate.

What you are seeing may be the result of an Architect who doesn't have his act together but in many cases it is made worse by the project owners desire to finish the project by a certain time.
 
I don't want to pull this off topic, but it reminds me of the debate over when to terminate an inspection as "not ready".

Some jurisdictions are perfectly comfortable being a checklist agency for contractors who call for inspections prematurely, and will spend hours on-site writing up page after page of violations. Contractors in these jurisdictions continue the practice because they are allowed to.

Other jurisdictions refuse to put up with this, and will stop the inspection after it becomes apparent to them (based on experience) that the contractor wasn't ready. Contractors in these jurisdictions quickly learn to make sure they are ready before they call.

Whether we're talking about plan reviews or inspections, this is all a matter of the jurisdiction making a decision about the resources they're willing to dedicate to their processes. There isn't going to be a black and white designation on what is appropriate for everyone.
 
permitguy said:
I'll rephrase. If they are so extraneous that I can't figure out what's going on (skilled as I am ;) ) in a reasonable amount of time, then I'm going to have them removed. Sure, I could eventually verify compliance, but I do have responsibilities beyond this one set of plans. Now you're getting it! At some point it makes more sense to tell the architect that the project will get approved more quickly and the project will proceed much smoother if the gibberish is removed. Granted, any two building officials may have different opinions about that tipping point. I understand how that is frustrating, but at least we all agree that the tipping point exists.
The revisions are a legitimate reason to require a resubmittal. On the other hand, if you've figured out that the notes can be removed, then there is no reason you cannot determine compliance with them on the page.

As much as I would like to agree with you, these are two separate issues.
 
I'm sure as a designer that when you use KEYED NOTES on a page it is because you want everyone reading the plan to understand that there is something worthy of notation and that the something is in need of immediate attention for the proper application of your design.

Ever hear of the "boy/DP who cried wolf"?

When you put 36 KEYED NOTES on 5 pages, 12 on another 4 pages, 23 on 6 pages ..... (as you can see theses notes are not the same throughout the document, note 3 might be one thing for 5 pages but be something all together different for the next 6 no consistency) Now take into account that you may use all the notes on the page or 1 of the notes, as a reviewer or as the contractor it is our duty to look for every one of those important/need immediate attention notations so that we can properly review/apply your design.

As a reviewer who is conscientious of the job I perform, I will be absolutely sure to not skip a note until I’m absolutely sure it is not on the page. The contractor in the field may not be as conscientious, and I hate to say but neither may the inspector.

I would much rather remove the chance of failure during plan review than hope everyone past me is more competent than the negligent DP.
 
gbhammer said:
I'm sure as a designer that when you use KEYED NOTES on a page it is because you want everyone reading the plan to understand that there is something worthy of notation and that the something is in need of immediate attention for the proper application of your design. Ever hear of the "boy/DP who cried wolf"? When you put 36 KEYED NOTES on 5 pages, 12 on another 4 pages, 23 on 6 pages ..... (as you can see theses notes are not the same throughout the document, note 3 might be one thing for 5 pages but be something all together different for the next 6 no consistency) Now take into account that you may use all the notes on the page or 1 of the notes, as a reviewer or as the contractor it is our duty to look for every one of those important/need immediate attention notations so that we can properly review/apply your design. As a reviewer who is conscientious of the job I perform, I will be absolutely sure to not skip a note until I’m absolutely sure it is not on the page. The contractor in the field may not be as conscientious, and I hate to say but neither may the inspector. I would much rather remove the chance of failure during plan review than hope everyone past me is more competent than the negligent DP.
Nothing you mention is at all relevant to plan review because none of it indicates the non-compliance of the plans with the building code. And the duties of a contractor are irrelevant to the discussion.
 
gbhammer said:
I'm sure as a designer that when you use KEYED NOTES on a page it is because you want everyone reading the plan to understand that there is something worthy of notation and that the something is in need of immediate attention for the proper application of your design. Ever hear of the "boy/DP who cried wolf"?

When you put 36 KEYED NOTES on 5 pages, 12 on another 4 pages, 23 on 6 pages ..... (as you can see theses notes are not the same throughout the document, note 3 might be one thing for 5 pages but be something all together different for the next 6 no consistency) Now take into account that you may use all the notes on the page or 1 of the notes, as a reviewer or as the contractor it is our duty to look for every one of those important/need immediate attention notations so that we can properly review/apply your design.

As a reviewer who is conscientious of the job I perform, I will be absolutely sure to not skip a note until I’m absolutely sure it is not on the page. The contractor in the field may not be as conscientious, and I hate to say but neither may the inspector.

I would much rather remove the chance of failure during plan review than hope everyone past me is more competent than the negligent DP.
We take two sets of plans, one gets returned to the applicant with any minor mark-ups and the other one stays in the office to be used for inspections. Anytime there is any boilerplate notes that aren't applicable to a page/project I cross them out on our set so I know they aren't important when I'm doing the inspection. The more irrelevant information they submit the longer it takes to get through plan review.
 
Some jurisdictions want lots of notes, and different jurisdictions look for different notes on the drawings. If a DP works in multiple jurisdictions it's easier to just put all of the notes that anybody requires on the drawings than to have a project rejected because a note was missing.

Some jurisdictions are equally guilty of excessive notes. I've had plans returned with multiple rubber stamps saying to show smoke detectors and other items that were already shown on the drawings.

I agree that any notes that conflict with the code need to be removed, and extraneous notes should be removed. However, having a meaningless note that doesn't conflict with the code is no reason to reject a set of plans.
 
I will resurrect this thread since I never saw it initially and we have a lot of architects joining this board in increasing numbers.

Plan Review is about working together to accomplish a goal in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable amount of money. With that being said, here is where I see the problems: IMHO

1) Most prints but not all do have tons of boiler plate crap that appears to be primarily for the liability protection of the DP. I like a lot of it because I often have something to point to when a contractor wants to argue. I can always point out that it is on the prints, why did he/she not read it?

2) We often want more info than what the plans call for. This is a proactive approach to dealing with contractors. Whenever we write up a contractor, their first response is "Its not on the plans". I tell them the plans don't tell them how to pound a nail either but at some point you have a responsibility to know what you are doing. It is for this reason that we would rather proactive. Our dilemma is that when we ask for more info, the architect says his customer is already complaining about the costs but if we don't, the contractors are not smart enough to know what to do. I believe it is easier to ask for more detail to eliminate delays and problems later. One of my most requested items is for the location and details of tactile exit signs.

3) Whenever there are major problems with plans, I just stop and send them back. I'm not here to to what the design professional should have done before the prints left their office. I think that sometimes they save money by letting us do that and they can just make the changes.

4) Resolution. We all need to step back and evaluate our positions sometimes. Too many times I find myself hell bent on one direction and developing tunnel vision. It is at that point of self observation that I step back and actually listen. That needs to be a 2 way street.

5) Selling a stamp. Still seeing that happen and I think that the next time, I will just send the plans to the licensing review board. I still cringe when I think about the time a received a set of prints to place a bar in a basement with an occupant load of 200 and no egress to the exterior without going back up through the 1st floor bar/restaurant and no sprinkler system and one unisex toilet and no mechanical ventilation or natural ventilation. I was not too nice to the architect on that one. I actually asked him if business was that bad that he had to do that. "That's what the owner wanted" is not an excuse from a professional. At some point, you have to learn to say no to customers.

OK, just wanted to get this ball rolling again. This was a good thread.
 
We hot a set of plans a few weeks ago that had more notes than plans. They had notes for every city in a 200 mile radius. They had a cow when asked to limit the notes to only ones applicable to us. There were also structural call outs for notes not on the plans. :D
 
Fairness in savaging.

What do you say of AHJ that do the same with plan reviews? Placing comments about anything, like requirements for special inspections, etc. If/When there is no need to provide, etc?
 
The AHJ should focus on code compliance. If extra information is provided that does not compact code compliance the agency should not require changes. If the excess information creates confusion as to an issue related to code compliance AHJ can and should require clarification.

A plan checker that provides CYA notes especially regarding things already addressed in the documents loses my respect.

Similarly a plan checker should not require special inspection when not required by the code.
 
there are some places that could attach a code book to every sety of "plans" that come in, you still wouldn't get compliance. A lot of the "trouble" is that some ahj's will accept anything as a submission, and try to "crystal ball" the project from there. poor way to do it,but it happens. we still get whole houses with no electrical circuit diagrams, no load calcs, no plumbing riser diagrams, no info on what the prefab fireplace will be, or the hvac unit will be, heat sterips or no, or what? and, we can't turn it away from the counter. thats unfreindly
 
A plan checker that provides CYA notes especially regarding things already addressed in the documents loses my respect.
If by documents you mean the construction drawings I agree. If by document you mean buried in the spec book somewhere the I humbly disagree. I do not have time to read all portions of a spec book.

Similarly a plan checker should not require special inspection when not required by the code.
Agree except for 1704.5. I ask which exception applies and the response 9 times out of 10 is a special inspector is required. I do not know why but that is the response

My pet peeve is when a DP references a UL or GA number for a fire resistive assembly and does not put the detail on the drawings or the fastener requirements. The installer in the field needs the info on his working drawings not buried on a website somwhere.
 
Top