i have noticed over the years that firms spend alot of time creating a code sheet with product approvals, plumbing counts, etc. There is nothing i can find in the building code requiring this (sec107). And my AHJ does not require it. If everything is called out in the specs is this sheet necessary?
Non Sequitur
Oct 18, 21 11:44 am
We have such section in all of our permit drawing sets. It's not required to be on drawings but it sure as shit saves alot of time during the review process. We have a short building code table that is mandatory but it can be submitted as a separate 8x11 sheet. We have it built into our sheet standards.
btw... "code" is sorta usless here. There is no one code to rule all AHJ.
SneakyPete
Oct 18, 21 12:23 pm
" It's not required to be on drawings but it sure as shit saves a lot of time during the review process. "
Absolutely true. They could find the info in your set, but they won't. especially when most firms make cheat sheets.
mightyaa
Oct 18, 21 3:12 pm
Yep... pretty common now to have "G" (general) sheets; all the relevant code sections and tables for counts, UL assemblies, life-safety exiting plans, etc. Saves a lot of time in permit review because your plan checker is too busy to verify. You already did it yourself, might as well provide it instead of making them look something up and count.
SneakyPete
Oct 18, 21 6:28 pm
Just don't go down the rabbit hole all the way and redraw the entire catalogue of code diagrams in a generic fashion, they still expect the info to be pertinent to specifically your project and just having a bunch of CYA crap won't pass muster.
Non Sequitur
Oct 18, 21 8:32 pm
Those generic cya sketches are the worst. Nothing says we could not be bothered to do the minimum effort to check our own shit than making references to generic front end sketches. At least make those project specific.
joseffischer
Oct 19, 21 11:55 am
higher ups at the firm I'm at disagree... I'm sure profitability is involved in the equation
Non Sequitur
Oct 19, 21 12:13 pm
^Joe, same at mine as well... And I'm often in disagreement with them because they don't actually look at the diagrams. They just assume that whoever drew it drew it accurately and that it's universally applicable... well... I can tell you a different story by spending 10 seconds reading the sheet. So I don't include them in my projects or if I do, they are directly relatable to the project. ie. the WC floor plan clearances show the real floor plan and not a generic rectangle or the smokeseal details represent real conditions. But then someone else will see the drawing set and copy THOSE details into their CYA sheet and continue the whole headache circle.
natematt
Oct 19, 21 12:32 pm
This really depends on the AHJ.
I generally oppose having them, but have had some particular AHJs literally ask for them to be added... these of course are the same AHJs that require similarly intense information from other locations that would generally sound silly such as UL documentation for each UL, or entitlement documents, etc.
Non Sequitur
Oct 19, 21 12:39 pm
Nate, care to expand on that UL comment? We get the request for ULC sheets all the time from AHJ but they never get added to drawings. We just send them in as requested without formatting. Side note, I've recently stopped listing ULC things on drawings unless it's absolutely necessary. Too many product substitutions during CA plus UL things constantly get revised. I had one project a while back that a certain type of glass was kosher during permit, not kosher during shopdrawing, but back to kosher midway through construction. Plenty in my office don't know how to use UL listings too so it saves a bit of back peddling if we skip on listing them altogether.
SneakyPete
Oct 19, 21 3:53 pm
I drew my code sheets in 2001, so I'm covered, right?
Non Sequitur
Oct 19, 21 4:21 pm
^I don't see why not Pete. Is that not why AutoCAD is backwards compatible?
SneakyPete
Oct 19, 21 4:36 pm
I believe the term is "opposite direction able"
tduds
Oct 19, 21 4:36 pm
I have had some AHJs request every generic detail, clearance, code section, you name it, be added to a G-Series. I've also had different AHJs request that anything not specific to the design be removed (up to - and I'm not joking - "We review ANSI, please remove references to FHA + ADA"). The former more frequently than the latter, but a one-size-fits-all approach to code compliance, in my experience, just means more checksheets. Any efficiency gained up front is eaten up by extra revisions.
SneakyPete
Oct 19, 21 5:13 pm
Email the AHJ ASAP and get their silly needs in writing.
i have noticed over the years that firms spend alot of time creating a code sheet with product approvals, plumbing counts, etc. There is nothing i can find in the building code requiring this (sec107). And my AHJ does not require it. If everything is called out in the specs is this sheet necessary?
We have such section in all of our permit drawing sets. It's not required to be on drawings but it sure as shit saves alot of time during the review process. We have a short building code table that is mandatory but it can be submitted as a separate 8x11 sheet. We have it built into our sheet standards.
btw... "code" is sorta usless here. There is no one code to rule all AHJ.
" It's not required to be on drawings but it sure as shit saves a lot of time during the review process. "
Absolutely true. They could find the info in your set, but they won't. especially when most firms make cheat sheets.
Yep... pretty common now to have "G" (general) sheets; all the relevant code sections and tables for counts, UL assemblies, life-safety exiting plans, etc. Saves a lot of time in permit review because your plan checker is too busy to verify. You already did it yourself, might as well provide it instead of making them look something up and count.
Just don't go down the rabbit hole all the way and redraw the entire catalogue of code diagrams in a generic fashion, they still expect the info to be pertinent to specifically your project and just having a bunch of CYA crap won't pass muster.
Those generic cya sketches are the worst. Nothing says we could not be bothered to do the minimum effort to check our own shit than making references to generic front end sketches. At least make those project specific.
higher ups at the firm I'm at disagree... I'm sure profitability is involved in the equation
^Joe, same at mine as well... And I'm often in disagreement with them because they don't actually look at the diagrams. They just assume that whoever drew it drew it accurately and that it's universally applicable... well... I can tell you a different story by spending 10 seconds reading the sheet. So I don't include them in my projects or if I do, they are directly relatable to the project. ie. the WC floor plan clearances show the real floor plan and not a generic rectangle or the smokeseal details represent real conditions. But then someone else will see the drawing set and copy THOSE details into their CYA sheet and continue the whole headache circle.
This really depends on the AHJ.
I generally oppose having them, but have had some particular AHJs literally ask for them to be added... these of course are the same AHJs that require similarly intense information from other locations that would generally sound silly such as UL documentation for each UL, or entitlement documents, etc.
Nate, care to expand on that UL comment? We get the request for ULC sheets all the time from AHJ but they never get added to drawings. We just send them in as requested without formatting. Side note, I've recently stopped listing ULC things on drawings unless it's absolutely necessary. Too many product substitutions during CA plus UL things constantly get revised. I had one project a while back that a certain type of glass was kosher during permit, not kosher during shopdrawing, but back to kosher midway through construction. Plenty in my office don't know how to use UL listings too so it saves a bit of back peddling if we skip on listing them altogether.
I drew my code sheets in 2001, so I'm covered, right?
^I don't see why not Pete. Is that not why AutoCAD is backwards compatible?
I believe the term is "opposite direction able"
I have had some AHJs request every generic detail, clearance, code section, you name it, be added to a G-Series. I've also had different AHJs request that anything not specific to the design be removed (up to - and I'm not joking - "We review ANSI, please remove references to FHA + ADA"). The former more frequently than the latter, but a one-size-fits-all approach to code compliance, in my experience, just means more checksheets. Any efficiency gained up front is eaten up by extra revisions.
Email the AHJ ASAP and get their silly needs in writing.