As-built time from measure to permits

[waltsyd]

I've done a dozen or so plans all the way to permit and construction drawings. I use these plan in-house so I haven't really worried too much about how long it takes to make them; I enjoy it and am a bit perfectionist so I'm not worried about that.

 

But this time, my mother-in-law needed some help. She lives in a different state. Thirty years of multiple additions and alterations without the proper permits has landed her in hot water with the city (a silicon valley city that used to be a bit sleepy...). So, I offered to do her as-built and submission layouts to help with the impending fines and legal actions. She insisted I charge her for my work. I guess I'm slow, but the plans (and permit submissions) have taken about 200 hours! The home is two story with a cellar. It has six bedrooms, five bathrooms, a large deck off the upper floor, and a garage and other outbuildings. Measuring took extra time because she is a bit of a hoarder (which led to some violations in fact), and there were tenants in a few of the upstairs bedrooms. And she seemed to want things to be a bit more accurate than I would maybe have done in this case. I managed to use the layouts for three different permit correction submissions so that saved a bit of effort--several plan sets could be generated with the one plan and layout file.

 

There were custom railings, a bit of detail around the front, various odd roofs, and the site plans were complicated by the fact that the city wanted every tree mapped, measured, and identified. I had a couple of meetings with city staff over plan drafts. I had to do some research about specific city requirements.

 

I plan to reduce my hour count by 30% to account for some learning curves here and there. But, in your opinion, is 200 hours too much time? Am I just slow?

[ShaneK]

I have 30 hrs into this project, design and layout. Permits pulled and foundation starts in 3 weeks. I do not do 3d plot plans, only 2d site plan for City.

[WesternDesign]

1 minute ago, ShaneK said:

I have 30 hrs into this project, design and layout. Permits pulled and foundation starts in 3 weeks. I do not do 3d plot plans, only 2d site plan for City.

Would you feel comfortable sharing the submital drawings?  I am getting hundreds of hours wrapped up in our CDs.  Thanks.

[ShaneK]

43,000 sq ft Yamaha Dealership, design/build and timer is at 180 hrs for print work and site plan.

[ShaneK]

@Elvin, PM me and I can fix you up.

[WesternDesign]

Will do.  Thanks.

[stephanswim]

Simple answers to your questions based on your narrative and the drawings you produced:

1) No, 200 hours is not too much

2) No, you are not slow, just precise and conscientious

 

Imagine what your mother-in-law's lawyer might charge to represent her!!

[CARMELHILL]

I wouldn't mind hearing if the city approves that exterior staircase. The last two risers look like a tripping hazard unless they are separated by a 3ft deep landing transition and then considered a separate set of stairs.

 

And you are precise. I don't think I have ever shown roof vent stacks like yours. But I've heard that Cali is crazy on the submission requirements. Locally on Long Island we've gone from 5 to 8  sheets back in 2005, to now 12 to 15. And just for a basic colonial with not much detail. 

 

In the past year I'v also started doing 3d plot plans. Any changes I make to the project are done once, and represented everywhere.

[Ridge_Runner]

As-builts are a totally different animal from new construction; you can't control anything with the build - it is what it is. Every one of them varies so it is hard to answer your question directly. My guess, based on what you have shown (with the history) is no, that is not necessarily too much time. I am also "a bit perfectionist" so I can certainly relate.

[Alaskan_Son]

The devil is definitely in the details so it’s always hard to compare one project to the next but 10 hours on a new home might be excessive for some super simple plan sets while 200 hours might be blazingly fast for some ultra complex remodel plans.  

 

Based on the screenshots youve you’ve shown in conjunction with your description, I’m in agreement with some of the guys above...that really doesn’t sound unreasonable to me.  Is it the fastest it could be done?  Probably not, but I seriously doubt you’re taking any longer than average for comparable scope and quality (which seems to be quite high by the way—good job : ).  

[AvoyeDesign]

I would have brought a surveyor in for the site plan, they can do it much faster and cheaper, but otherwise I can see that many hours for a project lime that.

[Ridge_Runner]

On a lighter note - is that really an outhouse out by the small storage buildings? Where I'm from that would be common, but in California in Silicon Valley? Nice work, BTW, especially if you are using X5 as your signature says.

[waltsyd]

Hah! Yes, Ridge_Runner, it's an outhouse! It's tied into the main sewer there. She used to have tumble-down sheds that a couple of guys lived in for awhile and so that toilet went in. Of course, it's one of the unpermitted things and raised a few eyebrows when the inspectors first saw it.

[Ridge_Runner]

3 minutes ago, waltsyd said:

It's tied into the main sewer there

Ours aren't installed that way! 

[waltsyd]

CARMELHILL, not sure what you mean. The risers are all the same. The landing is 55" by 44". We'll find out, though, as the plans go in this week for approval. Strange, getting permit approval for structures (the ENTIRE top floor) that have been around since 1987! Since my mother-in-law went into the hospital for a week over the stress all this has caused, they assure her that they will be lenient.

[Alaskan_Son]

10 minutes ago, waltsyd said:

CARMELHILL, not sure what you mean. The risers are all the same. The landing is 55" by 44". We'll find out, though, as the plans go in this week for approval. Strange, getting permit approval for structures (the ENTIRE top floor) that have been around since 1987! Since my mother-in-law went into the hospital for a week over the stress all this has caused, they assure her that they will be lenient.

 

He was referring to the concrete steps at the bottom.  They appear too shallow to be landings, therefore they're technically still considered part of the same run of stairs.  That means you have a massive variance from one tread depth to the next right there. 

[WesternDesign]

1 hour ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

He was referring to the concrete steps at the bottom.  They appear too shallow to be landings, therefore they're technically still considered part of the same run of stairs.  That means you have a massive variance from one tread depth to the next right there. 

AND because this is still the same flight of stairs, the guard and handrails need to continue to the bottom.  The biggest issue is indeed the inconsistency in the rise and run within a single flight of stairs.

[waltsyd]

Ah, yes. Good catch. The railing does go down to the lowest step in reality; just didn't draw it in there properly. The bottom two risers are the same height as the rest of the stairs, but they vary from the other treads too much. Also, the railing as built is not to code (I didn't draw that exactly as is, though, because I ran out of time and that's a tiime-consuming railing). So she'll see what the inspector says.

 

There are many things that are not to code, but that's how I had to draw them; the inspector will point out the deficiencies.

 

There are some other code violations! Like under-powered subpanel, wiring to old codes, venting issues, an egress window that was enclosed in another room, etc. The permits for the second floor were approved, and some of the items passed, but the plumbing and electrical were "not to code" and the permit was never closed out. But everything was covered! So the inspector might want some wall sections removed, maybe (I hope not) some flooring removed to see the plumbing and electrical. During the meetings, though, they said that since the bathrooms were used for the last 30 years with no obvious problems, they'll likely just let that slide. I'm pretty sure they'll have electrical redone as the codes have changed a lot since then.

[Kbird1]

2 hours ago, WesternDesign said:

AND because this is still the same flight of stairs, the guard and handrails need to continue to the bottom.  The biggest issue is indeed the inconsistency in the rise and run within a single flight of stairs.

 

From the photo it shows there is no continuous grip rail top to bottom ( an issue here now at least ) but one could easily be added one side or the other.....

[Renerabbitt]

53 minutes ago, waltsyd said:

Ah, yes. Good catch. The railing does go down to the lowest step in reality; just didn't draw it in there properly. The bottom two risers are the same height as the rest of the stairs, but they vary from the other treads too much. Also, the railing as built is not to code (I didn't draw that exactly as is, though, because I ran out of time and that's a tiime-consuming railing). So she'll see what the inspector says.

 

Did someone mention this was cali? no idea how they got away with so little shear(so many windows and doors per wall area)

I'd guess that the deck framing members may be undersized for the cantilever or their are some connections we cant see.

 

Anywho...super basic remodel plan-sets can easily take 20 hours like the ones attached:218-12-18-R0-LAUREL.pdf

 

whereas DD and CD on split-level additions with performance calcs, cal-green, area analysis, vent calcs, window specs etc. can easily take 50-60 at times. Like this one: 218-12-11-R-1 BARNETT-N.pdf

 

The guys that do volumes of plans day-in day-out have invested 100's of hours into perfecting their annotation and layer sets.; Which can save 10's of hours

[waltsyd]

Kbird1 great idea to add in a continuous rail on the inside of the existing. Rennerrabbit Yes, this is cali. But all those french doors are on an enclosed porch. Original house walls have fewer windows.  Drawings were submitted in 2001 and permit issued. Framing and plumbing were not to code but job completed anyway and permit never closed. One set of porch french doors had to be removed per fire inspector a month ago and left open for egress. Front porch was enclosed also with a window wall. No egress issues there. What a mess. 

 

[Renerabbitt]

8 minutes ago, waltsyd said:

Kbird1 great idea to add in a continuous rail on the inside of the existing. Rennerrabbit Yes, this is cali. But all those french doors are on an enclosed porch. Original house walls have fewer windows.  Drawings were submitted in 2001 and permit issued. Framing and plumbing were not to code but job completed anyway and permit never closed. One set of porch french doors had to be removed per fire inspector a month ago and left open for egress. Front porch was enclosed also with a window wall. No egress issues there. What a mess. 

 

mind sharing your CD?