code analysis - tenant spaces

[texasbo]

How can I reject plans because the architect didn't designate the Construction Type? Where in the code does it say he has to?

If an architect submits a plan for a 2000 sq ft B occupancy built out of concrete and steel, and designates it as VB, I'm going to call it VB. If he calls it a IIB, I'm going to call it a IIB. If he doesn't designate it at all, I'm going to call it a VB.

The architect's decision not to designate construction type is not incomplete design. The architect's failure to submit complete CD's is.

A building official's decision to reject plans because they don't have construction type written on them is acting outside the scope of the code, and illegal unless you have amendments allowing you to do so.

 

[MarkRandall]

Some good comments on both sides.

As the architect, I've been on both sides of providing detailed code analysis and not providing it. When I was younger and working in small offices, we typically did very little drawings for tenant improvements that required no load bearing modifications. A floor plan with some dimensions would be it for a simple TI, so that's kind of how I was taught. Of course that was before ADA, but Washington state had fairly good accessibility requirements.

Today, working on my own, I provide a complete separate sheet with code data. I started doing that several years ago when reviewers started regularly requesting it, so in my thinking, it's more of a tradition of what to submit. One local jurisdiction even had requirements that the code sheet had to be labeled CS##. I don't know if they still require that, but I couldn't believe they dictated the numbering system for my sheets, but it was easier to comply than to argue. I still label my code sheets as CS. I'd rather just use a typical A##, but it this point it's just habit.

 

[brudgers]

How can I reject plans because the architect didn't designate the Construction Type? Where in the code does it say he has to?

"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." 106.1.1

Every building has to have a construction type.

 

[rktect 1]

So if a set comes in for a 12 story building with 20,000 sq ft on each floor, and no code analysis, you determine its VB and start your review? I think that will generate a lot of false comments.

 

[Jim B]

I work for a 3rd party review company that covers 95 communities. As far as my job goes I don’t have time to review a 12 story, B, 20000 ft2 per floor and call it out as VB construction and then review it as such and then deal with the DP when he / she complains. It is their responsibility to show me that they meet the code

IBC 2009, 107.2.1 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.

So, as a building code official, I may ask for code data, or if I require that the code analysis be placed on a sheet titled CS##, I am well within my right as per the IBC.

How can a DP show that the wok being performed meets the provisions of the code if the analysis wasn’t provided? I wish I had time to review drawings all as VB and then re-review them when the DP finally tells me what they are doing.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Section 601.1 of the 97 UBC required "Every building shall be classified by the Building Official into one of the types of construction set forth in Table 6-A"

This was not carried into the I-Codes and I believe for good reason.

 

[texasbo]

So if a set comes in for a 12 story building with 20,000 sq ft on each floor, and no code analysis, you determine its VB and start your review? I think that will generate a lot of false comments.

Huh? Where did this come from? No, you determine the minimum classification for the type of construction, just as specified in 602.1, 602.1.1, 2006 IBC.

 

[texasbo]

I work for a 3rd party review company that covers 95 communities. As far as my job goes I don’t have time to review a 12 story, B, 20000 ft2 per floor and call it out as VB construction and then review it as such and then deal with the DP when he / she complains. It is their responsibility to show me that they meet the codeIBC 2009, 107.2.1 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.

So, as a building code official, I may ask for code data, or if I require that the code analysis be placed on a sheet titled CS##, I am well within my right as per the IBC.

How can a DP show that the wok being performed meets the provisions of the code if the analysis wasn’t provided? I wish I had time to review drawings all as VB and then re-review them when the DP finally tells me what they are doing.

I'm having difficulty understanding where all of this 12 story VB nonsense is coming from.

Yes, it is their responsibility to show you that it meets code, by submitting construction documents that meet the criteria you cited. The code doesn't say they have to submit construction documents and a self-plan review. If you don't have time to do your job, then you need to hire more people, or the jurisdictions should hire someone who does have the time.

Again, if the architect knows what he's doing, and submits a good code analysis, he could save us significant time in review. However, the code requires construction documents that are sufficient to show that the project conforms to the code.

The code requires YOU (106.3, 2006 IBC) to examine the construction documents to ascertain whether or not the project complies with the code.

You are acting beyond the scope of your authority if the construction documents show compliance with the code, and you require the architect to provide a code analysis, unless you have an ordinance that allows you to do so.

 

[Mark K]

I agree with Texasbo in that you cannot reject the plans because the architect did not designate the construction type on the drawings.

On the other hand if it is not clear or if what you see appears to be wrong it is perfectly appropriate to return the submittal documents with comments on the missing information. The plan checker should not be expected to spend significant time finding the necessary information or performing calculations.

The architect should be allowed to provide the necessary information in the form of submittal documents such as calculations and reports. Some design professionals do not believe such information should be on the construction documents since it is not used by the contractor in constructing the project. This is very analogous to structural calculations.

The phrase in the code that reads “…as determined by the building official” does not give the building official unlimited right to ask for whatever he wants in whatever format he wishes. As long as the applicant can show code compliance the building official shall not put unnecessary restrictions on the manner in which this is done.

 

[brudgers]

Huh? Where did this come from? No, you determine the minimum classification for the type of construction, just as specified in 602.1, 602.1.1, 2006 IBC.

The building official doesn't have all the relevant information to determine the proper construction type for the building. The owner may be intending on adding an assembly occupancy on the fourth floor at some later date.

When there are no sprinklers shown, do you draw them in on the plans as part of your review?

 

[brudgers]

I agree with Texasbo in that you cannot reject the plans because the architect did not designate the construction type on the drawings. On the other hand if it is not clear or if what you see appears to be wrong it is perfectly appropriate to return the submittal documents with comments on the missing information. The plan checker should not be expected to spend significant time finding the necessary information or performing calculations.

The architect should be allowed to provide the necessary information in the form of submittal documents such as calculations and reports. Some design professionals do not believe such information should be on the construction documents since it is not used by the contractor in constructing the project. This is very analogous to structural calculations.

The phrase in the code that reads “…as determined by the building official” does not give the building official unlimited right to ask for whatever he wants in whatever format he wishes. As long as the applicant can show code compliance the building official shall not put unnecessary restrictions on the manner in which this is done.

An architect cannot show code compliance without indicating construction type.

 

[texasbo]

The building official doesn't have all the relevant information to determine the proper construction type for the building. The owner may be intending on adding an assembly occupancy on the fourth floor at some later date.

Yes he does, he has the construction documents, as required by the code. If he is not given complete construction documents, then it's the architect's fault, and the

submittal should be rejected. The architect is welcome to indicate a construction type different than the minimum required by code. He is also welcome to plan for future changes. However, there is nothing in the code that requires him to do either of these things. If the construction documents reflect such issues, I'll certainly review them in that context. The fact remains that the code requires the code official to review the construction documents that are submitted.

When there are no sprinklers shown, do you draw them in on the plans as part of your review

No, I review the construction documents that are submitted, just as I've said all along.

 

[texasbo]

An architect cannot show code compliance without indicating construction type.

He can if his construction documents meet the submittal requirements mandated in the code.

 

[Jim B]

If you don't have time to do your job, then you need to hire more people, or the jurisdictions should hire someone who does have the time.

The code requires YOU (106.3, 2006 IBC) to examine the construction documents to ascertain whether or not the project complies with the code.

I'll be sure to pass your suggestion to my boss... I would welcome more help!

I agree, it is MY responsibility to examine the construction documents to ascertain code compliance. But it is the design professional responsibility to provide sufficient clarity that the proposed work will conform with the provisions of the code.

Anything within the scope of work that is referred to in the I-codes should be clearly indicated on the drawings by the design professional. I cannot possibly understand how a reviewer can determine compliance without, at least construction type indicated on the drawings.

Now I have to get back to work

 

[FM William Burns]

Oh well I'll jump in. As a reviewer it is important to me to have as much detail necessary to prevent me from appearing to be the bad guy when things go south at rough-in's or finals. I don't harp on small stuff but Const Type is well....pretty important.

The lack of detail especially on interior tenant build-outs and fixture layouts is also pretty important....just ask the firm who had to change their design because the acrylic "pretty" partition created obstructions to the sprinkler discharge pattern. Wish they would have provided detail on that since the store knew. Maybe communication needs to improve between firm and owners to make sure all the necessary information is provided so they don't have to hold up their "GRAND OPENING".

 

[brudgers]

No, I review the construction documents that are submitted, just as I've said all along.

Except when there is no construction type submitted, then you start designing.

 

[rktect 1]

I think the problem is that the code allows the DP options as to how he is going to design his building. He needs to inidicate this in the code analysis. It lets the reviewer then follow that DP's design path and determine if it complies. The plan reviewer is not given the option to see if he can find a design path through the code. You may be wrong in the end. Then what?

 

[texasbo]

I cannot possibly understand how a reviewer can determine compliance without, at least construction type indicated on the drawings.

Now I have to get back to work

A quick scan of Chapters 4,5, and 6 of the IBC, along with thorough review of the construction documents should get you headed in the right direction.

 

[texasbo]

Except when there is no construction type submitted, then you start designing.

Wrong. Then I start complying with section 106.3 of the IBC which requires me to examine the construction documents to ascertain compliance with the code.

 

[texasbo]

I think the problem is that the code allows the DP options as to how he is going to design his building. He needs to inidicate this in the code analysis. It lets the reviewer then follow that DP's design path and determine if it complies. The plan reviewer is not given the option to see if he can find a design path through the code. You may be wrong in the end. Then what?

I completely agree. I have agreed all along. I welcome and encourage architects to provide information as you, brudgers, FM Burns and others have indicated.

With that said, when a complete set of CD's is submitted, I am obligated to review them for code compliance (106.3), I am obligated to classify the building according to the minimum construction type required by code (602.1.1), and if it complies, I am required by law to issue the permit, as you are, unless you have an amendment that says otherwise.

How often do I get a legitimate code analysis from registered architects? I'd say 5% at most.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The OP was about tenant improvement. My current system goes back 8 years. If I can find the original permit with the construction type on it I will use that. If it is not in the current system I am not doing the research to determine construction type at the time of construction and if any changes or additions have been done that may have changed the original construction type that is the DP's responsibility. Most tenant improvement work does not even give details as to how the original building was constructed so what are you going to use to determine construction type?

 

[texasbo]

It's my responsibility to keep records of construction in my jurisdiction. We have built, maintained, and filled in the gaps of our Plan Review Department database for exactly that reason.

I think you do have a good point though; if you have a RDP submit plans for a finish out in a building of unknown construction type, his drawings would have to show compliance with the code. That very well might mean that the CD's would have to be supplemented with information over and above the individual space. What is that additional information?

Let's say it's a small space, and the plans are not required to be drawn by a RDP, and you don't know the construction type of the building.

Are you going to send them back to the little guy trying to open a business and tell them to tell you what the construction type of the existing building is, because you don't know?

If you treat them differently than you do the RDP, how do you justify that strictly related to code requirements?

Your post brings up great questions that we all have to deal with every day.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Common sense and historical use comes into play on most TI's in existing buildings. It is a 3 story sprinklered building and been a "B" use throughout the building and the TI use is a "B" you will not spend a great amount of time on construction type. However if the TI change is to put an A-2 use on the 3rd floor then prove of construction type would be neded

 

[Mr. Inspector]

In PA Act 45 (The Uniform Contruction Code) replaced chapter 1 of the IBC. So it's not only the code but the law

§ 403.42a Permit application.

(a) Applications for a permit required under § 403.42 (relating to permit requirements and exemptions) shall be submitted to the building code official in accordance with this section.

(b) A permit applicant shall submit an application to the building code official and attach construction documents, including plans and specifications, and information concerning special inspection and structural observation programs, Department of Transportation highway access permits, all other permits or approvals related to the construction required under § 403.102(n) (relating to municipalities electing to enforce the Uniform Construction Code) and other data required by the building code official with the permit application. The applicant shall submit three sets of documents when the Department conducts the review.

my 3rd party conpany does't even want me to look at the plans without the information that rktect lists.