Plan Review: 18 Issues Found

Summary: 19 index entries | 9 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 9 missing Mismatched (1): A-201: Expected: Exterior Elevations (A-201) | Actual: Exterior Elevations (A-202)(p13) Missing (9) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Structural: - S-101 Structural Framing Plans - S-102 Structural Details - S-103 Structural Details Architectural: - A-100 Arc...

Why it matters: Addressing this before construction prevents rework and supports code compliance.

Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve before construction.

RFI draft: Please clarify: Drawing Index Audit: 9 missing, 1 mismatched out of 19 sheets

Summary: The basement plan is labeled '00 - Basement 257sf' and shows a below-grade space with solid foundation walls on all sides surrounded by earth/grade hatching. No operable emergency escape and rescue window or exterior door opening is shown anywhere in the basement walls. The only means of egress is the interior stairway going UP to the first floor and a 24"×32" hinged access door to the crawlspa...

Why it matters: This is a life-safety code violation that will be caught during plan review and will require redesign before a permit can be issued. Adding an EERO to a fully below-grade basement requires a window well excavation, a new opening cut through the existing foundation wall, installation of an egress-...

Suggested next step: Request the architect to provide an operable emergency escape and rescue opening for the basement per IRC R310.1. The opening must comply with the minimum size requirements of R310.2 and open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way. If the ...

RFI draft: Request the architect to provide an operable emergency escape and rescue opening for the basement per IRC R310.1. The opening must comply with the minimum size requirements of R310.2 and open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that ...

Summary: Bedroom 1 relies on sliding door 201 as its only exterior opening. The plans indicate this door opens onto the "Deck Over First Floor". The deck is detailed with a continuous perimeter guardrail and lacks any stairway connecting it to the ground. This conflicts with the building code, which explicitly requires emergency escape and rescue openings to "open directly into a public way, or to a yar...

Why it matters: If a fire blocks the interior egress path (the corridor), occupants of Bedroom 1 must use the sliding door. Discharging onto an enclosed second-story deck without a stairway traps the occupants above grade. This prevents direct access to a safe yard, significantly delaying escape and forcing reli...

Suggested next step: Please revise the egress design for Bedroom 1 to provide a compliant escape path. Options include adding an operable emergency escape and rescue window that opens directly to the yard, or providing a code-compliant stairway from the second-floor deck down to grade level.

RFI draft: Please revise the egress design for Bedroom 1 to provide a compliant escape path. Options include adding an operable emergency escape and rescue window that opens directly to the yard, or providing a code-compliant stairway from the second-floor d...

Summary: The basement plan on A-101 explicitly identifies the crawlspace as "New Conditioned Crawlspace and CMU Block Foundation w/Poured Footer" and includes a "NOTE TO HVAC INSTALLER" requiring conditioned air supply. Section 1 (N/S Building Section) on A-301 also labels this space as "Conditioned Crawlspace." However, Section 3 (E/W Section Through New Addition) on A-301 labels the crawlspace beneath...

Why it matters: The conditioned versus unconditioned status of the crawlspace fundamentally affects HVAC design, insulation strategy, and vapor barrier requirements. The basement plan on A-101 specifies a Class I Vapor Retarder per IRC 2018 R408.3 and requires distributed conditioned air supply of min. 1 cfm per...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the crawlspace under the new addition is intended to be a conditioned or unconditioned space. If conditioned, please revise Section 3 on A-301 to reflect "Conditioned" and confirm the HVAC supply and vapor retarder requirements shown on the basement plan...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the crawlspace under the new addition is intended to be a conditioned or unconditioned space. If conditioned, please revise Section 3 on A-301 to reflect "Conditioned" and confirm the HVAC supply and vapor retarder requireme...

Summary: On sheet A-301, Section 3 (E/W Section Through New Addition) labels the crawlspace beneath the new addition as 'Crawlspace (Unconditioned Space)'. However, on the same sheet, Section 1 (N/S Building Section) labels the same crawlspace as 'Conditioned Crawlspace'. Furthermore, the Basement Plan on sheet A-101 explicitly labels this space as 'New Conditioned Crawlspace and CMU Block Foundation w/...

Why it matters: The conditioning status of a crawlspace fundamentally affects insulation placement (wall insulation for conditioned vs. floor insulation for unconditioned), HVAC system design and ductwork routing, vapor barrier requirements, and code compliance under IRC 2018 R408.3 (which is specifically cited ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the crawlspace under the new addition is intended to be a conditioned or unconditioned space. If conditioned, please revise Section 3 on A-301 to remove the '(Unconditioned Space)' label and confirm the HVAC and insulation strategy. If unconditioned, ple...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the crawlspace under the new addition is intended to be a conditioned or unconditioned space. If conditioned, please revise Section 3 on A-301 to remove the '(Unconditioned Space)' label and confirm the HVAC and insulation s...

Summary: The glazing specification calls for 'U-Factors: Center-of-glazing values, according to NFRC 100' and 'Solar Heat-Gain Coefficient and Visible Transmittance: Center-of-glazing values, according to NFRC 200.' The 2015 IECC Section C303.1.3 requires that U-factors 'shall be determined in accordance with NFRC 100' and be 'labeled and certified by the manufacturer,' and that SHGC and VT 'shall be de...

Why it matters: Specifying center-of-glazing values rather than whole-product values could lead to fenestration products being selected that appear compliant but actually fail to meet the U-factor and SHGC limits in Table C402.3 when evaluated on a total product basis. This discrepancy would likely be identified...

Suggested next step: Request that the glazing specification be revised to require total product U-factors per NFRC 100 and total product SHGC and VT per NFRC 200, as labeled and certified by the manufacturer, in lieu of center-of-glazing values. Confirm that fenestration product selections will be...

RFI draft: Request that the glazing specification be revised to require total product U-factors per NFRC 100 and total product SHGC and VT per NFRC 200, as labeled and certified by the manufacturer, in lieu of center-of-glazing values. Confirm that fenestrat...

Summary: The code review table on the drawing summarizes Section R310.1 as: "Every sleeping room shall have not less than one operable emergency escape and rescue opening." However, the 2018 IRC Section R310.1 actually states: "Basements, habitable attics and every sleeping room shall have not less than one operable emergency escape and rescue opening." The drawing's code review explicitly omits the req...

Why it matters: If the project includes a basement or habitable attic, the omission of these spaces from the EERO requirements on the construction documents could lead to those spaces being constructed without the required emergency escape and rescue openings. Retrofitting an EERO into a completed basement wall ...

Suggested next step: Request the design team to correct the code review table entry for R310.1 to include basements and habitable attics as required by the 2018 IRC. The corrected entry should read: "Basements, habitable attics and every sleeping room shall have not less than one operable emergenc...

RFI draft: Request the design team to correct the code review table entry for R310.1 to include basements and habitable attics as required by the 2018 IRC. The corrected entry should read: "Basements, habitable attics and every sleeping room shall have not l...

Summary: General Note 15 on the drawing states that "75% of lamps in permanent fixtures or 75% of permanent fixtures have high efficacy lamps." However, 2018 IRC Section N1104.1 (R404.1) mandates that "Not less than 90 percent of the permanently installed lighting fixtures shall contain only high-efficacy lamps." The drawing's 75% threshold directly contradicts the mandatory 90% requirement in the appli...

Why it matters: If the contractor installs lighting based on the 75% specification shown on the drawings, the project will fail the energy code compliance inspection. This will require removal and replacement of non-compliant fixtures to reach the 90% threshold, causing cost overruns and schedule delays. This is...

Suggested next step: Request that the design team revise General Note 15 to require not less than 90 percent of permanently installed lighting fixtures to contain only high-efficacy lamps, in accordance with 2018 IRC Section N1104.1.

RFI draft: Request that the design team revise General Note 15 to require not less than 90 percent of permanently installed lighting fixtures to contain only high-efficacy lamps, in accordance with 2018 IRC Section N1104.1.

Summary: The code review table on the drawing summarizes Section R315.2 as: "For new construction, carbon monoxide alarms shall be provided in dwelling units where either or both of the following conditions exist. 1. The dwelling unit contains a fuel-fired appliance." The text explicitly sets up "either or both of the following conditions" but only lists one condition. The 2018 IRC Section R315.2.1 incl...

Why it matters: If the dwelling unit has an attached garage with an opening communicating to the living space, CO alarms are required by code regardless of whether fuel-fired appliances are present. The omission of this condition from the construction documents could result in CO alarms not being installed in a ...

Suggested next step: Request the design team to correct the code review table entry for R315.2 to include both conditions from IRC Section R315.2.1. The corrected entry should include: "1. The dwelling unit contains a fuel-fired appliance. 2. The dwelling unit has an attached garage with an openin...

RFI draft: Request the design team to correct the code review table entry for R315.2 to include both conditions from IRC Section R315.2.1. The corrected entry should include: "1. The dwelling unit contains a fuel-fired appliance. 2. The dwelling unit has an ...

Summary: Section 3 (E/W Section Through New Addition) specifies 'R49 Faced Batt Insulation in Attic' for the unconditioned attic space and dimensions the raised heel at '11 1/2"' at the eave. Standard R-49 fiberglass batt insulation has a nominal thickness of approximately 15 to 15.25 inches. The 11½" heel cannot physically accommodate uncompressed R-49 batt insulation at the eave, creating a direct con...

Why it matters: During framing and insulation inspections, the contractor will be unable to install R-49 batts at the eave without significant compression, which would reduce the effective R-value well below R-49 and result in a failed inspection. This would trigger an RFI and cause construction delays while the...

Suggested next step: Clarify the insulation approach at the eaves of the new addition where the 11½" heel height cannot accommodate uncompressed R-49 batt insulation. Consider either: (1) increasing the raised heel height to a minimum of approximately 16 inches to accommodate uncompressed R-49 bat...

RFI draft: Clarify the insulation approach at the eaves of the new addition where the 11½" heel height cannot accommodate uncompressed R-49 batt insulation. Consider either: (1) increasing the raised heel height to a minimum of approximately 16 inches to acc...

Summary: The First Floor Plan indicates that the West exterior wall jogs 'inward' (Eastward) by 6" just north of the Living Room area. However, the South Elevation contradicts this by showing the rear (North) portion of the West wall as a 'Wall Beyond' that extends OUTWARD (West) to the left of the front facade. Additionally, the roof eave overhang on this West wall is dimensioned contradictorily: the S...

Why it matters: If the framing and foundation are built according to the floor plan (jogging inward), the exterior walls will not align with the outward 'Wall Beyond' step shown on the South Elevation. Furthermore, the framing of the roof will be unclear due to the conflicting 2'-0" and 1'-6" eave projection dim...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the alignment of the West exterior wall. Does the wall step inward (East) north of the Living Room as detailed on the floor plan, or outward (West) as implied by the South Elevation's 'Wall Beyond'? Please also reconcile the differing roof eave projection dimens...

RFI draft: Please clarify the alignment of the West exterior wall. Does the wall step inward (East) north of the Living Room as detailed on the floor plan, or outward (West) as implied by the South Elevation's 'Wall Beyond'? Please also reconcile the differi...

Summary: There is a direct contradiction in door numbering and room access between the overall 2nd Floor Plan (A-102) and the Enlarged 2nd Floor Dimension Plan (A-401). On A-102, Bath 1 is accessed by Door 204, Bath 2 is accessed by Door 205, and Door 203 is a closet door. In contrast, the enlarged plan on A-401 assigns Door 203 to swing into Bath 1, and shows Bath 2 having two separate doors: Door 204 ...

Why it matters: This inconsistency will cause confusion during framing and door procurement. The contractor will not know the correct access layout for Bath 2 (whether it requires one or two entrances, and whether it requires a pocket door frame) or the correct door size/schedule assignment for Bath 1.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended door layout and numbering for Bath 1 and Bath 2. Should Bath 1 be accessed via Door 203 or Door 204? Additionally, does Bath 2 require both a swinging door (204) and a pocket door (205) as shown on A-401, or only a single access door (205) as shown ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended door layout and numbering for Bath 1 and Bath 2. Should Bath 1 be accessed via Door 203 or Door 204? Additionally, does Bath 2 require both a swinging door (204) and a pocket door (205) as shown on A-401, or only a sing...

Summary: Drawing A-101 (First Floor Plan) labels the right exterior wall as a "12\" CMU Block Wall (See Fdn Plan)" and requires "PT2x4 On the Side Furring w/1/2\" Gypsum Wall Board. Provide 1.5\" Rigid Insulation Between Furring Strips and Vapor Barrier On Warm Side of Insulation." However, the exact same wall is tagged with the note "UL V340 (1 Hour Both Sides)". This directly contradicts the project s...

Why it matters: Providing a verified 1-hour fire resistance rating is critical for an exterior wall located near a property line. Constructing the wall with mismatched or contradictory components (e.g., using 1/2" standard gypsum instead of 5/8" Type X, or rigid insulation instead of mineral wool batt) will like...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended construction for the right-hand exterior wall. Should the wall be constructed as a 12" CMU block wall (and if so, what is the appropriate 1-hour fire-rated assembly designation and required gypsum thickness), or should it be framed with 2x6 wood stu...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended construction for the right-hand exterior wall. Should the wall be constructed as a 12" CMU block wall (and if so, what is the appropriate 1-hour fire-rated assembly designation and required gypsum thickness), or should ...

Summary: The Code Review schedule incorrectly cites Section R312.2 for 'Guards Height and Openings' requirements. According to the IRC, Sections R312.1.2 and R312.1.3 govern guard height and openings, whereas Section R312.2 specifically dictates 'Window fall protection'.

Why it matters: Misidentifying this section overwrites and obscures the critical life-safety requirement for window fall protection. Contractors relying solely on this schedule may fail to install window fall prevention devices where required by R312.2, leading to severe safety hazards and failed inspections.

Suggested next step: Correct the Code Review schedule to accurately cite Sections R312.1.2 and R312.1.3 for guard requirements, and add the correct Section R312.2 to appropriately specify window fall protection requirements.

RFI draft: Correct the Code Review schedule to accurately cite Sections R312.1.2 and R312.1.3 for guard requirements, and add the correct Section R312.2 to appropriately specify window fall protection requirements.

Summary: The North arrow on the First Floor plan (A-101) points downwards toward the front entrance of the building. However, the Exterior Elevations (A-202) contradict this orientation by labeling the front entrance facade (showing house number 3509) as the 'South Elevation', and the rear facade (showing the second-floor balcony) as the 'North Elevation'.

Why it matters: An incorrect North arrow or mislabeled elevations can lead to improper site placement, errors in solar orientation assumptions for energy modeling, and confusion when referencing specific building faces during construction coordination.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct true North orientation for the building. Update either the plan North arrows or the elevation titles to ensure consistent cardinal directions across all architectural sheets.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct true North orientation for the building. Update either the plan North arrows or the elevation titles to ensure consistent cardinal directions across all architectural sheets.