Yes. That's probably why you do it rather than the job you are paid to do.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.permitguy said:It takes me almost no time to tell you to remove notes and details that do not pertain to the project,
one more time for the record...and in your opinion, what is the job a plans examiner is paid to do?brudgers said:Yes. That's probably why you do it rather than the job you are paid to do.
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.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.
Determine if the design complies with code. Let's be clear.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?
That's a whole 'nuther problem right there.gbhammer said:The architect just sent me a 63 page pdf with revisions, ...
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.A plan checker that provides CYA notes especially regarding things already addressed in the documents loses my respect.
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 responseSimilarly a plan checker should not require special inspection when not required by the code.