Minimum Submittal Requirements

[Papio Bldg Dept]

After an interesting conversation with a Co-ordinating RDP yesterday, I am re-examining my comments to see if they are indeed too restrictive, or heavy handed in my expectations for minimum submittal. I believe I have brought up similar topics before, however, it is an ongoing occurance where plans are submitted with insufficient information to determine full compliance for the MOE.

The original comment was due to an incomplete plan submittal at the time of application, however I maintained one of the intents of the plan review was to ensure adequate information is provided within the issued documents, sufficient for the inspectors to verify construction compliance. Specifically, we discussed whether existing door (required MOE exit discharge doors) information should be a requirement on a change of occupancy tenant finish project. In my readings of the existing building codes, I have not seen any exemptions for existing door hardware that is non-compliant on a change of occupancy, and therefore am not sure how I am to devine the existing conditions unless noted on the plans in some way.

I understand that, as the AHJ, we have the right to request whatever information we feel appropriate and within reason, however,what I deem reasonable in my requests, may not be viewed that way by RDPs, and I further understand there are many different philosophies to how much information should be in the construction documents (thank you AIA). Short of accepting blanket statements for compliance, such as, "This project shall be ADA compliant," or "This project shall comply will all adopted codes of the AHJ," where do I find that fine line between, expecting too much, and not enough.

Where is your line?

 

[codeworks]

Get as much as you can for plans review, note deficiencies in your review comments, you can't know what "existing hardware" is any more than i can tell where walls "are going to be later", unless it's on the plans, or in submittal info.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The plan review comments are general in nature and are not intended to be a complete listing of all possible code requirements. Additional code deficiencies and/or requirements may be noted during construction and inspection.

We put this standard comment on all plan reviews. Some times you have to let it go and catch it in the field

 

[gbhammer]

I have found that RDPs are more than happy to give every scrap of door hardware info especially cost, when they are trying to fall into the 20% rule for ADA compliance.

 

[brudgers]

And herein, less the essence of what Milton meant by "approve this plan."

With a red sharpie, write "Existing door hardware shall be upgraded to comply with current code" when you believe this to be the case and doing so allows you to approve the plans.

Issue the permit and live a little...you don't need to review the damn thing again, a reasonable attempt to inform the contractor has been made, and all that remains is to let the inspector know.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

And herein, less the essence of what Milton meant by "approve this plan." With a red sharpie, write "Existing door hardware shall be upgraded to comply with current code" when you believe this to be the case and doing so allows you to approve the plans.

Issue the permit and live a little...you don't need to review the damn thing again, a reasonable attempt to inform the contractor has been made, and all that remains is to let the inspector know.

Our departmental policy is to not amend an RDP construction document set. We permit the RDP, or an approved delegate of the RDP to make red-lines, but as there are often many ways to meet code compliance, we prefer not to make those decisions for the RDP. Obviously with the door, a boiler plate compliance note would be sufficient and reasonable, but notation is required.

In lieu of the red sharpie, I have revised my comments, similar to your suggestion, as notice to the contractor and RDP that compliance will be determined at the time of final inspection. Off to live a little.

 

[brudgers]

Our departmental policy is to not amend an RDP construction document set. We permit the RDP, or an approved delegate of the RDP to make red-lines, but as there are often many ways to meet code compliance, we prefer not to make those decisions for the RDP. Obviously with the door, a boiler plate compliance note would be sufficient and reasonable, but notation is required. In lieu of the red sharpie, I have revised my comments, similar to your suggestion, as notice to the contractor and RDP that compliance will be determined at the time of final inspection. Off to live a little.

Due you place comment stamps (like those mentioned by mtlogcabin) on the drawings? What's the difference between that and a sharpie?

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Due you place comment stamps (like those mentioned by mtlogcabin) on the drawings?

No. We attach a copy of the Plan Review Comments and Inspection Requirements (8.5x11), which contain a similar boiler plate to what mt noted, to each plan set, otherwise we only mark each page with a 'date received/revised' stamp and a 'reviewed for compliance' stamp. The back of the set is stamped with applicable code stamps (NEC/ICC), and a labeling stamp (permit number, date issued, const. type, occ. group, zone, and address/legal) with limited boiler plate statements:

1. one set of approval plans shall be made availableto inspector...for all inspections.

2. This permit does not grant approval to violate any...laws.

3. A permit may be revoked whenever the permit is issued in error or due to incorrect or incomplete information submitted.

4. This permit shall not prevent the CBO from requiring construction compliant with applicable codes.

What's the difference between that and a sharpie?

There is nothing different from a note stamp and a sharpie in my opinion. We don't mark the RDPs sets because we believe it to be a legal design document, of which design, shall only be altered by the RDP.

 

[brudgers]

No. We attach a copy of the Plan Review Comments and Inspection Requirements (8.5x11), which contain a similar boiler plate to what mt noted, to each plan set, otherwise we only mark each page with a 'date received/revised' stamp and a 'reviewed for compliance' stamp. The back of the set is stamped with applicable code stamps (NEC/ICC), and a labeling stamp (permit number, date issued, const. type, occ. group, zone, and address/legal) with limited boiler plate statements: 1. one set of approval plans shall be made availableto inspector...for all inspections. 2. This permit does not grant approval to violate any...laws. 3. A permit may be revoked whenever the permit is issued in error or due to incorrect or incomplete information submitted. 4. This permit shall not prevent the CBO from requiring construction compliant with applicable codes. There is nothing different from a note stamp and a sharpie in my opinion. We don't mark the RDPs sets because we believe it to be a legal design document, of which design, shall only be altered by the RDP.

If it's illegal to alter them, then stamping them is illegal...but anyway, you're not altering the design document - You're communicating to the inspector. And if you can do that with a sharpie, rather than making the applicant come down, pick up the plans, take them back to the office, change them, bring them back, wait, come back, and pick up the permit...you've not only helped them be more efficient, but you have helped your building department to be more efficient as well.

I love bureaucracy as much as the next guy, but sometimes enough is enough...so long as you are consistent you are covered.

 

[ewenme]

It has been our policy to red-line plans to our heart's content [for code compliance issues, not just for fun] and give the RDP the option of supplying replacements 'sheets' as opposed to whole new sets of plans. I do not think that re-reviewing the new set of plans should be required, but how else would you expect to verify any changes? Some RDPs do not object to a red-lined set of plans for the contractor, and some do. The inspectors appreciate the red-lined info as a heads-up to an issue on inspection. We also attach the plan review document, which the contractor/owner is required to initial to indicate that he is aware of the requirements not shown on the plans. I've never had anyone refuse to acknowledge the requirements. I have had some owners/applicants fail to let that information trickle down to the guy in the field. That's why the inspectors need to cognizant of special situations. In addition, the inspectors can call in from the field and we can go over plans/changes/comments using the identical sets of plans in the field and the office. Works well for us.

 

[incognito]

I prefer plans that are vague or incomplete and then provide plan review comments that are broad and nondefinitive. Not for everyone but has worked quite nicely for our department the last decade or so. Something like "All building elements shall meet required ADA standards". The idea is to keep all comments broad and general and point the RDP in the direction of his error(s).

 

[Mark K]

Plan check comments such as "All building elements shall meet required ADA standards" are not helpful to the RDP. They are also a sign that the plan checker is playing CYA. I believe the BOCA or Standard code had a provisions that prohibited the applicant from putting a similar statement in the construction documents. For similar reasons the plan checker needs to be specific.

 

[texasbo]

I think there are two issues at play here. The first is whether you place more emphasis on plan review or inspections, and the second is the importance of the issue being discussed.

I have no problem whatsoever redlining drawings; we do it all the time. If it expedites the project, I'm all for it. However, there are situations where the information is so vague, or the documents are so wrong, that we require revisions. I'm also not going to expect an inspector to do a plans examiner's work in the field.

It is worse than just bad PR for a business owner to find out the work that was done has to get redone late in the project, when the issue could have been identified at plan review.

Stamping the plans "safety glazing shall comply with code" isn't much consolation when all of the windows are installed and the inspector is requiring the replacement of 75% of them.

 

[Codegeek]

For those jurisdictions that "redline" RDP plans, do you notify the RDP that you have done so? I had an RDP call me yesterday. Submitted plans in a jurisdiction and the plans examiner redlined the plans without contacting the RDP then issued the permit. This particular redline had to do with a structural element, and then in the long run was correct per the RDP's original submittal. The RDP called me asking what, if any, liability the jurisdiction would have had in this situation had an accident occurred.

As a former plans examiner, I can appreciate some “redlines” on the plans with some notations. However, when you start getting into areas such as structural elements, then I think the responsibly to modify plans should return to the RDP.

I was also taught that when an RDP puts their seal and signature on a set of plans, those plans are now copyrighted. Any modifications to those plans without permission of the RDP could be a violation of copyright law.

 

[Mr Softy]

i use sticky notes during plan review to accent areas of concern on the drawings, as well as a homemade checklist with notes. and then review those with the RDP and get a revised set of drawings (the RDP is welcome to get a copy of my notes). the revised drawings are then reviewed. the drawings that go into our files are not redlined.

in our office, the inspector who issues the permit and does the inspections also does the plan review. it's a system that works well for me. i retain information about a project after doing a plan review that comes in handy later during field inspection.

 

[brudgers]

Writing something on the plans with a red sharpie is not necessarily redlining the plans in the sense in which the rest of the world uses the term "redline."

Sure you could correct spelling, change linetypes, coordinate callouts between drawings, sketch details, etc....all the things that redlines ususally entail.

On the other hand, what I am suggesting is communicating trifling issues directly on the plans and issuing the permit rather than generating a bunch of work for both the general public and the jurisdiction's staff which serves them.

In all honesty, if the architect submitted the plans under their seal they have no legitimate complaint if a permit is issued based on them, and the building department is not responsible for communicating to them - they are responsible for communicating to the owner or their agent.

 

[permitguy]

An RDP signing and sealing a set of plans has nothing to do with copyright law. The plans are protected either way; however, modifying them is not a violation of copyright law any more than writing notes and hi-lighting in your code book would be. As for liability, that will be different in every state depending on immunity laws (or lack thereof) and whether the plan reviewers actions can be proven negligent.

I routinely wrote notes on plans if I felt it could get the point accross without a full sheet modification (similar to texasbo). I would have never actually modified the architectural detail for a structural element as described above. That would go in the plan review comments for further clarfication and correction if necessary.

 

[Codegeek]

If an RDP signing and sealing plans has nothing to do with copyright law, can a jurisdiction legally make copies of those plans in response to a request for information? According to several states, no. Per the RDP I spoke with yesterday, their plans are protected under copyright law with their seal and signature.

 

[permitguy]

1st - They are protected by copyright law with or without a signature and/or seal. A signature and/or seal is not necessary for it to meet the definition of an architectural work in the copyright act. Being a RDP also has no bearing. Joe Public can create an "architectural work" on a bar napkin and receive the same copyright protection as an RDP.

2nd - The copyright act does not protect the drawings from being altered. If I vandalize a work of art in a museum, I am not guilty of a copyright infraction. The copyright act protects the author from having their work used by others for unauthorized commercial gain. A jurisdiction making copies may or may not make them party to a copyright act violation. There are several "fair use" exceptions that could come into play. It's always best for a jurisdiction to have an opinion from their legal counsel on the subject. This will help with consistency issues.

 

[NH09]

I have always gone under the assumption that the person submitting the plans is doing so with the expectation of having them reveiwed (red lines, sticky notes, etc.). While it is clear that someone altering copyrighted drawings for their own use would clearly be a copyright violation, I do not beleive that marking up a plan set during a plan review would constitute a copyright violation - but I am not a lawyer.

 

[Mark K]

The copyright on the documents does not prevent the building department from making copies associated with their governmental function. It would not be acceptable to make copies so somebody could copy the building.

The building department can markup the plans when making comments. The building official can place official stamps on the documents.

If the plan examiner makes changes to the content of the documents without the express agreement from the design professional and then issues the permit based on these changes the plans examiner and the building department are practicing architecture or engineering and would be taking liability for any problems that result. Whoever approved the permit could be reported to the state organization that regulates the practice of engineering or architecture. This is the sort of situation where the building departments immunity would not apply because the action was clearly outside of their governmental function.

I had a plans examiner make changes to the special inspection requirements without notifying me to be helpful. At the end of the job the inspections performed did not match those changed. We had to spend considerable time sorting this out. This was not helpful.

If you have comments make them and expect the design professional to resubmit a clean copy.

 

[righter101]

Milton's rule

I really really do try to always use Milton's rule. Generally, on residential construciton, which is 90% of our jurisdiction, I have my red pen and a whole notebook full of code text cutouts that are what we view as the most crucial (smoke alarms, handrail/stair info, co detectors, safety glazing).

I have similar problems that the OP mentioned. We have so little commerical construction, that when one does come across, if it was done by a local architect and is to be built by a local contractor, who are only familiar with SFR construction, we end up with a ton of problems.

I feel it is best to head a lot of that off at the drawing board phase, since the price of change is nominal, versus getting the sawzall out and making field corrections.

You will see from my previous post about 2nd floor accessible showers, I am working with a set of plans, prepared by an RDP that is substantially lacking in a lot of things. I hesitate to just redline them for some of these issues, because that would, for me, seem like I am designing the project.

THey are required to have a lower floor shower. I don't think I should just put it on the plans. The have added some interior stairs that require enclosure with a 1 hour protection. I don't feel I should just note that.

I have done things in the past, just made certain notes, particularly rated assemblies and accessible elements, that they need to comply with such and such a seciton, and it comes back to bite the (commerically inexperienced) contractor at construciton time.

I have geared my plan review notes to request that this information be provided on the documents, prior to approval, to prevent these costly mistakes.

 

[incognito]

As I am not a RDP I am not qualified to question their calculations but I can comment on the plan review"The RDP shall verify that all calculations are correct." I file his response of verification with the original application. If a problem arises I have two documents that the RDP provided indicating that all is/was well. Like someone else mentioned, we do not have staff dedicated to plan review alone. Typically plan reviews are done during many short intervals between actual inspections which is why we use the approach we do. Not unlike RDP including the CYA comment on the plans like "contractor shall identify and report all defects to RDP during construction process" or " contractor shall be responsible for verifying all installations meet minimum code requirements".

 

[brudgers]

If an RDP signing and sealing plans has nothing to do with copyright law, can a jurisdiction legally make copies of those plans in response to a request for information? According to several states, no. Per the RDP I spoke with yesterday, their plans are protected under copyright law with their seal and signature.

[ianal] Once the plans are submitted, they become public record and public record laws apply. Copyright would apply outside of their use as public records.