code analysis - tenant spaces

[rktect 1]

I'm just a bit curious about what other plan reviewers require when it comes to a code analysis section on tenant finish outs.

I have seen over the past three years that at least 50% of the submittals for commercial work on tenant finish outs that this information is either very lacking or not on the drawings at all. I am not talking about the small tenant finish modifications that don't really require a DP to sign off on such as adding a new door to an office or short wall or two. I am talking about full tenant finish outs from anything between 2,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq, ft. and no code analysis.

I'm getting pretty tired of asking to have on the title sheet the:

construction type

use group

square foot area of tenant space

sprinklered or not

occupant load

travel distances

# of required exits

rating of demising walls or ceilings, when applicable to adjacent spaces

so on and so forth

It seems like it is not standard to have this information on the drawings. It isn't just the time I have spent doing this either. When looking into our archives to find out this information, I see the same lacking information and have to search even further until I finally find the original set of drawings for the entire building. Of course sometimes it isn't even on those original drawings either.

Anybody else requireing this information on all commercial sets for tenant finish outs/modifications? Just curious. Maybe I don't need this info in order to perform a plan review.

 

[FredK]

Guess I just expect that to be on the cover sheet. If not it goes back until I get it.

 

[FM William Burns]

I do in addition to complete floor plan and fixture design layout. Regarding the laundry list of lacking items; I have created "macros" in MS Word/Office that just click in where necessary. Sooooo much easier then all that typing and comes in very handy when dealing with the same issues more then once.

 

[High Desert]

I don't know how you can do a plan review without it.

 

[steveray]

No info...no permit...

106.1.1 Information on construction documents.

Construction documents shall be dimensioned and 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.

That last part always messes it up...either you get the old school guy that just "knows" the builder will do it right or maybe he did the original building and it is all in his head???

 

[globe trekker]

rktect1,

Agree with the others! We also have created our own form to give to the contractors to request

the information needed to accurately review the project in a timely manner. Size of the tenant

space is not a factor! Also, this state' architecture board requires that any structure 5,000 sq. ft

( gross ) or more requires an RDP to sign off on the project of any tenant space project, "new" or

existing regardless of size of the tenant space.

.

 

[rktect 1]

Okay,

So a whole bunch of us require all this info on the drawings and the building code requires it and we can't do our jobs as plan reviewers without......

So why do they keep coming in without this basic yet essential and required info?

To me this is architecture 102, after I learned how to draw a straight line (architecture 101) of course.

Are DP's just this lazy or is it that they are waiting for me, the plan reviewer, to provide this info to them? Basically a free service.

I know that I am ranting and venting but its the end of the year. I'm tired.

 

[Builder Bob]

With the newer code , design options are alawys used for the initial design. Any modifications or changes to the shell should reflect the criteria used to ensure that the original design is still valid ----- After all, I beleive the code states that any work or alterations should not place the strucutre out of compliance with the codes.

Prime example is seperated uses and not exceeding the ratio of 1.

 

[dat]

In the vast majority of the Tenant Improvements we have, it is obivous what would needs an new analysis and what does not. Most do not: same use, no additions, no exiting changes etc. One advantage we have is that 90% of our commercial buildings are sprinklered and with the recent codes trade-offs for sprinklering, this means most fit-outs are well within compliance even sometimes with a change of use. This sometimes also allows deletion of rated corridors, vertical exit enclosures, non-combustable construction and the like. If in doubt, I will run the the basic calculations myself and assess the results under the newer code parameters. In existing buildings the major problem is common path of travel (CPOT) because this was not an provision in the old UBC, when many of the structures were built. CPOT is by the way a great concept in my opinion, and I usually seek to incorporate this in tenant remodels, but it is not always realistic to ask for. The Existing Building Code IEBC, and/or IBC chapter 34 gives some allowances as well. After this, should I still have qualms, I ask the design professional to submit an analysis for the record.

 

[FM William Burns]

Are DP's just this lazy or is it that they are waiting for me, the plan reviewer, to provide this info to them? Basically a free service.

Little of both. Over the years and working with firms from various areas of the region and country, some try to get by (more profit), some are bad, some are lazy and some are smart if it works continually for them. Once a firm or individual DP get the form letter any future plan lacking detail just gets sent back and the owner is notified so they don't get ticked at us.

 

[Big Mac]

That is just one of the many reasons I have a "DISAPPROVED" stamp

 

[peach]

don't overthink tenant layouts.. the base building should have addessed the BIG issues... unless its a HUGE change to the base building use (It''s B... it's still B) we've seen hundreds of them.. plan review overthinks ..

 

[texasbo]

I'm really not trying to be "that guy' here, but in my opinion, most of the items that were listed are what I expect the Plan Review Department to determine. We receive a set of construction documents, and we determine the code requirements. Yes, the designer/architect must list the square footage on the application, and tell us if it's sprinklered or not. Beyond that, we will determine occupancy, occupant load, construction type, look at travel distances, etc.

The CD's will have dimensions, wall sections, door and hardware schedules etc. We will provide comments based on this submittal. That's what we get paid to do.

Sure, I love it when we get the submittals from the big firms that accompanied by a code analysis (some of the big firms like HKS and HOK have full time code compliance staff), but it isn't expected. And often, our determination is different than their's anyway.

 

[brudgers]

Beyond that, we will determine occupancy, occupant load, construction type, look at travel distances, etc.

That's the design professional's job. The code official's job is to determine compliance.

 

[Jim B]

If the construction type, use group, square footage, change of occupancy information, adjacent spaces, code reference (IBC for new, IEBC or IBC Chap 34 for existing) is not provided I cannot see how a DP even attempted to meet the code. It is all a guess at that point and irresponsible of the DP.

I always like when you get a code analysis on the cover sheet that spits out code requirements but never tells you what THIS project encompasses. Or the code analysis is there but they aren’t meeting what stated.. A good example is plumbing fixture count: they show what’s required and then the provided is less.

I’ve had DP’s tell me they knew what was required for a project but the owner didn’t what to do it and they were hoping that we would miss it in the review.

I believe that the amount of money the DP is making directly correlates to how good the drawings are. In my area there are some lazy and/ or misinformed DP’s. It’s always fun when you do a review and resubmitted drawings only address 1/3 of what was call out, then the DP says that you can “red-line” the issues….eerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggg. It can be a real battle to get the minimum.

I find that the bigger the project the better the drawings and inspections will be.

Sorry to rant, but I don’t expect anyone to work any harder than I do, and I am not paid to design.

 

[brudgers]

I've had building official's assign Type III to a structure because the exterior walls were CMU and the roof was wood trusses.

What makes it worse, is that they don't even know that what they are doing is wrong.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I've had building official's assign Type III to a structure because the exterior walls were CMU and the roof was wood trusses.What makes it worse, is that they don't even know that what they are doing is wrong.

Agree Starting out in S Fl where just about every building is concrete I was taught all existing buildings are assumed to be V-B untill the architect indicates/proves otherwise.

 

[texasbo]

That's the design professional's job. The code official's job is to determine compliance.

That's fine if the design professional deigns to provide a complete code analysis, but the whole point of this thread, supported by subsequent posts, is that they rarely do.

And whether they do or don't, the code official still determines compliance by reviewing the CD's, just like I said.

Silly me; all this time I didn't know what my job was. I guess I was just mistakenly looking at the code: 106.3, 2006 IBC: "The building official shall examine...the accompanying construction documents and shall ascertain by such examinations whether the construction indicated and described is in accordance with this code..."

It doesn't say the building official shall review the architects code analysis and let it fly. First, they rarely submit a code analysis, second, when they do it's often in error, and third, if we just take their word for it, why even require plans.

I'll review the plans, thank you very much. If you want to submit a code analysis, it would be greatly appreciated and will probably significantly reduce our turn around time for your permit. But I will review the CD's for compliance. Very few architects have your code knowledge.

 

[texasbo]

I've had building official's assign Type III to a structure because the exterior walls were CMU and the roof was wood trusses.What makes it worse, is that they don't even know that what they are doing is wrong.

Then they don't know enough about the code to be in their line of work. I've had architects tell me that fire retardant treated wood is noncombustible construction. Please, let's not start this foolishness again.

 

[brudgers]

it's deleted

 

[Neville]

Hi guys....

To buy a commercial estate in this point of time, i think of a very wealthy person a bit a billionaire as it takes very large amount of money to buy a commercial building with running business.As the matter of fact, nobody wants to sale hi profit giving estate in theses days.But i would suggest you to get out of your living room and go the commercial area , there you find plenty of people who are more than willing to you help you with some commission to earn from you and other party.

 

[TJacobs]

We have the same problem as the OP, maybe because we are nearby.

I see DP's using Type III all the time and have to make the phone call...so it goes both ways brudgers.

If it is not on the plans I'll determine it. If it is I'll determine if it's accurate. If I can't determine it it goes back. I agree with texasbo.

 

[rktect 1]

Hi guys....To buy a commercial estate in this point of time, i think of a very wealthy person a bit a billionaire as it takes very large amount of money to buy a commercial building with running business.As the matter of fact, nobody wants to sale hi profit giving estate in theses days.But i would suggest you to get out of your living room and go the commercial area , there you find plenty of people who are more than willing to you help you with some commission to earn from you and other party.

Say what?....

 

[brudgers]

We have the same problem as the OP, maybe because we are nearby.I see DP's using Type III all the time and have to make the phone call...so it goes both ways brudgers.

If it is not on the plans I'll determine it. If it is I'll determine if it's accurate. If I can't determine it it goes back. I agree with texasbo.

You're rewarding incomplete design.

If it's not on the plans - reject them for not having it.

Once it's there, then you can verify compliance.

Designating the construction type is a design decision.

Bad design does not justify improper plan review procedure.