dshall

I wonder if it has something to do with your 1/16" gable sub fascia

We must have soffit to get a frieze, I do not want a soft. Have not tried shadow board, but it seems like a lot of work that I do not want to do. If I really need this for 3D, I will look into a shadow board that will probably need to be offset in both x & y direction.... and the perfect size to match the eave.. an option with a lot of work.....

Interesting, can you only select the road in the street, the driveway, ignore the sidewalks and patio slab that is relative to the house, select the dimensitions for set backs but not those for the house, not select the box that represents the house, not select the text that calls out the text for house but do select the text that lists the p.l. length, select the fence at p.l. but not select the pool and fence that surround just the pool........ I suppose most users can do this, I can't, therefore I have an anno/layer set that locks the appropriate layers so I can do a marquee select.

Great comment. I spoke with the guys at the last UGM about this. What you are talking about is the direction of the starter boards at eave is different than the direction of the starter boards at gable ends. Let's take it a step further, we put plywood on the roof and then starter boards at eaves and gables with the direction of the starter boards at eaves and gable ends going in different directions. So, for me, I need 3 materials for the roof..... I am stuck with only one, I use the starter boards at the eave to get the correct 3d look at eave, I have given up on the correct look at gable ends..... not a killer problem for me, but if we are still seeking accurate material lists, how can we get this at CA's current state? I spoke with them in August about this, I do not know when they will get around to fixing this. Thanks Mike for bringing this up, the more users who comment on this, the higher up in their priority list this will go.

Yep, and just a comment, for whatever reason, I got into the habit of creating sidewalks and driveways out of PLINES and then converting to a sidewalk and putting them ON A UNIQUE LAYER. The advantage of putting them on their own layer is if I want to move P.L. relative to house, I want the STREET to follow the P.L., but I don't want sidewalks that are located relative to house, to move...... I know, kind of complicated, but it works for me....... point is, however I create my SIDEWALKS RELATIVE TO HOUSE, I will want them on their own unique layer, not on the default road/sidewalk layer....... don't we all kind of get into some funky work methods?

That was a real good video Jon-a-Thank, maybe we could do it again. I think the problem was i am back limited to a 10 minute video. At one time I think the guys over at YouTube thought I was an important person and allowed me to have longer videos, but someone exposed me and that relegated me back to 10 minute videos. Let me know if you are interested.

JC's tub drop in tub video

not true Joe, note the OVAL CUTOUT, good info Joe.

That is great, thank Joe. I got it now. The key is to change the symbol options to INSERT IN COUNTERTOP.

Yep, that is what I have always done, try JC's method, much simpler.

Now I understand Kemo Sabe. Hey Joe, where were you 10 years ago?

Joe, the drop in tubs are a mystery to me. I hear what you are saying, however, I just tried to put in DROP IN TUBS in both countertops and cabinets bases, neither worked well. It seems to me at one time using a DROP IN TUB in a base cabinet worked, but the problem with this is the base is never a nice simple rectangle. I use a psolid with hole to create the tub surround. Works good, but would be better if I could use a countertop and drop in the tub whereby the HOLE will be created auto. So the question is, what tubs are you using to drop into a custom countertop that will then create the auto hole for tub? Can you post a quick plan showing a tub dropped into a custom countertop?

lol, I am mellowing with my age, I am becoming like a fine wine and aged cheese........ smelly and shriveled

Nice job Joe.

Yep, been doing this for years now. Working on a two story right now, 24x36 paper, I will have a minimum of 24 sheets. 11x17? Are you kidding me, I can't fit the boiler plate electrical notes on that size paper....... and now I have to use 1-hour eaves for my projects, I am sure that will add another 17 sheets of plans.....

Yep, that is what I use, I should of invested in the company. BTW, just spoke with another buddy, he was a plan checker for the city of chula vista and he is an architect, he was not aware of this either, just some more confirmation that a bunch of us nit wits out here have been getting away without providing the one hour eaves.

Hard to believe but possible....... I have talked to multiple designers in the area and they are as flabbergasted as I. I will say that some of them like myself have been seeing this requirement of late, but still, they are as ignorant as I. Thanks Joey for your input.......

Okay, so Perry, you are telling me that this requirement came into effect when we adopted the 2013 IBC.... this requirement was not in the UBC? If that is the case, now I understand.

Perry, do think this is unique to the IBC and not the UBC? For years and years we were using the UBC, do you think the UBC does not have this requirement. I am trying to figure out why there are so many houses out here (built in the 80's and later) with eaves closer than 5' to property line with no protection.

Okay, so Greg has complicated things....... Greg, are you saying I can have an eave WITHOUT THE ONE HOUR CONSTRUCTION within 5' of property line (no closer that 2'-6") IF I block the soffit vents and gable end vents. I do not use soffit vents anymore, I do not use gable vents anymore, I only use roof top attic vents. Are you telling me I do not need the fire protection?

Thanks guys for all of the responses. I learn something new everyday. It seems like the concensus is the one hour protection is required. I am now going to assume those thousands of tract homes that were built with non protected eaves within 5'of property were built per the UBC and not the IRC. Now the question is, if I add to an existing house that does not have the protected eaves, do my new eaves need to have the protection, I assume so..... which means the IRC will be more restrictive than the new WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE standards. The WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE requirements allow me to match existing eaves under certain guidelines, i.e. not adding more that 25% of existing roof area.

Okay, I see your attachment and you got me there.... but I still don't believe it...... wow...... i don't know what to say, I am waiting to hear from the owner of an independent plan checking service, if he says I am wrong, then all I can say is I have done thousands of room additions that did not comply with the code...... please reread the attached pic and see if you would agree that a projection (roof eave) can encroach 2 foot into the required 5' separation from building wall to property line.

Isn't this funny, we really do not have a definitive answer.... I don't think we have a definitive answer.... and Andy, what you are saying does not specifially talk about the property line ...... anyway, all I know is that for the last 133 years I have never had to do it out here in the land of fruits and nuts..... but I will get to the bottom of this until I have the answer that I want to hear.... attached is some more code stuff, again it does not talk specifically about distance to property line......

Yes, thanks Ben, again if we look closely at what you posted I will assume the minimum distance is between buildings and not from building to property line.

This is my take on it..... the distance they are talking about is BETWEEN BUILDINGS.... not from BUILDING TO PROPERTY LINE...... at least that is where I think the confusion lies. Imagine an apartment project with multiple buildings on the same lot.... anyway, I will let you guys know if I am correct or if I have been wrong for the past 35 plus years.