Wyoming Plan Review: 20 Issues Found

Summary: 33 index entries | 28 perfect matches | 5 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (5): NL-1: Expected: NOTES & LEGENDS | Actual: NOTES & LEGENDS (p2) C-3: Expected: SITE GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN | Actual: GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (p6) C-4: Expected: SITE GRADING & DRAINAGE DETAIL | Actual: GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (p7) C-5: Expected: FOUNDATION LAYOUT PLAN | Actual: ...

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: 0 missing, 5 mismatched out of 33 sheets

Summary: Sheet C-2 (Site Layout Plan) includes the port-a-let enclosure as part of the base scope, with Keynote 3 explicitly stating the foundation is included in the base bid, and the plan callout reading "NEW PORT-A-LET ENCLOSURE; SEE SHEET DT-3" with no alternate designation. However, Sheet L2.1 (Planting Plan) labels the same enclosure as "BID ALTERNATE #1: PORT-A-LET ENCLOSURE, SEE CIVIL." These de...

Why it matters: This conflict will cause bidding confusion. Contractors pricing the base bid from the civil drawings will include the port-a-let enclosure and its foundation, while those referencing the landscape drawings may exclude it from the base bid and price it separately as Bid Alternate #1. This discrepa...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the port-a-let enclosure and its foundation are included in the base bid (as indicated on Sheet C-2 Keynote 3) or are part of Bid Alternate #1 (as indicated on Sheet L2.1). Please revise the affected sheets to reflect a consistent bid designation.

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the port-a-let enclosure and its foundation are included in the base bid (as indicated on Sheet C-2 Keynote 3) or are part of Bid Alternate #1 (as indicated on Sheet L2.1). Please revise the affected sheets to reflect a cons...

Summary: Detail 3 (OUTDOOR STAIRS WITH HANDRAILS) Note 7 states the stairway width is 8'-0" with 7'-0" (84") clear space between the two side railings. Per IBC Section 1014.10, all portions of the stairway minimum width or required capacity must be within 30 inches of a handrail. With 84" clear between handrails, the center of the stairway is 42" from the nearest handrail, which exceeds the 30" maximum....

Why it matters: This omission would be flagged during plan review and would require redesign of the stairway to include at least one intermediate handrail running the length of the stair. This impacts the structural design (foundations/anchorage for intermediate handrail posts within the stair slab), material pr...

Suggested next step: Request the design team add intermediate handrail(s) within the 8'-0" wide stairway so that all portions of the stairway width are within 30 inches of a handrail per IBC Section 1014.10. Coordinate updated post sleeve locations, concrete reinforcement, and handrail layout on t...

RFI draft: Request the design team add intermediate handrail(s) within the 8'-0" wide stairway so that all portions of the stairway width are within 30 inches of a handrail per IBC Section 1014.10. Coordinate updated post sleeve locations, concrete reinforce...

Summary: The site layout plan shows Keynote 1 (6" STAND-UP CURB) at the boundaries of the playground equipment zones filled with engineering fiber fill. The curbing is depicted as continuous curved boundaries with radius callouts (R25', R30', R20', etc.) around these recreational activity areas. No curb cuts, ramps, flush transitions, or accessible entry points through the curbing into the play areas ar...

Why it matters: This is a public park playground where the Site Layout Notes explicitly acknowledge ADA requirements for access routes. If the 6" stand-up curbing is constructed as shown on C-2 (continuous around play zones without accessible entries), the playground equipment areas and zipline area will not be ...

Suggested next step: Request the designer identify and dimension the locations of accessible entry points through the 6" stand-up curbing into each playground equipment zone and the zipline area. Confirm these accessible transitions are detailed and shown on either the site layout plan (C-2), the ...

RFI draft: Request the designer identify and dimension the locations of accessible entry points through the 6" stand-up curbing into each playground equipment zone and the zipline area. Confirm these accessible transitions are detailed and shown on either th...

Summary: Playground Installation Note 5 explicitly states that all play areas shall meet the requirements of "ADAAG 15.6" for accessibility. However, IBC Section 1102.1 requires that buildings and facilities be designed and constructed to be accessible in accordance with "this code and ICC A117.1." The drawing specifies the wrong accessibility standard. ADAAG is a federal guideline with potentially diff...

Why it matters: During plan review, the building official enforcing the 2024 IBC will require demonstration of compliance with ICC A117.1, not ADAAG 15.6. If the contractor designs and certifies the playground only to ADAAG 15.6, the play area may not satisfy ICC A117.1 technical requirements for accessible play...

Suggested next step: Please revise Playground Installation Note 5 to require compliance with ICC A117.1 as mandated by IBC Section 1102.1, in addition to any applicable federal ADA requirements. Confirm that playground equipment submittals will demonstrate compliance with ICC A117.1 play area prov...

RFI draft: Please revise Playground Installation Note 5 to require compliance with ICC A117.1 as mandated by IBC Section 1102.1, in addition to any applicable federal ADA requirements. Confirm that playground equipment submittals will demonstrate compliance ...

Summary: The playground plan shows an existing zip line play area at the far east of the site where the contractor is to provide new engineered wood fiber surfacing. This constitutes a play area containing play components designed and constructed for children. While the curvilinear paved walkway connects the two main play zones (circular tot area and figure-8 play zone) and both are provided with ADA tr...

Why it matters: Section 1111.4.13 requires play areas containing play components designed and constructed for children to be located on an accessible route, and Section 1104.2 requires at least one accessible route connecting accessible facilities and spaces on the same site. The project includes an LWCF Funding...

Suggested next step: Request the designer clarify how accessible route connectivity to the existing zip line play area is achieved. If no accessible route currently exists or is planned, request a revised playground plan showing an accessible path connection from the main walkway system to the zip...

RFI draft: Request the designer clarify how accessible route connectivity to the existing zip line play area is achieved. If no accessible route currently exists or is planned, request a revised playground plan showing an accessible path connection from the ...

Summary: On Sheet L2.1 (Planting Plan), the note for site furnishings indicates "(3) TABLE &\nCHAIRS, ONE ADA" and is tagged with detail reference "1\nL2.3". However, on Sheet L2.3 (Planting Details), the shown detail is titled "02900-03 SHRUB PLANTING", which is a planting installation detail and does not correspond to a table & chairs/ADA furnishing detail. This creates a cross-reference mismatch for ...

Why it matters: If the referenced detail does not match the intended furnishing/ADA table requirements, installers may not have the correct anchorage/clearance/surface mounting requirements, which can lead to incorrect installation, rework, or ADA compliance issues in the constructed outdoor area.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct sheet/detail reference for "(3) TABLE & CHAIRS, ONE ADA". If the table/chair detail is on a different sheet, revise the callout on L2.1; if it is intended to be on L2.3, add the appropriate table & chair/ADA detail(s) to L2.3 and clearly label the reference...

RFI draft: Confirm the correct sheet/detail reference for "(3) TABLE & CHAIRS, ONE ADA". If the table/chair detail is on a different sheet, revise the callout on L2.1; if it is intended to be on L2.3, add the appropriate table & chair/ADA detail(s) to L2.3 a...

Summary: On sheet L2.1, the note “NEW TURF GRASS (HYDROSEED)” appears adjacent to the reference “1 / L2.4”, and the callout leader points into the same turf area. However, sheet L2.4 is titled “PLANTING DETAILS” and the detail content shown on L2.4 for Detail 1 is “02900-04 TREE PROTECTION” with tree protection notes (not turf/hydroseed installation). This indicates the L2.1 cross-reference to L2.4 may ...

Why it matters: If the callout is followed as drawn, the contractor may look to L2.4 expecting a turf/hydroseed detail and instead find a tree protection standard, which can result in missing/incorrect turf installation requirements and bidding/install coordination errors.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct detail/sheet reference intended for the “NEW TURF GRASS (HYDROSEED)” note on L2.1. Should the callout “1 / L2.4” be revised to a different sheet/detail, or should L2.4 include a turf/hydroseed detail instead of (or in addition to) the current tree pr...

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct detail/sheet reference intended for the “NEW TURF GRASS (HYDROSEED)” note on L2.1. Should the callout “1 / L2.4” be revised to a different sheet/detail, or should L2.4 include a turf/hydroseed detail instead of (or in ad...

Summary: The Site Utility Plan (C-6) specifies the new 1" water service line to be buried at a minimum depth of 5.5 feet. However, the POC Assembly detail on DT-1 shows the incoming (left-side) service line vertical drop dimensioned at 6 feet minimum depth. Both dimensions govern the same incoming water service line connecting to the backflow prevention assembly, creating a direct contradiction of 6 inc...

Why it matters: This discrepancy affects the boring subcontractor's scope and the plumbing contractor's rough-in at the POC assembly. If the service line is bored at only 5.5' deep per C-6, it will not meet the 6' minimum depth shown in the DT-1 detail, potentially requiring a steeper transition or deeper bore. ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required minimum burial depth for the new 1" water service line. C-6 calls for 5.5' minimum depth while the POC assembly detail on DT-1 shows 6' minimum depth on the incoming service side. Which dimension governs, and should both sheets be revised to match?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required minimum burial depth for the new 1" water service line. C-6 calls for 5.5' minimum depth while the POC assembly detail on DT-1 shows 6' minimum depth on the incoming service side. Which dimension governs, and should bot...

Summary: The Irrigation Schedule on sheet L1.0 lists three equipment types complete with specifications and installation detail references (all referencing detail 2/L1.9): Hunter MP1000 turf rotator (symbol 1000), Hunter MP2000 turf rotator (symbol 2000), and Rain Bird RD-06-S-P30-F-1400 flood bubbler (symbol 360). However, the Irrigation Plan on sheet L1.1 shows only Rain Bird 5006-PC turf rotors with ...

Why it matters: This discrepancy directly impacts bidding accuracy and construction. Contractors cannot determine the quantities or locations of three scheduled head types. If these items are part of the project scope, their absence from the plan results in incomplete irrigation coverage and will require change ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the Hunter MP1000 (symbol 1000), Hunter MP2000 (symbol 2000), and Rain Bird RD-06-S-P30-F-1400 flood bubbler (symbol 360) listed in the Irrigation Schedule on L1.0 are required for this project. If so, please indicate their locations and quantities on th...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the Hunter MP1000 (symbol 1000), Hunter MP2000 (symbol 2000), and Rain Bird RD-06-S-P30-F-1400 flood bubbler (symbol 360) listed in the Irrigation Schedule on L1.0 are required for this project. If so, please indicate their ...

Summary: The Site Layout Plan (C-2) legend identifies all playground surfacing as "NEW ENGINEERING FIBER FILL" (diagonal hatch). The Playground Edger detail (Detail 2, DT-2) consistently specifies "12" ENGINEERING FIBER FILL" as the playground surfacing contained by the edger. However, the Playground Ramp detail (Detail 1, DT-2) on the same sheet specifies "COMPACTED RUBBER MULCH" as the surfacing mater...

Why it matters: Engineering fiber fill and compacted rubber mulch are fundamentally different materials with different fall-height attenuation ratings (ASTM F1292), installation methods, maintenance requirements, and costs. This discrepancy will affect material procurement, playground safety compliance, and cons...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the playground surfacing material adjacent to the playground ramp. C-2 and DT-2 Detail 2 (Playground Edger) specify "Engineering Fiber Fill," while DT-2 Detail 1 (Playground Ramp) shows "Compacted Rubber Mulch." Please confirm the correct material and revise the...

RFI draft: Please clarify the playground surfacing material adjacent to the playground ramp. C-2 and DT-2 Detail 2 (Playground Edger) specify "Engineering Fiber Fill," while DT-2 Detail 1 (Playground Ramp) shows "Compacted Rubber Mulch." Please confirm the c...

Summary: One sheet title identifies the drawing as a grading/drainage plan, while another sheet title identifies it as a foundation layout plan. This is a direct inconsistency in what the sheet is intended to represent and can cause the wrong sheet to be used for grading/drainage vs. foundation coordination.

Why it matters: If the sheet is mis-titled (or if the wrong sheet is included in the grading/drainage series), construction staking and drainage improvements could be coordinated to the wrong basis, leading to layout errors and rework.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the sheet titled “FOUNDATION LAYOUT PLAN” is intended to be part of the grading & drainage plan set, and if not, clarify the correct sheet title/series and where the grading & drainage information for that area is shown.

RFI draft: Confirm whether the sheet titled “FOUNDATION LAYOUT PLAN” is intended to be part of the grading & drainage plan set, and if not, clarify the correct sheet title/series and where the grading & drainage information for that area is shown.

Summary: The Site Layout Plan includes a callout to the retaining wall detail on DT-4, but the retaining wall detail itself contains conflicting height information. DT-4 states the retaining wall is "NOT TO EXCEED 30”", yet the same detail shows a vertical dimension of "3’-6”".

Why it matters: If the wall is built taller than 30", it may trigger different structural design requirements, permitting thresholds, and/or safety provisions (e.g., fall protection/guarding depending on adjacent grades). The contractor also will not know whether to construct per the 30" limitation or per the 3'...

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended maximum retaining wall height at the locations referenced by 1/DT-4. Clarify whether the "3’-6”" dimension is a generic/diagrammatic dimension that should be revised, or revise/remove the "NOT TO EXCEED 30”" note if taller walls are intended. Update DT-4 a...

RFI draft: Confirm the intended maximum retaining wall height at the locations referenced by 1/DT-4. Clarify whether the "3’-6”" dimension is a generic/diagrammatic dimension that should be revised, or revise/remove the "NOT TO EXCEED 30”" note if taller wal...

Summary: In the “OUTDOOR STAIRS WITH HANDRAILS” detail (DT-4), Note 1 allows a horizontal handrail extension of one tread depth with an “11\" MIN.” beyond the last riser nosing. However, IBC 1014.7 requires the handrail to extend horizontally not less than 12 inches beyond the top landing nosing (where handrails are not continuous between flights). The same detail graphic also shows a “1'-0\" MIN.” exte...

Why it matters: Conflicting requirements between the note and the dimensioned detail can lead to fabrication/installation using the smaller 11-inch extension, triggering plan review comments and/or field rework to meet the 12-inch minimum required by IBC 1014.7.

Suggested next step: Revise Note 1 (and any related notes/details) to align with IBC 1014.7 by requiring a minimum 12-inch horizontal extension beyond the top landing nosing (where applicable), and coordinate note language with the “1'-0\" MIN.” dimension shown. Also confirm the bottom extension c...

RFI draft: Revise Note 1 (and any related notes/details) to align with IBC 1014.7 by requiring a minimum 12-inch horizontal extension beyond the top landing nosing (where applicable), and coordinate note language with the “1'-0\" MIN.” dimension shown. Also ...

Summary: Sheet C-2 Keynote 1 identifies the playground boundary element as a "6" STAND-UP CURB" and directs the reader to Detail 2, Sheet DT-2. However, Detail 2 on Sheet DT-2 is titled "PLAYGROUND EDGER" and describes the element as a "CAST IN-PLACE CONCRETE EDGER AT PLAY PIT; SMOOTH FINISH." The plan uses the term "stand-up curb" while the referenced detail uses the term "playground edger," which are ...

Why it matters: This naming discrepancy could cause confusion during bidding and construction. Contractors estimating curb work may price a standard stand-up curb rather than the cast-in-place concrete edger with smooth finish, specific reinforcing (#4 rebar at 24" on center vertical, #4 continuous top and botto...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the terminology for the element referenced by Keynote 1 on sheet C-2. The keynote calls it a "6" STAND-UP CURB" but the referenced Detail 2 on sheet DT-2 is titled "PLAYGROUND EDGER" and describes a "CAST IN-PLACE CONCRETE EDGER AT PLAY PIT." Please confirm thes...

RFI draft: Please clarify the terminology for the element referenced by Keynote 1 on sheet C-2. The keynote calls it a "6" STAND-UP CURB" but the referenced Detail 2 on sheet DT-2 is titled "PLAYGROUND EDGER" and describes a "CAST IN-PLACE CONCRETE EDGER AT ...