City Dictates Project Sheet Size?

[Anonymous]

Anyone ever deal with a city dictating the size of sheet you can
use for a project?

I've dealt with clients that have standard sheet sizes they want
but I've never run into a city that dictates the sheet size.

We are doing a fairly large building that really requires 30x42
sheets so 1/8" plans are legible. However, the city does not
accept 30x42 sizes, period. They only deal with 24x36 sheets.

So, we get to break this building up into 11 or 12 chunks instead
of 3. Nice, cause that makes soooo much sense.

[Anonymous]

I do Civil work, and I find this is very common. I don't always like
it, but just because it doesn't make sense to me, does not mean it
does not make sense to them. (It may have to do with their in house
storage and/or scanning capabilities for instance).


"Jason Piercey" wrote in message
news:6378275@discussion.autodesk.com...
Anyone ever deal with a city dictating the size of sheet you can
use for a project?

I've dealt with clients that have standard sheet sizes they want
but I've never run into a city that dictates the sheet size.

We are doing a fairly large building that really requires 30x42
sheets so 1/8" plans are legible. However, the city does not
accept 30x42 sizes, period. They only deal with 24x36 sheets.

So, we get to break this building up into 11 or 12 chunks instead
of 3. Nice, cause that makes soooo much sense.

[Anonymous]

I've seen it, it was caused by the size of the flat files they owned

--
Rick Moore, AIA
www.bgkarchitects.com

[Anonymous]

The agency you are serving has the right to specify the sheet size for the
deliverables. As has been stated, they need to archive the drawings
according to their standards. This is common for cities, counties, Register
of Deeds, etc. It would make life easier for us if ANSI 22x34 sheets were
standard instead of ARCH 24x36 since 22x34 can fit 11x17 at half scale, but
the 24x36 is standard for many agencies, so we are stuck with it.

[Anonymous]

As noted by others, it happens in many jurisdictions all over.

Most seem to do to accommodate either their table or drawer sizes, very
little else more useful.

--
Dean Saadallah
http://LTisACAD.blogspot.com
--

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the replies. Guess in the 16 years I've been at
this company I've never ran across this issue. Must be a
tiny little city with limited space for storage.

I'm trying to find out if we can use the 30x42 sheets and
"scale to fit" on 24x36 for issuing to the city. I'd normally
never dream of doing such a thing but this is plain silly.

I often see "standard/generic" details that are labeled "NTS"
so why can't plans be "NTS" as well? You are not supposed
to physically scale the drawings anyway. So really, what's the
difference?

I'd be happy to provide 30x42 PDF's for electronic storage
they could use later if need be. I'm not holding my breath, but
figured it is worth a shot.

[Anonymous]

If it makes you feel better, we once did a job where the client started off
by deciding to have everyone use 44"x32" sheets (or something like that), I
can only guess that that size let him place the building on the sheet how he
wanted.
Not to long after, he changed the sheet size, once he found that obtaining
paper that size became an issue. 🙂



"Jason Piercey" wrote in message
news:6378532@discussion.autodesk.com...
Thanks for the replies. Guess in the 16 years I've been at
this company I've never ran across this issue. Must be a
tiny little city with limited space for storage.

I'm trying to find out if we can use the 30x42 sheets and
"scale to fit" on 24x36 for issuing to the city. I'd normally
never dream of doing such a thing but this is plain silly.

I often see "standard/generic" details that are labeled "NTS"
so why can't plans be "NTS" as well? You are not supposed
to physically scale the drawings anyway. So really, what's the
difference?

I'd be happy to provide 30x42 PDF's for electronic storage
they could use later if need be. I'm not holding my breath, but
figured it is worth a shot.

[Anonymous]

Woohoo! That'll work! Little crazy but whatever.

"Jason Piercey" wrote in message news:6378532@discussion.autodesk.com...

I'm trying to find out if we can use the 30x42 sheets and
"scale to fit" on 24x36 for issuing to the city. I'd normally
never dream of doing such a thing but this is plain silly.

[Anonymous]

Good luck with getting them to compromise the scale or taking PDF. Even
though it is common to put a disclaimer about scaling drawings, they still
need to be at some nominal scale. Sometimes you need to measure a street or
sidewalk width or a distance to the corner of a building etc. for quick
reference. If it were my choice I would definitely not accept drawings that
have been reduced to some arbitrary scale.

Having worked for a city engineering dept. I doubt they would want PDF's for
the same reason; they can't be plotted to a sheet size that suits the
archive system. As far as I know, most agencies keep hard copies available
for easy access to any staff personel.

I feel your pain. It can be a lot of extra work to prepare documents on
reduced sheet sizes.

[Anonymous]

Large cities would have a harder time with storage. Space is more expensive
and they have more info to deal with. Vegas (and surrounding counties),
Phoenix, and Jacksonville all have a standard sheet size.

--
Lance W.

"Jason Piercey" wrote in message
news:6378532@discussion.autodesk.com...
> Thanks for the replies. Guess in the 16 years I've been at
> this company I've never ran across this issue. Must be a
> tiny little city with limited space for storage.
>
> I'm trying to find out if we can use the 30x42 sheets and
> "scale to fit" on 24x36 for issuing to the city. I'd normally
> never dream of doing such a thing but this is plain silly.
>
> I often see "standard/generic" details that are labeled "NTS"
> so why can't plans be "NTS" as well? You are not supposed
> to physically scale the drawings anyway. So really, what's the
> difference?
>
> I'd be happy to provide 30x42 PDF's for electronic storage
> they could use later if need be. I'm not holding my breath, but
> figured it is worth a shot.

[Anonymous]

Terry Scanlon wrote:
> I do Civil work, and I find this is very common. I don't always
> like it, but just because it doesn't make sense to me, does not
> mean it does not make sense to them. (It may have to do with their
> in house storage and/or scanning capabilities for instance).

Yes, very common.
We have one agency that requires 20"x24" *and* a certain scale, which
means multiple sheets with a lot of match lines when you are platting
hundreds of acres....


--
R.K. McSwain
http://cadpanacea.com

[BernardMadoff]

its is the norm where ever i have worked in the world, but luckily i have not worked in the imperial world where one seemd to have to make so many decisions.

the only sheet we ever use is A1........lives a breeze in the metric world...:-)

[Anonymous]

One of the local jurisdictions does that. I simply change the scale to
say NTS and scale to fit. However the jurisdiction isn't our client.
They are just doing field inspections and record keeping.

On 4/22/2010 10:59 AM, Jason Piercey wrote:
> Anyone ever deal with a city dictating the size of sheet you can
> use for a project?
>
> I've dealt with clients that have standard sheet sizes they want
> but I've never run into a city that dictates the sheet size.
>
> We are doing a fairly large building that really requires 30x42
> sheets so 1/8" plans are legible. However, the city does not
> accept 30x42 sizes, period. They only deal with 24x36 sheets.
>
> So, we get to break this building up into 11 or 12 chunks instead
> of 3. Nice, cause that makes soooo much sense.

[Anonymous]

Different view point. We like 24x36 and 12x18. The 11x17 is just a
little too small. Unfortunately our photocopier only uses 11x17 max (We
do have a print copier of course that goes to 36xwhatever). Most of the
photo copier paper sizes are simply based on 8.5x11 and multiples while
architectural sizes are based on 9x12...except for a bunch of exceptions
like 30x42 etc. Seems that architects are used to buying paper by the
roll and cutting where convenient.

On 4/22/2010 1:06 PM, neilw wrote:
> The agency you are serving has the right to specify the sheet size for the
> deliverables. As has been stated, they need to archive the drawings
> according to their standards. This is common for cities, counties, Register
> of Deeds, etc. It would make life easier for us if ANSI 22x34 sheets were
> standard instead of ARCH 24x36 since 22x34 can fit 11x17 at half scale, but
> the 24x36 is standard for many agencies, so we are stuck with it.

[Anonymous]

or worse yet.

every set must be folded.

ever try to fold a dozen 75-sheet plan sets on the floor of the d.o.t.

'cuz the desk clerk wouldn't even accept them otherwise ?


"Jason Piercey" wrote in message news:6378275@discussion.autodesk.com...
Anyone ever deal with a city dictating the size of sheet you can
use for a project?

[omc-usnr]

Sadly, it's more than just sheet size. In waaaayyyy to many jurisdictions it's design by ordinance, not by what makes sense or is economically feasible. If it don't look like what the ordinance says it should, it's no go. In our county, we've gotten to the point where we have to submit 80% construction drawings, just to get planning approval, because that's the way the ordinance is interpreted.

In Oregon, all plats are to be filed on 18x24 w/ a 1" border (state law). Most civil plans are 24x36 and architectural 30x42 or 46. In California, all sheets MUST be wet stamped & signed. At least here, I can use a block of the seal, the boss can sign the originals, and photocopies made of those. Also, it says it has to be scale, but it doesn't say what scale. Sometime, just for grins, give 'em a project at 1:200 or 1:1000 & see what they say. 'Course, then there's the ACOE, and EPA which want their submissions on 8.5x11 for wetlands mitigation.

I've set my border up so that in 11x17 it's 1/2 scale. Leaves a bit more blank space in a 24x36, but not much. Works well & allot let fuss than trying to cram ever last bit into a 24x36.

Reid

[Anonymous]

Oh, I hate that.

I don't specify certain sheet sizes or scales for my deliverables,
because they're supposed to be in CAD. I just ask that folks keep it to
default sizes, and try not to break up the building anymore than
absolutely necessary.

I had one building, the floor plate was only like 65,000sq ft, but, the
plans were broken up into five sections. Spare me! If I never see
another matchline again, I'll be happy.


Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://augi.com/autocad
http://MistressOfTheDorkness.blogspot.com


On 4/22/2010 8:29 PM, R.K. McSwain wrote:
> Terry Scanlon wrote:
>> I do Civil work, and I find this is very common. I don't always
>> like it, but just because it doesn't make sense to me, does not
>> mean it does not make sense to them. (It may have to do with their
>> in house storage and/or scanning capabilities for instance).
>
> Yes, very common.
> We have one agency that requires 20"x24" *and* a certain scale, which
> means multiple sheets with a lot of match lines when you are platting
> hundreds of acres....
>
>

[Anonymous]

This structure is pushing 100,000sq ft. So, yeah I think
the bigger sheets are required. I also hate match lines.
I'll use a key plan over a match line any day!


"Wanderer" wrote in message news:6379260@discussion.autodesk.com...
I had one building, the floor plate was only like 65,000sq ft, but, the
plans were broken up into five sections. Spare me! If I never see
another matchline again, I'll be happy.

[Anonymous]

"Jason Piercey" wrote
> They only deal with 24x36 sheets.

Paper... Quaint.

[Anonymous]

Wanderer wrote:
> Oh, I hate that.
>
> I don't specify certain sheet sizes or scales for my deliverables,
> because they're supposed to be in CAD. I just ask that folks keep
> it to default sizes, and try not to break up the building anymore
> than absolutely necessary.

We've got other agencies that have no restrictions on paper size, and
we have some plats as large as 42"x84" (or maybe 96"?).

--
R.K. McSwain
http://cadpanacea.com