I'm picky??

[Simonsays]

Does anyone has a usable sentence that is included in the plan review letter to prevent the designer from lifting my review comments and applying each one onto their drawing(s)? For example, the drawings don't show the illumination near an exterior stair on the elevation, only a narrative written exactly as in my review letter with the code section provided. Jeez - why not staple a code book to the drawing?

 

[e hilton]

I don’t see the issue. Give him credit for not rewording and mangling you comments when he tried to add them to the plans.

 

[Sifu]

Happens occasionally. It puts more on the inspector and contractor if it is just a re-print, and really serves nobody, so when I think that might be the response I use the term "Demonstrate compliance with IBC 1234. Show 1234 on plans." It is up to the plans examiner to determine what "sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature, and extent of work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code".... means. (IBC 107.2.1)

Along the same lines, my plan review comment document has a directive in the very first paragraph that clearly states that "will comply with code" is not an acceptable response on the plans. Usually I get that as a response to the plan review comment letter, and then it is detailed on the plans.

 

[Simonsays]

Does anyone has a usable sentence that is included in the plan review letter to prevent the designer from lifting my review comments and applying each one onto their drawing(s)? For example, the drawings don't show the illumination near an exterior stair on the elevation, only a narrative written exactly as in my review letter with the code section provided. Jeez - why not staple a code book to the drawing?

How about this?
R 106.1.1 Information on construction documents. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail (rather than a written narrative; citing code sections is unnecessary) that the work will conform to the provisions of this code in relevant laws ordinances rules and regulations as determined by the building official.

 

[tbz]

my plan review comment document has a directive in the very first paragraph that clearly states that "will comply with code" is not an acceptable response on the plans.

So I have a question, Residentially & a good bit, 35%, of general commercial projects I see, architects and designers have no clue as to the nature of the "guard systems" design when the drawings are submitted, and permits issued. Matter a fact I commonly see the following two notes on drawings when presented to us after the project has started and permits are issued as approved drawings.

• Residentially: "Guard system and handrails to be designed and installed to meet or exceed 20## IRC as adopted by the, AHJ NAME"
  • and then they draw a typical that is about 100 years old with no details on how it's being transferred back into the floor edge or structure
• Commercially: "Guard system and handrails to be designed and installed to meet or exceed 20## IBC as adopted by the, AHJ NAME"
  • and then they draw a typical that is about 40 years old of a mounting plate or core drilled hole and nothing on how it's being transferred back into the structure of the building.

And when the final projects are completed what's in the permitted drawings does not match what is installed on site.

So how do you handle what's on the prints does not match what's installed in the field, but both are clearly compliant to the field inspector?

I am curious how this is handled with the "I" dotting and "T" crossing...

 

[Inspector Gadget]

My philosophy is that I do not accept a plan, or issue a permit, until the plan has demonstrated compliance. If a designer notes "one-hour fire-rating" for a wall, I will request the designer provide a breakout (drawn or written) that shows how it will be built, and if necessary, I will ask that it makes reference to an approved system (usually for apartment sound transmission requirements.)
Asking for breakouts has saved my butt a few times. I have one file where an exterior wall needed to have a 1-hour rating for spatial separation. The designer thought that using Hardiplank on the exterior was sufficient...

 

[rktect 1]

I think it depends on what your comment directed him to do. I am very specific in plan review comments. "Add a note that states "Xxxxx xxx....." or On sheet A-120 show the location of X, Y and Z. Or even a combination of both as in Provide the location of X, Y and Z and add required notation to Sheet A-120.

 

[jar546]

I am grabbing some popcorn and waiting for Mark K to respond.

 

[Mark K]

Me think a mountain is being made out of a mole hill.

Could we have fun with this and take the statements literally and apply them uniformly to all aspects of the building. Should the last several projects you have approved been rejected for not sufficient information. Taken to extremes could we stop all construction? We all have blinders.

Many structural members are not formally designed but the engineer knows from past experience that what is shown on the documents will comply. You could greatly increase your time spent reviewing the structural documents by performing a detailed check of the calculations for every member. This would mean that the permit fees would have to be increased.

Does not the code allow the construction documents to delegate portions of the design?

How the construction documents present the information should be the prerogative of the design professional unless the building official wants to insert himself into the project and accept liability. You could ask for more specific information but that should be tied to a clearly stated code provision. But requiring a specific note be inserted into the drawings?

With regards to the location of the illumination what does the code say about the location of the light? Will your inspectors check the dimensions?

 

[jar546]

So how do you handle what's on the prints does not match what's installed in the field, but both are clearly compliant to the field inspector?

We require as-builts to be submitted and approved as a revision before the final inspection can be signed off. The drawings are permanent records as to how something was built. No one complains, they just provide as-builts and we move on. It is the right thing to do and required.

 

[tmurray]

Me think a mountain is being made out of a mole hill.

Could we have fun with this and take the statements literally and apply them uniformly to all aspects of the building. Should the last several projects you have approved been rejected for not sufficient information. Taken to extremes could we stop all construction? We all have blinders.

Many structural members are not formally designed but the engineer knows from past experience that what is shown on the documents will comply. You could greatly increase your time spent reviewing the structural documents by performing a detailed check of the calculations for every member. This would mean that the permit fees would have to be increased.

Does not the code allow the construction documents to delegate portions of the design?

How the construction documents present the information should be the prerogative of the design professional unless the building official wants to insert himself into the project and accept liability. You could ask for more specific information but that should be tied to a clearly stated code provision. But requiring a specific note be inserted into the drawings?

With regards to the location of the illumination what does the code say about the location of the light? Will your inspectors check the dimensions?

I think the issue at hand is that the drawings do not present the information, they simply state the code requirement. I would be the first to allow a designer with a proven track record some discretion in their design. Your example is a perfect one. A structural engineer specifies a structural member, but does not do the calculations as their experience indicates that it is impossible it to fail. However, that is not what is being discussed here. It would be more like if the structural engineer wrote on the plans what performance the structural member has to have, leaving the decision as to what the member will actually be to the contractor.

In my experience, if it is not shown on the plans in the drawing, it does not get done.

We all have minimum design requirements that address common issues at our location.

As my boss said after someone complained that I was picky...Good. That's what I pay him for.

 

[ICE]

"For example, the drawings don't show the illumination near an exterior stair on the elevation, only a narrative written exactly as in my review letter with the code section provided."

Worth noting is that the people that use the drawings during construction are most likely not engineers or architects. In a perfect world they would read and understand the English language. There can be a note that requires lighting for the stairs and no pictorial depiction of said light in the drawings. That meets the requirement of the code. Then an inspector tells them that they missed the light fixture.

More information is never a problem and not enough information is always a problem. Understand that the goal is to reach the lowest common denominator....me.

I can tell when the plans were created for the engineers with no regard for us. They seldom seem surprised when I have questions. And yes Mark K, I bypass the owner and contractor and go directly to the engineer.

 

[jar546]

In my experience, if it is not shown on the plans in the drawing, it does not get done.

Yes, yes and yes. Many contractors are as literal as they can be with regards to carrying out what is on the plans, right down to the small things such as a lack of signage. The frequent answer from contractors is "but it wasn't on the plans." The less that is on the plans, the more knowledgeable and competent the contractor needs to be. There is nothing like a job screeching to a halt because problems were not caught until the inspection process had begun which now causes delays and monetary losses when things have to be torn out and done again.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Does anyone has a usable sentence that is included in the plan review letter to prevent the designer from lifting my review comments and applying each one onto their drawing(s)?

the drawings don't show the illumination near an exterior stair on the elevation, correct the drawings and re-submit

Is the information on another sheet? maybe the info is on the electrical drawings or photometric drawing since it is an exterior light.

Sometimes drawings can have too much information and they become cluttered and hard to read.

 

[rktect 1]

It was the architect Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe who said "Less is more." Upon hearing this Frank Lloyd Wright responded "Less is only more where more is no good."

I have never seen a complete set of code compliant drawings where less was more but I have definitely seen drawings where more was no good.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

In my experience, if it is not shown on the plans in the drawing, it does not get done.

This.
In fact, this came to bite me on the nether regions last week. Had a very simple project - F2 storage building. Plans came to me with one door on the front, but it didn't meet the requirements for a single exit.

Given the simplicity of the project, I kicked out a fairly basic review statement that included language that a door was required at the rear of the building.

The builder put a door at the rear of the building .... and no door at the front.