Window foam trim crashes with roof eave foam trim.
Window foam trim crashes with roof eave foam trim.
The floor plan for this bedroom door has an unusual dimension-line from the face-of-stud at the left-hand side to face-of-stud on the inside of the bathroom wall at the bathtub…of 3’-8-1/2” or 44-1/2”.
In this particular example, the bedroom door was 2’-8” wide and the door casing was 3-1/2” wide. This requires a minimum width from drywall-to-drywall of 39-3/4 inches as shown in Fig. 4.5.
If the bathtub wall is 2×4 framing (3-1/2”)…then doing the math using ¾” thick drywall because of taping mud at the vertical inside wall corners…we have only 39-1/2 inches width when we need 39-3/4 inches…44-1/2” minus 3-1/2” minus 1-1/2” equals 39-1/2”. This would then require ripping 1/4-inch off one of the vertical door casing sides.
In this case, the width from drywall-to-drywall measured 37-1/2”. Either the bathtub wall was framed 2×6 or the framing layout ended up on the wrong side of the chalked layout line. The two drawings below illustrate both sides of the door casing cut to narrower widths in order to fit.
Column at front entry projects into adjacent roof eave.
Two pieces of pre-cast crash at window sill and balcony deck cap.
Pre-cast trim crashes with arched soffit above window.
Figure 3.2 shows the elevation view of the front exterior of a particular house, including the color scheme accent colors.
In this particular case, the elevation drawings from the building plans were reduced down to 11×17 inches, and each wall area was color coded and labeled a particular paint color.
These color-scheme elevation drawings can be done by the architect, builder, city or county art committee, or as in this case, a professional color design consultant.
An elevation view of each exterior side of the structure typically shows only the flat surfaces facing the viewer. The wall surfaces perpendicular to the viewer, such as the pop-outs around the windows and the garage door in this example, can only be illustrated as vertical or horizontal lines in the two-dimensional view.
Because a line on a drawing is not thick enough to be cross-hatched or color-coded to indicate a particular accent paint color, these areas are sometimes misses on color scheme drawings for new housing projects. Without identifying the specific paint color for every wall surface, the painter must then guess whether a particular accent paint color stops at and outside corner or continues around to the un-shown inside corner (being the same line in elevation view).
The painter rather than the architect or the color consultant must then make numerous small “judgment calls” regarding exterior painting…and each decision also then becomes a matter of time expediency that cannot wait for a field visit from designers for a definitive answer.
Wall surfaces that are perpendicular to the elevation view can have their accent colors called out using arrow-lines, or can be illustrated using three-dimensional sketches of the areas in question as shown in Fig. 3.1.
Builders should plan, schedule, and monitor the design phase of a project with the same doggedness and attention to detail they display when it comes time for the actual construction.
It always annoyed me as a jobsite superintendent that development company owners and managers casually waste weeks or months during the design phase…procrastinating over simple design decisions…then treat every hour on the schedule as if it were a matter of life and death once the construction started.
Equally disappointing is the sometimes total lack of preplanning involving modifications and color scheme decisions on the sales models.
I once worked on a project where the company owners would ask the painting contractor to paint two or three potential colors on the exterior stucco walls at various wainscot, banding, and pot-shelf areas. Several people from the main office would then come out to the project and review the color samples on the exterior walls. The following week the painter would paint two or three more sample colors on the walls, and the group from the main office would come out again and review the colors.
This activity went on for three or four weeks, with only two or three colors going up each time. The main office group finally made a decision after five weeks. The frustration from my perspective was that all the paint samples could have been painted on the walls at the first field visit…and a decision reached shortly thereafter.
With a little preplanning and foresight…the entire process could have been completed in a few days rather than five weeks.
On this same project, however, because of this and other indecisiveness on the part of the company’s owners and managers…the sales models construction schedule became so compressed that it degenerated into the typical frantic scramble to make the grand opening date. My credibility and reputation as a jobsite superintendent were on the line within those last few weeks and days leading up to the sales models opening…but no one from the main office remembered the valuable weeks or months lost earlier during the design phase…because of poor time management.
When people say that time is money during construction…they should also remember to say that time is money during the design phase and the sales models construction phase.
Builders need to look at themselves, the architect, and the various design engineers in terms of manpower, milestones, and completion dates with the same scrutiny and self-discipline they look at field supervision and subcontractor performance during the construction.
I once worked in the construction management department of a bank…that foreclosed on a builder who could not financially complete a project during an economic recession.
My assignment was to the complete the construction of 25 houses…which were 80 to 90 percent complete.
During a courtesy pre-final building inspection…the county building inspector called-out a code violation in 17 of the houses. The violation was a 36-inch long gas cooktop placed on kitchen countertops directly below upper cabinets that contained 30-inch long microwave ovens. This resulted in 3 inches of wood cabinets on each side of the microwave ovens…were directly above the cooktop burners. The vertical clearance between the upper cabinets and the lower cabinet countertop was 15 inches…rather than the minimum 18 inches that was required for wood cabinets above gas cooktop burners.
When reviewing the plans, I saw that the architect had correctly drawn a 30-inch long cooktop beneath the 30-inch microwave oven (the microwave oven is considered non-combustible)…but the builder had decided to upgrade the cooktops to 36 inches during the sales models construction. The county building inspector apologized for having missed this builder’s change on the sales models…but still required us to change the cooktops to 30-inch…which resulted in expensive ceramic tile repairs to the kitchen countertops affected.
The point in this example is that the builder changed the size of a kitchen appliance…contrary to the design plans and without the knowledge of the architect…and was unaware of the building code considerations.
Because the cabinet manufacturer worked entirely from the design plans…the only people aware of the cooktop upgrade were the cabinet installers cutting the larger openings in the cabinet plywood rough-top, and the ceramic tile installers. Neither of these two groups of tradespersons could be expected to know the broader subtleties of the building codes or the manufacturer’s recommendations involving appliance clearances from wood cabinets.
If the builder had informed the architect of all changes…so they could be reviewed in terms of compliance with the building codes…this costly mistake would have been noticed by the architect…the design plans revised…and altogether prevented.
My father was a building official for a city in Southern Florida. He had done hundreds of plan checks. I once asked him the percentage of plans that get approved the first time without corrections, and he said that about one out of every seven or eight first-time plan checks are successfully approved.
He said that many of the same corrections occur over and over again…and if the builders would simply spend an hour reviewing their plans before submittal…the could save the cost of a two to four-week added delay between the time the plans are submitted and the time they are actually approved.
For example, every city in southern Florida requires a products approval package to be submitted with the building plans for plans review because of wind-loading requirements.
Single and double-hung windows, sliding glass doors, and garage doors must be approved by a national testing lab for a particular sized opening. A special brand and model of an 8-foot wide sliding glass door, for example, can be approved up to a 10-foot width…but that does not mean that a brand and model of a 10-foot wide sliding glass door unit is approved simply because it is approved up to 8 feet wide.
The problem that often occurs is the builder submits the products approval package along with the building plans without checking whether the products approval package actually matches the opening sizes in the building structure as shown on the plans. The loose and disorganized stack of papers then shows an approved 8-foot wide sliding glass door units…but for a house that has a 10-foot wide slider at one of its bedrooms.
In this case, the plans checker must then return the plans to the builder for correction. The sliding glass door opening is then reduced on the plans to 8 feet…or the architect specifies another sliding glass door that is approved up to 10 feet wide.
If the builder would spend a little time going through the products approval package before plans submittal…many corrections like this example could be eliminated.
In southern Florida…every set of building plans must show the minimum finish floor elevation to qualify for flood insurance under FEMA standards.
This finish floor elevation is taken off the lot survey and usually requires the finish floor to be at least 18 inches above the crown of the street, although this dimension changes for different communities.
Building plans often come into a city or county without showing the finish floor elevation and the plan checker must then return the set of plans to the builder for correction.
Again in southern Florida, many other omissions on building plans occur over and over…such as not showing the garage slab seven inches below the house slab elevation…not identifying an egress window as a secondary means of escape…not calling out 60 square inches of garage vent per car, etc.
The builder must then pay construction loan interest for every day the plans are not approved…while the architect is correcting mistakes and omissions found during city plan check.
Many cities and counties have a generic check list of building code violations that commonly occur during plan checking. One of the questions a builder should ask when choosing an architect is whether the architect has a plan review check list for the city or county in which the project is located…and for other adjacent cities as well.
The builder should also begin compiling their own plan review checklist…expanded from the city or county version…so the plans can be reviewed in-house for code violations before submittal.
The builder should work hard during the design phase to secure a complete and accurate set of plans.
This process involves sketching posts and beams in three dimensions to see if everything aligns and fits…looking for dimensioning errors by adding up dimensions across a page…checking that mechanical items such as fireplaces, furnaces, water heaters, and vent ducts all fit…checking stair headroom clearances…and analyzing the plans using the building company’s historical debugging checklist.
Plans that have not been analyzed beforehand from a construction point-of-view usually result in questions and design conflicts when the construction starts…which generates plans revisions. Plans revisions and clarifications in the form of addenda, bulletins, answered RFIs, and cut-sheets become more and more disruptive to the construction as they increase in number.
A set of plans that requires numerous revisions can create an information accounting nightmare on the jobsite. Each time an inaccurate but most current set of plans is given to a tradesperson (most applicable in the sales models construction and the first production units for multi-unit tract housing and condominiums)…the superintendent must consider which additional cut-sheet information must also be included to avoid an activity being done incorrectly.
Copies of each revision (amended detail or RFI answer) must be made, and a filing system devised for organizing the revisions so they may be quickly found when needed. If excessive, plans revisions become an additional set of plans the jobsite superintendent must manage during the early construction…until the final revised set of plans is generated from the red-lined plans.
The closer the original set of plans is to the red-lined set of plans…thanks to employing the proactive approaches recommended in this book…leading to the final revised set of plans…the less paperwork hassle for the superintendent…and the less opportunity is baked into the system for mistakes, change orders, extras, and lost time.
Minimizing revisions on a set of working plans therefore can also limit the additional time required of the superintendent to monitor any extra work generated from loose plans. With almost every architectural or engineering change to the plans…an extra goes to a subcontractor. On a project with numerous plans revisions, the builder can quickly become buried in time-and-material extras.
If a building company creates check lists that describe standard problems to avoid…as well as specific historical problems from past and current projects…then some of the potential revision work can be identified and resolved before the construction starts…freeing the superintendent to spend more time on quality-control and production than plans revisions and monitoring extras during the construction.