Plan Review: 70 Issues Found

Summary: 80 index entries | 35 perfect matches | 9 mismatched | 36 missing Mismatched (9): D-102: Expected: FIRST FLOOR PLAN (D-102) | Actual: FIRST FLOOR PLAN (A-102)(p19) D-103: Expected: SECOND FLOOR PLAN (D-103) | Actual: SECOND FLOOR PLAN (A-103)(p20) A-105: Expected: ROOF PLAN (A-105) | Actual: ROOF PLAN (D-105)(p9) A-405: Expected: ENLARGED DETAILS (A-405) | A...

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: 36 missing, 9 mismatched out of 80 sheets

Summary: Detail 1 indicates anchoring the new/replaced wood sill plate of the multi-story shear panel to the existing "1ST FLOOR TOP OF STONEWALL" using "5/8\" Ø EXPANSION ANCHORS". Under ASCE 7-16 Section 11B.4 Exception 3, new structural elements in alterations must be detailed and connected to existing elements as required by the standard for a new structure. Section 14.4.5.1 adds TMS 402 Section 9.1...

Why it matters: Using expansion anchors in a rubble or stonewall foundation will lead to unpredictable anchor pullout or masonry blowout during a seismic event, compromising the entire multi-story shear wall overturning and sliding resistance. This detail will likely be rejected during plan review or special ins...

Suggested next step: Please provide a code-compliant anchorage detail for the new shear wall sill plate to the existing stonewall foundation. Post-installed expansion anchors do not meet the predictable masonry breakout requirements for seismic force-resisting systems in non-uniform, non-grouted s...

RFI draft: Please provide a code-compliant anchorage detail for the new shear wall sill plate to the existing stonewall foundation. Post-installed expansion anchors do not meet the predictable masonry breakout requirements for seismic force-resisting systems...

Summary: The Second Floor Plan depicts a multistory layout featuring several occupied areas, including public/assembly spaces like three adjacent ballrooms. The plan shows a central staircase serving the floor, but it completely lacks an elevator, platform lift, or ramp to provide an accessible route. Section 1104.4 of the building code explicitly requires that at least one accessible route connects eac...

Why it matters: Failing to provide an accessible vertical route to a multistory building's second floor (especially one with assembly spaces) directly violates fundamental accessibility requirements. Remedying this omission later in the project will cause massive permitting delays, architectural rework, and sign...

Suggested next step: The SECOND FLOOR PLAN does not indicate an elevator or other accessible route connecting this story to the rest of the building. Please clarify how vertical accessibility is achieved for this floor in compliance with IBC 1104.4, or update the floor plan to incorporate the requ...

RFI draft: The SECOND FLOOR PLAN does not indicate an elevator or other accessible route connecting this story to the rest of the building. Please clarify how vertical accessibility is achieved for this floor in compliance with IBC 1104.4, or update the floo...

Summary: Detail 1/A-303 specifies the stair risers as "(11)R @ 8.5\"" and the treads as "(11)T @ 6 3/4\"". Detail 2/A-303 further confirms this geometry by specifying "TREAD, 1\" X 8\" DIMENSIONAL LUMBER" and "RISER, 1\" X 7 1/2\" DIMENSIONAL LUMBER". IBC Section 1011.5.2 dictates that stair riser heights shall be a maximum of 7 inches and rectangular tread depths shall be a minimum of 11 inches. Both t...

Why it matters: Constructing stairs with oversized risers and undersized treads creates a severe tripping and fall hazard, impeding safe emergency egress. This violation will result in failed framing inspections and necessitate a complete redesign of the stair layout. A code-compliant stair will require a longer...

Suggested next step: Please redesign the basement stairs to comply with IBC Section 1011.5.2, providing a maximum riser height of 7 inches and a minimum tread depth of 11 inches. Coordinate with architectural and structural disciplines to address the required increase in the overall stair footprin...

RFI draft: Please redesign the basement stairs to comply with IBC Section 1011.5.2, providing a maximum riser height of 7 inches and a minimum tread depth of 11 inches. Coordinate with architectural and structural disciplines to address the required increase...

Summary: Detail 4 calls for "WOOD FRAMING TO COVER CHIMNEY OPENING" and specifies "SHEET METAL ATTACHED TO WOOD FRAMING" for the chimney cap. This violates IBC 2113.9.1, which mandates that masonry chimneys must have a concrete, metal, or stone cap. Additionally, it violates IBC 2304.5, which requires all combustible framing to be kept at least 6 inches away from flue openings.

Why it matters: Placing combustible materials directly over a chimney opening creates a severe fire hazard by exposing wood directly to hot flue gases. This poses a significant life-safety risk and will result in a failed inspection.

Suggested next step: Please revise the chimney cap detail to specify a noncombustible cap (concrete, metal, or stone) per IBC 2113.9.1, and verify that all combustible framing maintains a minimum 6-inch clearance from the flue opening as required by IBC 2304.5.

RFI draft: Please revise the chimney cap detail to specify a noncombustible cap (concrete, metal, or stone) per IBC 2113.9.1, and verify that all combustible framing maintains a minimum 6-inch clearance from the flue opening as required by IBC 2304.5.

Summary: The 'Chimney Retrofit Connection' (Detail 1) shows a chimney anchored to the roof structure using a pipe brace fastened to '2x8 BLOCKING' at the 'EXISTING WOOD RAFTERS' with '4 - 1/2" LAG SCREWS'. IBC Section 2113.4 strictly requires masonry chimney seismic anchorage to be fastened to 'not less than four floor joists with two 1/2-inch (12.7 mm) bolts.' The provided connection fails to distribut...

Why it matters: Masonry chimneys impose significant concentrated seismic loads. Fastening the anchorage to a localized block between one or two rafters, rather than distributing the force across four joists as required, creates a severe risk of localized roof framing failure. Furthermore, lag screws offer signif...

Suggested next step: Please revise the chimney retrofit anchorage detail to ensure the seismic load is distributed across a minimum of four roof framing members and specify through-bolts instead of lag screws, in accordance with IBC Section 2113.4.

RFI draft: Please revise the chimney retrofit anchorage detail to ensure the seismic load is distributed across a minimum of four roof framing members and specify through-bolts instead of lag screws, in accordance with IBC Section 2113.4.

Summary: The specification incorrectly states that for high-strength concrete (f'c > 5000 psi), a test is acceptable if "no compressive strength test value is less than 10 percent of specified compressive strength". This typo technically allows severely deficient concrete (e.g., accepting 601 psi for a 6000 psi mix) to pass, which directly violates IBC Section 1903.1 requiring concrete testing to comply...

Why it matters: If literal compliance with this specification wording is followed by the testing agency, catastrophically weak concrete could be approved and left in place. This poses a severe structural failure risk and would result in massive rework, delays, and liability once the discrepancy is realized.

Suggested next step: Revise specification item 10 to correctly state that no individual compressive strength test value shall fall below the specified compressive strength by more than 10 percent, conforming to ACI 318 concrete acceptance criteria.

RFI draft: Revise specification item 10 to correctly state that no individual compressive strength test value shall fall below the specified compressive strength by more than 10 percent, conforming to ACI 318 concrete acceptance criteria.

Summary: The specifications for '2.5 FLOOR SHEATHING' call for plywood with a span rating of 'Not less than 24/0'. Under the DOC PS 1 and DOC PS 2 standards (which IBC Section 2303.1.5 mandates for subflooring), a span rating of 24/0 indicates a maximum roof span of 24 inches and a maximum floor joist span of 0 inches. A panel with a 24/0 span rating is strictly rated for roof applications and is prohib...

Why it matters: Using a roof-only rated panel (with a 0-inch allowable floor span) for floor sheathing will lead to catastrophic structural failure under floor live loads. This is likely a copy-paste error from the roof sheathing section and will cause permitting rejection and critical safety hazards if construc...

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct span rating and thickness for the 2.5 Floor Sheathing. Recommend revising to a span rating rated for floor subflooring applications (e.g., 24/16, 32/16, or a specialized Floor/OC rating) with a structurally appropriate nominal thickness to comply with DOC P...

RFI draft: Clarify the correct span rating and thickness for the 2.5 Floor Sheathing. Recommend revising to a span rating rated for floor subflooring applications (e.g., 24/16, 32/16, or a specialized Floor/OC rating) with a structurally appropriate nominal ...

Summary: Details 2 and 3/A-102 specify securing 1x6 decking to 1 1/4" x 3 1/2" sleepers over an existing concrete slab using a 10d galvanized nail. Per IBC 2304.2, structural requirements must be based on net (actual) dimensions. The net thickness of 1x6 decking is 0.75 inches, and the sleeper is specified at 1.25 inches thick, providing a total wood depth of 2.0 inches. IBC 2303.6 requires nails to con...

Why it matters: Attempting to use the specified 3.0-inch nail in a 2.0-inch wood depth resting on concrete will cause the nails to bend, spall the concrete, or push the decking upwards. This physically defective detail will result in improperly secured floor boards (creating tripping hazards) and construction de...

Suggested next step: Details 2/A-102 and 3/A-102 call for a 10d nail (3" length) to attach 1x6 decking (0.75" net) to 1 1/4" sleepers (1.25" net) directly over the concrete slab, which leaves 1" of nail protrusion striking the concrete. Please revise the detail to specify an appropriately sized fa...

RFI draft: Details 2/A-102 and 3/A-102 call for a 10d nail (3" length) to attach 1x6 decking (0.75" net) to 1 1/4" sleepers (1.25" net) directly over the concrete slab, which leaves 1" of nail protrusion striking the concrete. Please revise the detail to spe...

Summary: Keynote 103 directs the contractor to "REBUILD CHIMNEY WITH SALVAGED BRICKS". Because the chimney is being rebuilt, it must comply with current code requirements for new construction. However, the elevation drawing explicitly sets the target height for this rebuild as "CHIMNEY HEIGHT ELEV. = EXISTING HEIGHT TO REMAIN". The elevation graphic and accompanying level markers clearly demonstrate tha...

Why it matters: IBC Section 2113.9 requires masonry chimneys to extend at least 3 feet above the highest point where they pass through the roof and at least 2 feet higher than any portion of the building within 10 feet. Specifying that the rebuilt chimney must match an existing, non-compliant height will lead to...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the design should be updated to increase the rebuilt chimney height to comply with IBC 2113.9 termination requirements (minimum 3 feet above the roof penetration and 2 feet higher than the adjacent roof arch/dormer), superseding the "EXISTING HEIGHT TO REMAIN...

RFI draft: Please confirm if the design should be updated to increase the rebuilt chimney height to comply with IBC 2113.9 termination requirements (minimum 3 feet above the roof penetration and 2 feet higher than the adjacent roof arch/dormer), superseding ...

Summary: IBC 2304.2 requires that computations to determine the required sizes of structural members be based on net dimensions (actual sizes) and not nominal sizes. The stair details call for a tread run of 7 inches ("(14)T @ 7" = 8' - 2"") plus a "1" NOSING", requiring an 8-inch total physical depth for the tread material. However, the drawing specifies the tread as "1" X 8" DIMENSIONAL LUMBER". Stand...

Why it matters: Using 1x8 dimensional lumber will result in unsafe stairs that physically cannot meet the drawn geometry. The 7 1/4-inch boards will either leave a 3/4-inch gap at the risers or fail to provide the specified 1-inch nosing overhang. This will cause the stair framing to fail inspection, resulting i...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required actual net dimension for the stair tread material. Revise Section 2/A-302 to specify lumber with a sufficient net width (e.g., ripping 1x10 dimensional lumber to a full 8-inch depth) to properly accommodate the 7-inch run and 1-inch nosing, in compl...

RFI draft: Please confirm the required actual net dimension for the stair tread material. Revise Section 2/A-302 to specify lumber with a sufficient net width (e.g., ripping 1x10 dimensional lumber to a full 8-inch depth) to properly accommodate the 7-inch r...

Summary: The Section @ Front Stair (Detail 3/A-304) designates the stair's top rail as Keynote 420. Keynote 420 specifies 'INSTALL TOP OF RAIL @ 42" ABOVE DECK', and the detail shows this rail running parallel to the stair flight. However, Section 1014.2 requires handrail heights to be between 34 inches and 38 inches above stair tread nosings. No secondary handrail within the 34"-38" range is shown or n...

Why it matters: Providing a handrail at the proper height is essential for egress safety and accessibility. A stairway lacking a compliant handrail will fail building inspections and require field modifications to install a handrail at the correct height.

Suggested next step: Please clarify if a separate handrail will be provided at the required 34"-38" height above the stair tread nosings, or revise the stair detail to include a compliant handrail.

RFI draft: Please clarify if a separate handrail will be provided at the required 34"-38" height above the stair tread nosings, or revise the stair detail to include a compliant handrail.

Summary: Detail 6 indicates a "HANDRAIL COPED AROUND COLUMN", showing the handrail terminating into the side of the column. This violates IBC 1014.4, which strictly requires handrail gripping surfaces to be continuous and without interruption by posts or obstructions.

Why it matters: An interrupted handrail forces users to release their grip when navigating past the column, which compromises safety during egress and violates fundamental accessibility and means of egress code standards.

Suggested next step: Please redesign the handrail attachment so that the gripping surface bypasses the column continuously, or provide appropriate offset brackets to ensure the handrail is not interrupted by the column, in compliance with IBC 1014.4.

RFI draft: Please redesign the handrail attachment so that the gripping surface bypasses the column continuously, or provide appropriate offset brackets to ensure the handrail is not interrupted by the column, in compliance with IBC 1014.4.

Summary: The drawings direct the installation of a new brick masonry hearth directly into the void where the existing wood flooring is removed (Keynote 565 and 566). This indicates that the solid brick masonry will bear directly on the underlying wood floor framing or subfloor. IBC Section 2104.1.1 explicitly prohibits masonry from being supported on wood girders or other forms of wood construction.

Why it matters: Masonry generates a substantial, concentrated dead load. Supporting this load on standard wood floor construction without a designated structural mechanism can lead to excessive downward deflection, cracking of the masonry mortar joints, and potential failure of the floor framing. This code viola...

Suggested next step: Please provide a structural section detail demonstrating how the new brick masonry hearth infill (Keynotes 565 and 566) will be supported. Clarify if the existing wood floor framing will be structurally modified, or if an approved non-combustible support system will be install...

RFI draft: Please provide a structural section detail demonstrating how the new brick masonry hearth infill (Keynotes 565 and 566) will be supported. Clarify if the existing wood floor framing will be structurally modified, or if an approved non-combustible ...

Summary: Details 1 and 2 show a "NEW WOOD SILL" bearing directly on an "EXISTING STONE FOUNDATION" (masonry in direct contact with the earth). The drawing fails to specify that the new wood sill must be naturally durable or preservative-treated.

Why it matters: The IBC requires wood supported by a concrete or masonry footing in direct contact with the earth to be naturally durable or preservative-treated. Installing an untreated wood sill in this location will lead to rapid moisture damage, rot, and eventual structural failure at the bearing point.

Suggested next step: Please clarify that the "NEW WOOD SILL" called out in the replacement details must be naturally durable or preservative-treated wood, and update the drawings accordingly.

RFI draft: Please clarify that the "NEW WOOD SILL" called out in the replacement details must be naturally durable or preservative-treated wood, and update the drawings accordingly.