Plan Review: 25 Issues Found

Summary: The stair detail explicitly specifies 'MAX. RISER 8 1/4"' and 'MIN. TREAD DEPTH 9"'. The drawing notes state that stairs will be built to meet the requirements of R301.5, R311.7, and R312 from the 2018 NC Building Code. Under the 2018 NC Residential Code Section R311.7.5.1 (equivalent to IBC Section 1011.5.2 Exception 3 for residential occupancies), the maximum riser height is 7-3/4 inches and ...

Why it matters: If stairs are constructed to the dimensions shown on the detail, they would fail building inspection under the 2018 NC Building Code that the project notes explicitly reference. An 8-1/4" riser height is steeper than any allowable configuration, and a 9" tread depth does not provide sufficient st...

Suggested next step: Request the designer revise the stair detail to comply with the 2018 NC Building Code Section R311.7.5.1 as referenced in the project notes: maximum riser height of 7-3/4 inches and minimum tread depth of 10 inches. Verify that the stair geometry (total rise, number of risers,...

RFI draft: Request the designer revise the stair detail to comply with the 2018 NC Building Code Section R311.7.5.1 as referenced in the project notes: maximum riser height of 7-3/4 inches and minimum tread depth of 10 inches. Verify that the stair geometry ...

Summary: The project's general notes explicitly state that the plans are designed under the '2018 NORTH CAROLINA RESIDENTIAL CODE' and cite its specific tables. However, the project is being reviewed against and governed by the 2021 International Building Code (IBC). Using a different and outdated code family as the design basis directly conflicts with the applicability of the 2021 IBC.

Why it matters: A design based on the 2018 NC Residential Code may not comply with the 2021 IBC's updated structural, fire-protection, egress, and energy requirements. This discrepancy can lead to systemic non-compliance across multiple disciplines and cause widespread permitting rejections.

Suggested next step: Confirm the governing building code for this project. If the 2021 IBC applies, revise the general notes to remove references to the 2018 NC Residential Code and verify that all assemblies, egress components, and structural details meet 2021 IBC requirements.

RFI draft: Confirm the governing building code for this project. If the 2021 IBC applies, revise the general notes to remove references to the 2018 NC Residential Code and verify that all assemblies, egress components, and structural details meet 2021 IBC re...

Summary: The Architectural plan indicates a "LIFT" (elevator) shaft with dimensions of "5'-4"". The Structural plan fails to indicate a corresponding framed floor opening in this location. While adjacent framing includes "DBL 2X10 @ 16" O.C." and continuous LVL beams, the shaft area itself is improperly detailed with continuous "2X10 @ 16" O.C." floor joists running directly through it instead of a fram...

Why it matters: An elevator requires a clear, continuous vertical shaft opening through all floors. Framing continuous floor joists across the shaft area will physically block the elevator installation. The structural floor framing must be redesigned to provide a properly framed opening around the elevator shaft.

Suggested next step: Please provide the required structural framing opening details for the "5'-4"" "LIFT" shown on the Architectural plans, as the current structural plans show continuous floor joists running through this location.

RFI draft: Please provide the required structural framing opening details for the "5'-4"" "LIFT" shown on the Architectural plans, as the current structural plans show continuous floor joists running through this location.

Summary: The wall bracing legend specifies gypsum board interior braced walls secured per 'TABLE R602.10.1 OF THE 2018 NCRBC,' referencing the 2018 North Carolina Residential Building Code rather than the 2021 International Building Code. IBC Section 2505.1 requires that wood-frame shear walls sheathed with gypsum board 'shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Section 2306.3,' which mandate...

Why it matters: The specified fastener spacing of 7" O.C. on both sides or 4" O.C. on one side at stairs may or may not comply with the 2021 IBC/AWC SDPWS requirements for gypsum board walls resisting lateral forces. A plan reviewer checking against the 2021 IBC would flag the outdated residential code reference...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer verify that the gypsum board interior braced wall specifications comply with 2021 IBC Section 2505.1 and Section 2306.3 (AWC SDPWS). Update the wall bracing legend to reference the applicable 2021 IBC code sections and confirm that the specified...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer verify that the gypsum board interior braced wall specifications comply with 2021 IBC Section 2505.1 and Section 2306.3 (AWC SDPWS). Update the wall bracing legend to reference the applicable 2021 IBC code sections ...

Summary: The First Floor Plan shows a curved staircase in the Foyer labeled 'UP 20R' (20 risers) with an inner radius of R1'-9 1/2" (21.5 inches). With 20 risers in a continuous curved stair, there are 19 winder treads. Per IBC Section 1011.4, the walkline is located 12 inches from the narrow (inner) side of the clear stair width. Accounting for a standard handrail projection of approximately 4.5 inches...

Why it matters: This non-compliance would be identified during plan review, resulting in permit delays and requiring a significant redesign of the curved staircase. Corrective options include increasing the inner radius, reducing the number of winder treads per revolution by introducing intermediate landings, or...

Suggested next step: Please verify the curved staircase geometry in the Foyer (UP 20R) and confirm that winder tread depths comply with IBC Section 1011.5.2. Please provide a detailed stair plan and section showing the tread depth measured at the walkline (12 inches from the narrow side per Sectio...

RFI draft: Please verify the curved staircase geometry in the Foyer (UP 20R) and confirm that winder tread depths comply with IBC Section 1011.5.2. Please provide a detailed stair plan and section showing the tread depth measured at the walkline (12 inches f...

Summary: The drawing notes specify that window glazing must have a '0.35 U-FACTOR MIN.' U-factor measures thermal transmittance (heat loss). Building energy codes dictate a maximum allowable U-factor to ensure energy efficiency by limiting heat loss. Specifying a minimum U-factor incorrectly mandates that windows must be thermally inefficient (transmitting at least 0.35 BTU/(h·ft²·°F)), which directly c...

Why it matters: Procuring windows based on a minimum U-factor instead of a maximum will result in the installation of non-compliant, energy-inefficient windows. This will cause the building envelope to fail energy code inspections and significantly increase mechanical heating and cooling loads.

Suggested next step: Revise the general note to read '0.35 U-FACTOR MAX' (or the specific maximum U-factor required by the applicable IECC climate zone) to correctly enforce minimum thermal insulation requirements.

RFI draft: Revise the general note to read '0.35 U-FACTOR MAX' (or the specific maximum U-factor required by the applicable IECC climate zone) to correctly enforce minimum thermal insulation requirements.

Summary: The structural basement framing plan (S1) shows the Tractor Storage area framed with multiple W10X22 dropped wide-flange steel beams at spacings ranging from 3'-4" to 6'-0", supported by a W10X39 dropped main girder. The architectural basement floor plan (Sheet 3) specifies 'STEEL BAR JOIST W/ GALV. B-DECKING' for the same Tractor Storage ceiling/floor structure. Wide-flange W-shape beams and o...

Why it matters: This discrepancy directly impacts steel fabrication, procurement, and construction sequencing. If bar joists with B-decking are the intended system, the structural engineer's W-beam design must be revised. If W-beams are correct, the architectural drawing must be updated. The overhead door header...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended floor/ceiling framing system for the Tractor Storage area. The structural basement framing plan (S1) shows W10X22 and W10X39 dropped wide-flange steel beams, while the architectural basement floor plan (Sheet 3) calls for steel bar joists with galva...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended floor/ceiling framing system for the Tractor Storage area. The structural basement framing plan (S1) shows W10X22 and W10X39 dropped wide-flange steel beams, while the architectural basement floor plan (Sheet 3) calls f...

Summary: The structural foundation plan shows a rectangular depression measuring 5'-4" x 5'-0" with an associated lug footing at the central area of the building. The architectural basement floor plan shows a LIFT shaft at the same location dimensioned at 5'-6" x 5'-6". The foundation pit is undersized by 2" in one direction and 6" in the other direction compared to the architectural LIFT shaft requirem...

Why it matters: An undersized elevator pit will prevent proper installation of the lift equipment. The pit dimensions must accommodate the lift car, guide rails, buffers, and required clearances per elevator manufacturer specifications and applicable code. If the foundation is constructed with the smaller depres...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required dimensions for the elevator/lift pit at the basement level. The structural foundation plan shows a depression of 5'-4" x 5'-0", while the architectural basement floor plan indicates a LIFT shaft of 5'-6" x 5'-6". Please coordinate between structural...

RFI draft: Please confirm the required dimensions for the elevator/lift pit at the basement level. The structural foundation plan shows a depression of 5'-4" x 5'-0", while the architectural basement floor plan indicates a LIFT shaft of 5'-6" x 5'-6". Please...

Summary: The Structural plan provides framing notes and headers for a chimney, explicitly calling out "BALLOON FRAMED (2) 2X6 STUDS @ 16\" O.C. FROM 2ND FLOOR FRAMING TO TOP OF CHIMNEY". In the exact same north-central location, the Architectural plan shows a "SAUNA" and "HER CLST." with no chimney or fireplace structure indicated.

Why it matters: This layout discrepancy creates a major conflict in space utilization. If a chimney is structurally required, the architectural master bathroom and closet layouts must be significantly altered. If no chimney is required, the structural framing and balloon framing details are unnecessary and incor...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if a chimney is required in the north-central area. If yes, update the Architectural plans to reflect its presence in the Sauna/Closet area. If no, update the Structural plan to remove the chimney framing notes and headers.

RFI draft: Please clarify if a chimney is required in the north-central area. If yes, update the Architectural plans to reflect its presence in the Sauna/Closet area. If no, update the Structural plan to remove the chimney framing notes and headers.

Summary: The Architectural Basement Floor Plan specifies the interior dimensions of the 'GUN VAULT' as 10'-4" by 10'-0". However, the Structural Foundation Plan details this corresponding slab area with different internal dimensions of 12'-0" by 7'-4".

Why it matters: This discrepancy will lead to a conflict in foundation wall placement. If the foundation is poured according to the structural dimensions (12'-0" x 7'-4"), it will not support the architectural layout for the 10'-4" x 10'-0" gun vault, potentially affecting the required square footage, equipment ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct interior dimensions for the Gun Vault / East Slab area. Should the foundation walls be poured to accommodate a 10'-4" x 10'-0" space (Architectural) or a 12'-0" x 7'-4" space (Structural)?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct interior dimensions for the Gun Vault / East Slab area. Should the foundation walls be poured to accommodate a 10'-4" x 10'-0" space (Architectural) or a 12'-0" x 7'-4" space (Structural)?

Summary: The architectural floor plans specify conflicting clear interior dimensions for the lift shaft. The Basement Floor Plan dimensions the lift shaft as 5'-6" x 5'-6", whereas both the First and Second Floor Plans dimension the same lift shaft as 5'-4" x 5'-4".

Why it matters: Elevator and lift hoistways must maintain a strictly plumb and consistent clear dimension throughout their entire vertical travel to properly accommodate the guide rails and cab clearances. A 2-inch discrepancy in the framed shaft size between the basement and upper floors will lead to framing re...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct clear interior dimensions for the lift shaft across all floors. Should the entire shaft be framed to 5'-6" x 5'-6" as shown on the Basement plan, or 5'-4" x 5'-4" as shown on the First and Second Floor plans?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct clear interior dimensions for the lift shaft across all floors. Should the entire shaft be framed to 5'-6" x 5'-6" as shown on the Basement plan, or 5'-4" x 5'-4" as shown on the First and Second Floor plans?

Summary: The Second Floor Plan on sheet 5 specifically labels the Owner's Suite bedroom area with a ceiling height of 10'-0", distinct from the adjacent bathroom/closet zones which are labeled 9'-0" CLG. HGT. (indicating a stepped ceiling design). However, the building section on sheet 7 that cuts through the Owner's Suite labels the second-floor ceiling height at 9'-0" for this space. These two values ...

Why it matters: A 1'-0" difference in ceiling height has significant implications for framing, HVAC duct routing, and finish material quantities. If the Owner's Suite is intended to have a raised 10'-0" ceiling as shown on the plan, the framing contractor needs to know to build the higher plate or raised ceiling...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended ceiling height for the Owner's Suite bedroom area. The Second Floor Plan (sheet 5) notes 10'-0" CLG. HGT. for the Owner's Suite, while the building section on sheet 7 shows 9'-0" 2ND FLR CLG. HGT. for the same space. Please confirm the correct ceili...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended ceiling height for the Owner's Suite bedroom area. The Second Floor Plan (sheet 5) notes 10'-0" CLG. HGT. for the Owner's Suite, while the building section on sheet 7 shows 9'-0" 2ND FLR CLG. HGT. for the same space. Pl...

Summary: The exterior elevations call out 'STUCCO AS SPEC. TYP.' and 'STONE FND. AS SPEC. TYP.' for the building's facade. However, the 'GARAGE WALL' detail explicitly calls out 'SIDING AS SPECIFIED' for the wall finish and 'BRICK' for the foundation veneer.

Why it matters: A mismatch in primary exterior cladding (stucco vs. siding) and foundation veneer (stone vs. brick) creates a significant discrepancy in architectural intent, material takeoffs, and project cost. This could also affect homeowner association (HOA) approvals or design reviews.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended exterior wall and foundation finishes for the garage. Should the garage be finished with stucco and stone as shown on the elevations, or siding and brick as indicated in the garage wall detail?

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended exterior wall and foundation finishes for the garage. Should the garage be finished with stucco and stone as shown on the elevations, or siding and brick as indicated in the garage wall detail?

Summary: The Foundation Plan uses the hexagonal tag 'F8' to designate discrete square concrete footings supporting columns along the center axis of the left angled wing. However, the Foundation Schedule defines 'F8' as a 'DROPPED GIRDER: (4) 2X10'S, TYP UNO.', which is a wood framing element, not a concrete footing. The Basement Framing Plan correctly identifies this 'DROPPED GIRDER: (4) 2X10'S, TYP UNO...

Why it matters: If unaddressed, the concrete contractor will not have the required dimensions or reinforcing details to pour the F8 footings, potentially leading to incorrect sizing, field delays, or structural inadequacy.

Suggested next step: Please provide the correct concrete dimensions and reinforcing schedule for the 'F8' footings, and clarify if the dropped girder note in the foundation schedule was placed in error.

RFI draft: Please provide the correct concrete dimensions and reinforcing schedule for the 'F8' footings, and clarify if the dropped girder note in the foundation schedule was placed in error.

Summary: The Foundation Plan designates the upper-left area of the angled wing as a '4" SLAB ON GRADE. SEE SPECS.'. In direct contradiction, the Basement Framing Plan designates this exact same area as a 'HATCHED CRAWLSPACE' requiring 'DROP FLOOR FRAMING 1'-6"' supported by wood joists ('2X10 @ 16" O.C.').

Why it matters: A slab on grade bears directly on earth, whereas a framed floor over a crawlspace requires excavation, foundation vents, and a suspended joist system. This contradiction affects grading, foundation heights, material takeoffs, and construction sequencing.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended floor system for the upper-left angled wing. Should it be a 4" concrete slab on grade as shown on the Foundation Plan, or a wood-framed floor over a crawlspace as shown on the Basement Framing Plan?

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended floor system for the upper-left angled wing. Should it be a 4" concrete slab on grade as shown on the Foundation Plan, or a wood-framed floor over a crawlspace as shown on the Basement Framing Plan?