High-Rise Residential Tower: 420 Issues Including Critical Document Coordination, Structural & Code Violations
A comprehensive plan review of a high-rise residential tower uncovered 420 issues—including 61 critical violations affecting document coordination (conflicting engineer seals/licenses), structural design (foundation type conflicts, reinforcing errors), mechanical systems (system type contradictions), accessibility, and extensive code compliance errors—before permit submission.
The Project
A high-rise residential tower requiring comprehensive code compliance across multiple disciplines including structural design, fire protection, mechanical systems, plumbing, electrical, accessibility, and extensive document coordination. The project required strict adherence to 2023 Florida Building Code, 2018 IMC, 2018 IPC, ACI 318, and ICC A117.1 standards, with particular focus on Type I-A construction requirements, structural integrity, document coordination, and professional seal/license consistency across numerous drawing sheets.
Code References:
Critical Findings (43)
Title Block Seal/Registered Architect Conflicts Between Sheets
Sheet A-2.00 identifies a different registered architect and license number than sheet A-3.00. A-2.00 shows the seal as one architect with one license number, while A-3.00 shows a different architect with a different license number. These are mutually exclusive for architect-of-record identification on a permit set.
Floor Level Elevation Conflict: Levels 3 and 4 Differ by 6'-0" Between Building Sections
Building Section A shows LEVEL 3 at EL. +37'-8" and LEVEL 4 at EL. +47'-4", while Building Section 1 and Wall Sections show LEVEL 3 at EL. +31'-8" and LEVEL 4 at EL. +41'-4". This represents a 6'-0" discrepancy in floor elevations for these levels.
PC-SW1 Pile Cap Depth Unit Error: Shows 72' (feet) vs 72" (inches)
The PC-SW1 pile cap detail specifies 'DEPTH = 72'' (72 feet), while all other pile cap details consistently specify depths in inches. PC-SW2 through PC-SW5 show 'DEPTH = 72"' (72 inches), and pile caps on other sheets range from 36" to 66" deep. This indicates a drafting error where the foot symbol (') was used instead of the inch symbol (") for PC-SW1.
Air Separator Sizing Conflict - 8" Connections vs 3" System Piping
The Chilled Water Piping Diagram shows 3" CHWS and 3" CHWR main headers for the chilled water system. However, the Air Separator Schedule specifies AS-1 with 8" connection size rated for 1300 GPM flow. The Water Pump Schedule shows the system design flow is only 132 GPM. The air separator specified is approximately 10 times oversized for the actual system flow and cannot directly connect to 3" piping without major reducers.
Rebar Quantity Conflict in Floor Note 11 Between Framing and Reinforcing Plans
Sheet S111A (Framing Plan) Floor Note 11 specifies 'ADD 4#5 E.W BOTTOM AT EACH COLUMN WITHOUT DROP PANEL' indicating 4 bars of #5 rebar each way. However, Sheet S111B (Reinforcing Plan) Floor Note 11 states 'ADD #5 E.W BOTTOM AT EACH COLUMN WITHOUT DROP PANEL' without specifying the quantity of bars. The reinforcing plan, which is the primary reference for rebar installation, is missing the '4' quantity prefix.
T.O. Bulkhead Elevation Discrepancy: 6'-0" Difference Between North and South Elevations
The top of bulkhead elevation shows a 6 foot discrepancy between the North and South Elevations. North Elevation shows T.O. BULKHEAD at EL. +239'-8", while South Elevation shows T.O. BULKHEAD at EL. +233'-8". The Building Cross-Section shows +239'-8", matching the North Elevation.
Conflicting PE License Numbers for Same Engineer Across Structural Sheets
The same engineer name appears with different PE license numbers on different sheets. On S100 the sheet states one PE number, on S200 it states a different PE number, and on S201 it states yet another PE number. This is a direct conflict for document signing/sealing.
Intermediate Parking Level Plan Indicates Major Spaces Are "BELOW" but RCP Shows Them as Occupied Spaces
Sheet A-2.01 (Overall Plan – Intermediate Parking Level) labels the retail and residential areas as being below the Intermediate Parking Level, while sheet A-5.01 (Intermediate Parking Level RCP) shows a reflected ceiling plan over an occupied layout including retail area and residential/unit/corridor program on the same level. These two sheets cannot both represent the same Intermediate Parking Level.
Foundation Type Contradiction - Specification States Shallow Foundations but Drawing Shows Pile Foundations
The specification explicitly states that the building foundation is supported on shallow foundations over natural or improved soils with an allowable bearing capacity of 7,000 PSF after vibro-flotation compaction (VFC). However, the drawing shows pile cap details (PC-SW1 through PC-SW5) with 24-inch diameter piles at 72-inch depth, indicating a deep pile foundation system. Shallow foundations and pile foundations are fundamentally different structural systems requiring completely different design approaches, site preparation, and construction methods.
Balcony Negative Reinforcing Cover Requirement Contradicts Specification
The drawing specifies a minimum clearance of 1" for balcony negative reinforcing in the Balcony Moisture Protection notes, while the specification requires a minimum clearance of 1-1/2" for balcony negative (top) reinforcing on post-tensioned concrete slabs per Florida Building Code requirements.
Inconsistent Professional Engineer License Number Between Drawing and Specification Sheets
Drawing sheet S111A displays the structural engineer with one PE license number from one company at one address. However, the General Notes sheet S000 shows the same engineer name but with a different PE license number and different company at a different address. The PE license numbers are clearly different for the same named individual.
Plan Title Shows '22ND LEVEL' but Sheet Should Be '23RD LEVEL FRAMING PLAN' Per Specification Index
The plan view displays the title '22ND LEVEL FRAMING PLAN' but the title block identifies this sheet as S114A '23RD LEVEL FRAMING PLAN'. The specification index confirms that sheet S114A should contain the 23RD LEVEL FRAMING PLAN. This is a direct contradiction between the plan content and the sheet identification.
Footing Concrete Strength: Drawing Specifies 6 KSI but Specification Requires 7000 PSI
Floor Note 15 on the Ground Level Framing Plan specifies 6KSI concrete with maximum W/C 0.4 for all footings. However, the specification explicitly requires spread footings, mats, straps, and grade beams to have 7000 PSI concrete strength at 28 days. The drawing specifies concrete that is 1000 PSI weaker than the specification requirement.
Accessible Path Headroom Dimension (42") Contradicts Minimum Height Requirements
The drawing note states the HC accessible path 'PATH MUST BE 42" MIN CLEAR HEADROOM' which equals only 3'-6". This directly contradicts the specification requirements: Note 44 requires 7'-6" minimum ceiling height to be maintained, and the parking garage requirements specify 7'-0" minimum clear height (8'-2" for van access areas). The accessible path with crosshatching is located in the parking/garage area of the 2nd Level.
Reinforced Shear Wall Fire Rating Shown as 2-Hour Contradicts Required 3-Hour Rating for Type I-A Construction
The drawing's Wall & Symbol Legend indicates 'REINF. SHEAR WALL (2 HOUR RATED)' for reinforced shear walls. However, the specification establishes this project as Type I-A construction and explicitly states that the primary structural frame and bearing walls (both interior and exterior) require and provide 3-hour fire resistance ratings. Reinforced shear walls are structural bearing elements that form part of the primary structural frame, meaning they must comply with the 3-hour requirement per FBC 2023 Table 601 for Type I-A construction.
Sample High Priority Findings (5 Total)
Section Callouts Reference Sections Not Found on Sheet
Sheet A-2.30 includes section callouts indicating Sections 2 and 4 should be found on sheet A-4.00. However, sheet A-4.00 only contains 'BUILDING SECTION 1'. Sections 2 and 4 are not present on the referenced sheet.
Keynote Conflict: Trench Drain vs Floor Drain at Parking
Sheet A-2.01 keynote 24 specifies 'TRENCH DRAIN AT PARKING (ADA COMPLIANT)' while sheet A-4.00 keynote 24 specifies 'FLOOR DRAIN AT PARKING (ADA COMPLIANT)'. These are fundamentally different drain types with distinct product specifications and installation requirements.
Keynote #9 Low Wall Material Specification Conflict
Sheet A-2.01 General Keynote Legend specifies keynote 9 as 'REINFORCED CMU/CONCRETE 42" HIGH A.F.F. LOW WALL' while Sheet A-4.07 General Keynote Legend specifies the same keynote 9 as 'REINFORCED CONCRETE 42" HIGH A.F.F. LOW WALL'. This is a direct material specification contradiction for the 42" high low wall at parking garage locations.
Top of Architectural Feature Elevation Conflict - 2'-0" Discrepancy
Sheet A-3.00 (North Elevation) shows the top of architectural feature at EL. +246'-10" while Sheet A-4.00 (Building Section 1) shows the same feature at EL +244'-10". This is a 2'-0" vertical discrepancy for the same building element at the top of the structure.
Conflicting Jamb Reinforcement Requirements for Masonry Openings
Sheet S116 Note 3 directs the contractor to standard details for additional reinforcement around openings. However, sheet S003 contains two conflicting typical details for this condition. Detail 04 specifies "2#6 EA.SIDE" for all openings "UP TO 4'-0"". In contrast, Detail 15 specifies "1#6" for a "WINDOW/DOOR" opening with a dimension of "1'-0"" for clear heights up to 9'-0".
Value Delivered
"Finding 420 issues before permit submission prevented months of delays and costly rework. The conflicting engineer seals and license numbers alone would have invalidated the permit set. The foundation type contradiction (shallow vs. pile) would have required complete redesign, and the extensive document coordination errors would have caused major field problems during construction."
— Project Team