Georgia Multifamily Plan Review: 103 Issues Found

Summary: 148 index entries | 57 perfect matches | 90 mismatched | 1 missing Mismatched (90): 0.1M: Expected: CSDP COVER SHEET | Actual: Cover sheet (p2) 0.2M: Expected: EARTH CRAFT SCORING SHEET | Actual: LEED sustainability checklist (p3) 0.3M: Expected: EARTH CRAFT SCORING SHEET | Actual: Blank sheet border (p4) C5.1: ...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 C0.0 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX, page 5 --- 📄 0.0 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX, page 44 --- 📄 0.0M Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX, page 1 --- 📄 0.0C Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX, page 97 --- 📄 0.0MB Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX, page 119

Summary: The stair details/sections explicitly call out a minimum tread depth of 10' (and show a tread depth dimension of 10 1/4'), and a maximum riser height of 7 3/4'. ADA 2010 requires stair treads to be 11' deep minimum and risers to be 7' high maximum. As drawn, the stair geometry is undersized for tread depth and oversized for riser height, which...

Why it matters: This will fail ADA review and can require re-design of the stair (tread/riser geometry and potentially the overall run/landing layout), impacting framing/stringers, headroom clearances, and adjacent walls/doors. Correcting after fabrication/framing would create significant cost and schedule impacts.

Suggested next step: Revise the stair design to meet ADA 504.2 by providing treads 11' minimum and risers 7' maximum (and confirm uniform tread depths/riser heights for the full flight). Provide updated stair section/details and any affected plan dimensions.

RFI draft: Revise the stair design to meet ADA 504.2 by providing treads 11' minimum and risers 7' maximum (and confirm uniform tread depths/riser heights for the full flight). Provide updated stair section/details and any affected plan dimensions.

Summary: On sheet A1.0MB, the exterior area between the dumpster enclosure and the maintenance building is explicitly labeled '6\' STEP.' ADA 303.2 permits vertical changes in level only up to 1/4 inch; therefore, if this location is part of an accessible route/walking surface required to be accessible, a 6-inch vertical step would not meet ADA 303.2...

Why it matters: If this step occurs along a path intended for accessible pedestrian travel (e.g., access to the dumpster enclosure or between site sidewalk/door and adjacent exterior areas), it could trigger permitting comments and require redesign (regrading and/or an accessible transition) to maintain accessibility intent.

Suggested next step: Confirm the intent and location of the '6\' STEP' shown between the dumpster enclosure and the maintenance building, and clarify whether this area is part of an accessible route. If it is on an accessible route, revise the design to provide a compliant transition/alternate accessible route so the change in level is not a vertical 6-inch step...

RFI draft: Confirm the intent and location of the '6\' STEP' shown between the dumpster enclosure and the maintenance building, and clarify whether this area is part of an accessible route. If it is on an accessible route, revise the design to provide a compliant transition/alternate accessible route so...

Summary: The roof legend identifies a '2-HR DWELLING UNIT SEPARATION WALL UP TO UNDERSIDE OF DECK' running between units. The roof plans call out 'RIDGE VENT (TYP.)' at a ridge line that spans across the duplex, and the ridge vent detail specifies a 'CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT.' A continuous ridge vent at the ridge where the 2-hour separation wall meets the...

Why it matters: If constructed as shown, this can compromise the required fire-resistance-rated dwelling unit separation at the roof line, triggering plan review comments and requiring field rework (interrupting the ridge vent and adding a listed/approved fire-resistive joint/closure at the separation wall).

Suggested next step: Provide a rated roof ridge/vent termination detail at the '2-HR DWELLING UNIT SEPARATION WALL UP TO UNDERSIDE OF DECK' showing how the ridge vent is interrupted/blocked at the separation wall and how the wall-to-roof joint/void is protected (listed system or approved fireblocking/joint system) so there are no openings into the concealed roof...

RFI draft: Provide a rated roof ridge/vent termination detail at the '2-HR DWELLING UNIT SEPARATION WALL UP TO UNDERSIDE OF DECK' showing how the ridge vent is interrupted/blocked at the separation wall and how the wall-to-roof joint/void is protected (listed system or approved fireblocking/joint system)...

Summary: The cover sheet building code data identifies the project as including townhomes and duplexes and explicitly states that no sprinkler system is required or provided. Under the 2018 IRC, an automatic residential fire sprinkler system is required in both townhouses and one- and two-family dwellings; therefore, the stated “NONE REQUIRED, NONE...

Why it matters: If the project is permitted/enforced under the 2018 IRC, omitting the required NFPA 13D/P2904 sprinkler system will trigger plan review rejection and/or redesign during construction (water service sizing, domestic layout coordination, and sprinkler heads/coverage).

Suggested next step: Revise the drawings to provide an automatic residential fire sprinkler system complying with IRC R313.1.1/R313.2.1, or provide the specific adopted code amendment language (jurisdictional) that removes/changes IRC R313 for this project and revise the code summary accordingly.

RFI draft: Revise the drawings to provide an automatic residential fire sprinkler system complying with IRC R313.1.1/R313.2.1, or provide the specific adopted code amendment language (jurisdictional) that removes/changes IRC R313 for this project and revise the code summary accordingly.

Summary: The mechanical plan indicates the clothes dryer exhaust is routed to terminate through the building soffit. The 2018 IRC prohibits exhausting into a soffit; mechanical exhaust must discharge to the outdoors and not into an attic, soffit, ridge vent, or crawl space.

Why it matters: A soffit termination will typically be rejected at inspection due to the explicit prohibition, requiring re-routing the dryer exhaust to a compliant termination location (e.g., exterior wall cap or roof cap) and patching/rework of soffit and ductwork.

Suggested next step: Revise the dryer exhaust termination location/details so the dryer exhaust is not terminated at/into the soffit and instead discharges to the outdoors at a code-compliant termination location, and indicate the termination type/location on the plans accordingly.

RFI draft: Revise the dryer exhaust termination location/details so the dryer exhaust is not terminated at/into the soffit and instead discharges to the outdoors at a code-compliant termination location, and indicate the termination type/location on the plans accordingly.

Summary: The plumbing fixture schedule (Item 5 WATER HEATER) states the unit is provided 'WITH PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE & DRAIN PAN' but does not explicitly identify a temperature-relief valve or a combination pressure-and-temperature (T&P) relief valve. IRC P2804.1 requires water-heating equipment to be protected by either (a) separate pressure-relief and...

Why it matters: This is a life-safety code requirement and ambiguous documentation can trigger plan review/inspection comments and field installation risk. If the installed heater/valve arrangement does not include temperature-relief protection, correction after installation can require draining/re-piping at the heater, causing cost and schedule impacts.

Suggested next step: Confirm the water heater relief valve arrangement and revise the schedule/notes to explicitly indicate compliance with IRC P2804.1 by providing either (1) separate pressure-relief and temperature-relief valves, or (2) a combination pressure-and-temperature (T&P) relief valve (including discharge piping requirements as applicable).

RFI draft: Confirm the water heater relief valve arrangement and revise the schedule/notes to explicitly indicate compliance with IRC P2804.1 by providing either (1) separate pressure-relief and temperature-relief valves, or (2) a combination pressure-and-temperature (T&P) relief valve (including discharge...

Summary: Sheet A2.0C shows the truss bearing elevation as 'TRUSS BEARING\nELEV. = 8' - 1 1/8\''. Sheet A3.0C elevations instead label 'TRUSS BEARING\n8' - 11 1/8\''. These are different elevations for the same datum (truss bearing).

Why it matters: This affects exterior elevation datums, wall/framing heights, and coordination of truss bearing with plate heights and vertical dimensions. If built per the wrong elevation, it can cause major conflicts with roof geometry, exterior elevations, and structural framing.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct TRUSS BEARING elevation datum to be used for the project and revise the conflicting sheet(s) so A2.0C framing sections and A3.0C elevations match.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct TRUSS BEARING elevation datum to be used for the project and revise the conflicting sheet(s) so A2.0C framing sections and A3.0C elevations match.

Summary: On the architectural 2-BR duplex dimension plan (A1.1), the plan shows an overall duplex dimension of '65' - 6\''. On the structural 2-BR duplex foundation plan (S1.2), the foundation plan shows '66'-4\''. These values conflict for the same duplex footprint. Additionally, A1.1 shows a vertical exterior dimension of '32' - 5 1/2\'' while S1.2...

Why it matters: If the foundation/slab is laid out to the structural footprint dimensions but framing/walls are laid out to the architectural footprint dimensions (or vice versa), the result can be misaligned walls-to-foundation, incorrect slab edges/steps, and downstream conflicts with exterior flatwork/porches and structural bearing locations. This is a...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct coordinated overall footprint dimensions for the 2-BR duplex (width and depth) to be used for layout, and revise/clarify A1.1 and/or S1.2 accordingly. If one dimension set is to a different reference face (e.g., slab edge vs. exterior wall face/brick ledge), explicitly note the reference points and provide both...

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct coordinated overall footprint dimensions for the 2-BR duplex (width and depth) to be used for layout, and revise/clarify A1.1 and/or S1.2 accordingly. If one dimension set is to a different reference face (e.g., slab edge vs. exterior wall face/brick ledge), explicitly...

Summary: The drawing’s Wall Type W3 is labeled as a 1-hour UL assembly “U305” but the stud size shown in the wall type is 2x6. The specification for UL Design No. U305 requires nominal 2x4 wood studs at 16 in. OC max. As drawn, W3 does not match the specified UL U305 assembly requirements.

Why it matters: If constructed per the drawing (2x6 studs) while still being relied upon as UL U305 for a 1-hour rating, the wall may not qualify for the intended fire-resistance rating, creating potential code compliance, inspection, and life-safety risks.

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended 1-hour rated wall assembly for W3. Revise W3 to match UL Design No. U305 (including the specified stud size), or update the design reference to a UL-listed 1-hour assembly that permits 2x6 studs and provide the correct assembly details on the drawings/specifications.

RFI draft: Confirm the intended 1-hour rated wall assembly for W3. Revise W3 to match UL Design No. U305 (including the specified stud size), or update the design reference to a UL-listed 1-hour assembly that permits 2x6 studs and provide the correct assembly details on the drawings/specifications.

Summary: The wall type legend for W1–W4 shows “1/2\' GYP. BD.” on wood stud framing “@ 24\' O.C.” and explicitly labels these wall types as “(NOT RATED)”. The specification references UL Design No. U305 as a “Bearing Wall Rating, 1 Hr” assembly and lists requirements including “Nom 2 by 4 in. spaced 16 in. OC max” and “5/8 in. thick” gypsum board....

Why it matters: If any walls in the project are required to be 1-hour bearing per UL U305, using W1–W4 as shown would not meet the referenced UL assembly requirements and could lead to fire-resistance/code compliance issues and potential inspection/approval rejection. The drawings should clearly identify the rated wall type(s) and where they apply.

Suggested next step: Confirm where UL Design No. U305 (1-hr bearing wall) is required on this project. If any walls are intended to be 1-hr per U305, provide or revise the applicable wall type(s) to match U305 (including 5/8' gypsum board and 2x4 studs at 16' O.C. max) and clearly indicate the required rating and locations on the plans. If W1–W4 are intentionally...

RFI draft: Confirm where UL Design No. U305 (1-hr bearing wall) is required on this project. If any walls are intended to be 1-hr per U305, provide or revise the applicable wall type(s) to match U305 (including 5/8' gypsum board and 2x4 studs at 16' O.C. max) and clearly indicate the required rating and...

Summary: The wall section's exterior wall assembly calls for a single layer of 1/2' Type X gypsum board at the interior face. The specification for UL Design No. U305 requires 5/8' gypsum board. The drawing requirement for 1/2' directly contradicts the specified 5/8' gypsum board thickness.

Why it matters: Installing 1/2' gypsum board where a 5/8' gypsum layer is specified can invalidate the intended UL wall assembly and jeopardize the required fire-resistance performance for the rated wall construction.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the exterior wall interior gypsum board is intended to comply with UL Design No. U305. If yes, revise the wall sections to show 5/8' gypsum board (or identify an approved alternate UL design that permits 1/2' gypsum board).

RFI draft: Confirm whether the exterior wall interior gypsum board is intended to comply with UL Design No. U305. If yes, revise the wall sections to show 5/8' gypsum board (or identify an approved alternate UL design that permits 1/2' gypsum board).

Summary: The laundry room wall section note cites “(REF. U.L. DESIGN U305)” while the same wall construction note states “2X6 (2X4 @ LOCATION INDICATED ON PLAN) WOOD STUD FRAMING @ 16' O.C. MAX.” The provided UL Design U305 excerpt specifies “Nom 2 by 4 in. spaced 16 in. OC max.” As drawn, the assembly description permits 2x6 framing in some locations...

Why it matters: If U305 is relied upon for a rated assembly, using 2x6 studs where U305 specifies 2x4 could invalidate the tested/listed assembly and create permitting/inspection and life-safety compliance risk unless an appropriate alternate UL design/listing is identified.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether UL Design U305 is intended to apply to all laundry room wall locations or only to the 2x4 locations indicated on plan. If 2x6 studs are required anywhere for this wall, provide an alternate UL design/listing that matches the 2x6 stud condition and associated layers, or revise the wall note/reference accordingly.

RFI draft: Confirm whether UL Design U305 is intended to apply to all laundry room wall locations or only to the 2x4 locations indicated on plan. If 2x6 studs are required anywhere for this wall, provide an alternate UL design/listing that matches the 2x6 stud condition and associated layers, or revise the...

Summary: The laundry room roof/ceiling assembly is labeled “(REF. U.L. DESIGN P556)” but the drawing specifies roof sheathing fastening as “15/32' ROOF SHEATHING W/ H-CLIPS W/ 8D NAILS 6' O.C. PERIMETER 12' O.C. FIELD”. The referenced UL Design P556 specification requires the roof wood structural panels to be “secured to trusses with No. 6d ringed shank...

Why it matters: If UL Design P556 is required for a rated roof/ceiling assembly, using a different nail type and spacing than the UL design can jeopardize the validity of the referenced tested assembly and create code compliance and inspection issues.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the laundry room roof/ceiling assembly is required to comply with UL Design P556 as referenced. If yes, revise the roof sheathing fastening to match P556 (including nail type and spacing) or provide a different UL design/listing that matches the drawn roof sheathing fastening and assembly.

RFI draft: Confirm whether the laundry room roof/ceiling assembly is required to comply with UL Design P556 as referenced. If yes, revise the roof sheathing fastening to match P556 (including nail type and spacing) or provide a different UL design/listing that matches the drawn roof sheathing fastening and...

Summary: The section detail explicitly calls the top finish a sidewalk/adjacent surface (“Finish Surface To Conform To Cross Slope of Sidewalk or Adjacent Surface Area.”) and also gives a slope of “1/2' Ft. Slope”. A 1/2 inch per foot slope equals 1:24, which is steeper than the ADA maximum cross slope of 1:48 for walking surfaces on an accessible route.

Why it matters: If constructed as detailed, the sidewalk/adjacent walking surface cross slope would not comply with the 2010 ADA Standards, which can trigger required redesign/reconstruction of the finished surface and delay acceptance/closeout.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the “1/2' Ft. Slope” applies to the sidewalk/adjacent walking surface called out in the section. If yes, revise the detail/grades to provide a compliant cross slope (not steeper than 1:48) for the walking surface, or clearly differentiate that the 1/2' per foot slope applies only to a non-walking surface area outside the...

RFI draft: Confirm whether the “1/2' Ft. Slope” applies to the sidewalk/adjacent walking surface called out in the section. If yes, revise the detail/grades to provide a compliant cross slope (not steeper than 1:48) for the walking surface, or clearly differentiate that the 1/2' per foot slope applies only...