Those Ridiculous Notes Required By Au...

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 283 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 01:18 pm:    I know you've seen them, we all have at some time: those supposedly innocuous "general notes" that AHJs require on the drawings. They either contradict standard general conditions, or, at best, duplicate information already in the conditions or specifications. I'm working on an article about what many architects, and especially specifiers, perceive as a lack of knowledge about construction documents--specifically, the complementary relationship. If you have any stories or "general notes" that you're willing to share, you can post them here, or send them via email to ron.geren@gouldevans.com. The funnier, the more bizarre, the more outlandish, the better. Please don't divulge the specific jurisdiction; just indicate if it was a building department, engineering department, public works department, etc. Thanks! Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 153 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 01:33 pm:    Here’s one Ron from our local Building Code Enforcement, Plan Examining Official: Our (the Architect’s) response to a Code Review comment requesting Temperature Rise Rating be shown on the Door Schedule was “That requirement is stated in specification section 08110”. The Code Official’s reply was “Note on the response sheet that this item is in the specifications is unacceptable. Specifications are not accepted and are not a part of the plans.” Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 106 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 01:55 pm:    Ron If you haven't already done so, you may want to look at NCS/UDS Module 8 on Code Coventions. The following is from the Introduction: The Code Conventions Module establishes guidelines for consistency in identifying necessary regulatory information to be shown in the construction documents. This is needed to facilitate both the design process and the permit application process. The Code Conventions Module will: • identify the information necessary for code research during design. • identify the type of general regulatory information that should appear in the onstruction documents. • identify the location of the general regulatory information in the drawing set and on specific individual sheets. • provide standard graphic conventions for incorporation in the drawing portion of the construction documents. • facilitate and expedite the building permit (plan review) application process. The Code Conventions Module will provide the framework necessary to understand the complexities of the project cycle relative to regulatory requirements. The identification of regulatory issues is integrally tied to all phases of the project cycle, including Planning, Design, Bidding, Construction, and Post Construction (Occupancy and Use of the completed project). The planning and design phases are especially important as this is when critical regulatory information must be identified and located in the construction documents. Inclusion of this information facilitates the permit application process, as well as identification of the necessary information to be submitted for a plan review. It is important to note that code issues are only a part of the regulatory issues for which the design professional must maintain compliance. Accordingly, this module includes aspects of regulatory compliance such as zoning, environmental (e.g., EPA), and federal (e.g., ADA), in addition to code compliance. The relevant information is presented as follows: • Identification of regulatory information in the construction documents. – Type of information to be included in the construction documents – Location and format of information in the construction documents • The plan review process. • Overview of regulatory information. • The design process. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 284 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 02:12 pm:    Bob: I have looked at it, and I plan on making that a significant part of my article's content. Being intimately involved in the development of the NCS/UDS, can you give me any insight as to whether or not feedback was obtained from building officials on Module 8? I looked through the lists of project committee members, but found no one who appeared to work for a building or planning department within a jurisdiction. Thanks. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 107 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 02:16 pm:    Ron Contrary to popular rumor, I has not intimately involved in the formulation of the NCS but am currently working on an NCS eduction program. I don't know who what involved in putting that module together. The best person to contact concerning the NCS/UDS is Rick Green - has been a major driving force for some time and knows more than anyone. Send me an email and I will give you all of Rick's contact info. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 420 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 02:27 pm:    Not notes per se, but things that I encountered-- -- requiring a 7-11 stair to an equipment platform -- requested unconditional bldg. permit when roof truss designs were to be sent later as shop drawings -- walking into an code official's office and he says, "The answer is NO! Now do you want to discuss it?" -- no wood permitted in any location in regard to a Class A roof. -- had $8,000 suppression system torn out from over cooking equipment becuase it was installed as instrcuted by the official, and was not in accord with code! -- saw carpeting applied to walls as decoration and had fire resistance data, ordered out by fire official [who had no authority at that point] Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 421 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 02:33 pm:    Oops, sorry all! Forgot this note. Seems to me this is another very good example of a possible new outreach program for CSI-- the code agency personnel. There are more and more desing professionals becoming code officials, but there is still a large cadre of other folks on their staffs that could benefit from information/education/training, vis-a-vis, specifications overall and in specific applications-- not something to be done project by project! Just my view [as a former chief code official]. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 285 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 02:41 pm:    Doug: That's a good one. What code was in effect when that comment was made? Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 154 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 02:58 pm:    Gosh Ron, I've had that notice tacked on my wall since July 1999 so I'm guessing mid-90s UBC with City Of Houston (whoops, I mean city of @#*#%)Amendments. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 167 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 04:50 pm:    The general concensus I get from feedback on plan reviews is that I doesn't seem to matter to these code officials what the code says, but rather what they want and if you try to argue with them, forget about getting your permit. We have a state agency that we have to work with and its unbelievable what some of their reviewers don't know about building construction, and some of these people are structural reviewers! They follow a prescribed check list, and don't even bother to read the spec sometimes, and the correct information is right there. The people who review for accessibility do not understand anything about door hardware, and make general comments that sometimes have nothing to do with the specific project. I once had a fire marshal mark on the first page of the TOC to provide the fire alarm section. I know he never looked past that page because the section was listed in the TOC and was in fact included in his copy of the spec! He never looked beyond that page because there were no other comments on the entire specification!! I also had a local building official deny our request to use electro-magnetic locks on some exterior doors because they didn't like the idea of using a bypass button for non-emergency egress (pushing the button, then pushing on the door). They said it amounted to 2 operations. They never understood the concept that the lock automatically released in an emergency situation, thereby allowing normal emergency egress by just pushing on the exit device, one operation, as the code states. They even went as far as banning the use of electro-magnetic locks on any project under their jurisdiction. I could go on, but I'll spare you all. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 87 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 02:57 pm:    To support what Ralph has said. A major part of the problem is that many of the individuals in code enforcement have little or no training related to specifications. This lack of awareness of specifications is a major problem amoung engineers who make up a loarge portion of the plans checkers. CSI has too long focused on architects and specification writers to the exclusion of engineers. Julie Root Senior Member Username: julie_root Post Number: 60 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:52 am:    We have particular trouble with a state AHJ. They want everything on the drawings. The problem with this state authority is that every change on a project has to go through them so like some projects you do the permit set and then take out the redundancy for bidding we cannot do this. The permit drawings are the construction drawings period. An example I have fought and won sometimes is the tendency for this AHJ to ask us to put panic hardware notation in the door schedule, on the plan at the door, and in the spec. The reasoning from the AHJ are these: 1) It is a fire life safety issue and I will be d#@%ed of on my watch someone is dead because the contractor did not know to equip the door with panic hardware. 2) I am protecting you 'ms. architect' because the contractor does not read the specs. 3) I am protecting the citizens of the state because the state inspector will see it in one of these three places and will make sure it is installed. I have successfully argued the one place, one time to those AHJ plan reviewers who do have some understanding of the CSI motto. Often times they have worked in outside of the agency in private practice before going to the AHJ. On the other hand I do see the point of a lot of fire marshals who started their careers fighting fires. I have asked about their experience and understand better what they are doing in the 'heat' of the moment when lives are at stake. My hope is that BIM will help this issue. We are modifying our tags to be parametric in our Autocad so that if the panic hardware changes in the schedule it changes the tags and eventually changes the spec or visa versa. We are not there yet, but I do see that this as a possibility especially when we move to a true parametric software. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 188 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 10:04 pm:    Who is CSI's liason to the International Code Council (ICC)? The topic of the conflict between national standards of practice for construction documents and national standards of practice for building officials should be addressed at that level first. Does this fall under the responsibility of the Institute Technical Committee? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 422 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 07:14 am:    Excellent question, Mr. Kabza! This is exactly what needs to be done, and in fact, CSI should make a strong case to provide information and a presentation at the ICC Annual meeting, and in turn encourage the chapters to approach local groups of code officials. INFORMATION AND EDUCATION!!!!! And why not project this very type of thing for the several other groups that CSI interfaces with, and who appears to be "ripe" for some CSI orientation. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 147 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 12:32 pm:    In my region, one AHJ wants the specifications sections that pertain to the exterior building enclosure on the drawings (waterproofing products, opening products, siding products, etc). They also require the design architect's statement on the drawings. This is normally a letter (under seal) that states the "undersigned has provided building enclosure design documents that in my professional judgement are appropriate to satisfy the requirements of Sections 1 thorugh 10 of act EHB 1848." The AHJ will only accept their own special 8.5" x 11" forms separate from the drawings. This AHJ has two permit fees. One for intake and one for review. Assessment and rehab projects that are covered by EHB 1848 are not reviewed by the AHJ, therefore the building permit app fees are cut in half. Structural engineers in my region load up their general notes drawing sheets with notes for code issues and specifications. Carefull reading and close coordination is required to not repeat the structural general notes on the spec sections. Divisions 03, 04, 05, and 06 products are the usual suspects. I have also had the AHJ on my side to battle unreasonable requirements from the fire marshall's office. Wayne Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 189 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 08:09 am:    Following up on this discussion, the ICC is currently accepting applications to the Board for International Professional Standards: http://www.iccsafe.org/certification/bips/