Comment # 423: Please revise note: "code analysis per IBC 2006 U.N.O." to reflect the currently adopted code year.brudgers said: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.
In my opinion, yes.cda said: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??
I doubt the plans are why you are nuts...gbhammer said:, 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.
brudgers said:I doubt the plans are why you are nuts...
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'schris kennedy said: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.
All part of the minimum requirements checklist of a building department somewhere and without which plans shall not cross the counter.ICE said: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,
Sure handling resubmittals and processing them through the building department saves the taxpayers money...and you get to make people dance.permitguy said: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 If due dilligence can catch an unpublished code interpretation, it can certainly catch which boiler plate details may be omitted from a drawing before submittal.
The last thing I want to do is ...."make people dance".brudgers said: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?
Not requiring plans to be submitted at all would save the taxpayers the most money, but then again maybe the RDPs are overpaid.brudgers said:Sure handling resubmittals and processing them through the building department saves the taxpayers money...and you get to make people dance.
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".Sure handling resubmittals and processing them through the building department saves the taxpayers money.
No, you aren't going too far. It is absolutely appropriate to do so.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.