Plan Review: 1286 Issues Found

Summary: 186 index entries | 1 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 184 missing Mismatched (1): C001: Expected: COVERSHEET (C001) | Actual: COVER SHEET (A000)(p1) Missing (184) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Mechanical: - M101 MECHANICAL PLAN - SECOND FLOOR - M102 MECHANICAL ROOF PLAN - M110 RO & HUMIDIFICATION - FIRST FLOOR - M111 RO & HUMIDIFICATI...

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: 184 missing, 1 mismatched out of 186 sheets

Summary: 26 index entries | 1 perfect matches | 0 mismatched | 25 missing Missing (25) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Civil: - C002 OVERALL SITE PLAN - C003 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN - C005 WETLAND PLAN FOR PERMIT - C010 LOT SUBDIVISION PLAN - C100 ENLARGED SITE PLAN - C101 UTILITY PLAN - C102 GRADING PLAN - C103 DRAINAGE P...

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: 25 missing, 0 mismatched out of 26 sheets

Summary: The Enlarged Floor Plan (1/A507) details the elevator door assembly on the bottom wall of the shaft. Section cut marker 3/A507 points right (indicating an East-facing view). However, Section 2 (3/A507) shows the elevator doors in elevation facing the viewer on the far East wall. Additionally, Section 2 shows the South wall (on the right side) as a solid, partially grouted CMU wall separating th...

Why it matters: If the CMU shaft is built according to Section 2, the elevator door openings will be placed on the wrong wall (East instead of South). This will prevent access from the intended corridors/lobbies and require costly demolition and rework of the 1-hour rated shaft.

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct wall location for the elevator doors. Update the Enlarged Floor Plan or Section 2 so that the door locations match.

RFI draft: Clarify the correct wall location for the elevator doors. Update the Enlarged Floor Plan or Section 2 so that the door locations match.

Summary: The drawing notes block explicitly marks the drawing set as "PRELIMINARY".

Why it matters: Preliminary drawings denote an incomplete design that lacks final professional seals and approvals. The Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) will reject preliminary drawings for building permits, and they cannot be legally utilized by contractors for construction layout or execution.

Suggested next step: Issue the final, sealed drawing set formally marked as "Issued for Permit" or "Issued for Construction".

RFI draft: Issue the final, sealed drawing set formally marked as "Issued for Permit" or "Issued for Construction".

Summary: The Exterior Drop Manhole Detail (Detail 8) includes Table 1, which specifies the required diameter for the incoming gravity pipe (D1) and the downstream vertical drop pipe (D2). For incoming lines of 10", 12", 15", and 18", the table specifies drop pipes that are smaller than the incoming lines (8", 10", 12", and 12" respectively).

Why it matters: Reducing the diameter of a gravity sewer or storm drainage line in the direction of flow violates standard engineering practices and plumbing codes. The constriction will throttle the flow capacity, create a choke point, and lead to backwater surcharging and clogging at the manhole drop.

Suggested next step: Revise Table 1 in the Exterior Drop Manhole detail to specify that the drop pipe diameter (D2) must be equal to or greater than the incoming gravity line diameter (D1).

RFI draft: Revise Table 1 in the Exterior Drop Manhole detail to specify that the drop pipe diameter (D2) must be equal to or greater than the incoming gravity line diameter (D1).

Summary: The Site Utility Plan provides conflicting elevation data for the new sanitary sewer manhole connecting to the existing 10" VC line. The plan view callout lists the Rim as 480.00 and the New 6" PVC Invert (In) as 474.36. However, the Sanitary Sewer Profile for the same [SS(01)] Manhole lists the Rim as 480.20 and the Invert (In) as 476.35.

Why it matters: A nearly 2-foot discrepancy in the sanitary sewer invert elevation will cause a major routing conflict during construction. If installed at the incorrect elevation, the upstream sanitary line will not achieve the required slope, potentially causing drainage failure from the building and requiring...

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct rim and invert-in elevations for the new sanitary sewer manhole [SS(01)]. Update the plan and profile views to match.

RFI draft: Clarify the correct rim and invert-in elevations for the new sanitary sewer manhole [SS(01)]. Update the plan and profile views to match.

Summary: The Graphical Column Schedule specifies structurally impossible column framing for multiple grid locations (e.g., A-4, A-5). The schedule assigns a massive wide-flange column (W14x257) from the 2nd Floor up to the Roof, but assigns a much smaller, lighter square tube column (HSS6x6x1/4) directly below it, extending from the Finished Floor Elevation up to the 2nd Floor.

Why it matters: A 14-inch deep, 257 lb/ft wide-flange column cannot bear directly on top of a 6-inch square, light-gauge tube column. This severe structural inversion is unbuildable without massive, custom transfer structures that are not shown. It requires immediate redesign before structural fabrication can be...

Suggested next step: Review and correct the Graphical Column Schedule to ensure lower-level columns are adequately sized to support upper-level columns, particularly at grids A-3 through F-3, A-4, and A-5.

RFI draft: Review and correct the Graphical Column Schedule to ensure lower-level columns are adequately sized to support upper-level columns, particularly at grids A-3 through F-3, A-4, and A-5.

Summary: The overall horizontal dimension of 252'-11" correctly matches the sum of all individual grid bays (Grids 1 to 11). However, the sub-overall dimensions are attached to incorrect grid extension lines. The 83'-3" dimension is visually drawn to span Grids 4 to 7, but its value mathematically represents the sum of Grids 3 to 6. Similarly, the 125'-0" dimension is drawn to span Grids 7 to 11, but it...

Why it matters: If contractors or estimators use the sub-overall dimensions of 83'-3" for Grids 4-7 or 125'-0" for Grids 7-11 during layout without verifying the individual bays, the building's grid spacing will be critically incorrect. These conflicting dimension lines can lead to severe layout errors during tr...

Suggested next step: Please review and correct the extension lines for the sub-overall dimensions along the top of the plan. Verify that the 83'-3" dimension should span Grids 3 to 6, and the 125'-0" dimension should span Grids 6 to 11, so they accurately reflect the underlying individual grid bays.

RFI draft: Please review and correct the extension lines for the sub-overall dimensions along the top of the plan. Verify that the 83'-3" dimension should span Grids 3 to 6, and the 125'-0" dimension should span Grids 6 to 11, so they accurately reflect the ...

Summary: Sheet Note 4 quotes Zoning Ordinance 34-3, which dictates that "FINISHED GRADE... SHALL NOT BE GREATER THAN 18 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE ORIGINAL GRADE". However, the same note and the grading plan identify a building height reference point where the existing grade is 474.60' and the proposed finished grade is 480.05', resulting in 5.45 feet (65.4 inches) of fill.

Why it matters: The proposed design adds nearly 5.5 feet of fill at the measurement location, explicitly violating the 18-inch maximum fill restriction dictated by the zoning ordinance. This will cause the project to fail zoning review and block permitting unless a variance has been granted or the grading is red...

Suggested next step: Clarify how the proposed 5.45 feet of fill at the height calculation reference point complies with the 18-inch maximum fill limit defined in Zoning Ordinance 34-3. Revise the grading design to comply, or provide details of the approved zoning variance.

RFI draft: Clarify how the proposed 5.45 feet of fill at the height calculation reference point complies with the 18-inch maximum fill limit defined in Zoning Ordinance 34-3. Revise the grading design to comply, or provide details of the approved zoning vari...

Summary: The Enlarged Second Floor Plan designates the walls enclosing STAIR 2 NORTH (247) as wall type D6. However, according to the Type Legend sequentially mapping to the D-series, D6 is a non-fire-rated "INTERIOR METAL STUD WALL" with "NO INSULATION" and "5/8\" GYPSUM WALL BOARD (1 SIDE) 6\" ABOVE THE CEILING".

Why it matters: Building codes require interior exit stairways that connect multiple stories to be fully enclosed by fire-resistance-rated construction (typically 1- or 2-hour rated extending to the deck) to provide a safe, smokeproof egress path. Specifying an unrated partition with gypsum board on only one sid...

Suggested next step: Confirm the required fire-resistance rating for the STAIR 2 NORTH enclosure and update the wall type tags to a compliant fire-rated assembly (e.g., D7) extending fully to the deck.

RFI draft: Confirm the required fire-resistance rating for the STAIR 2 NORTH enclosure and update the wall type tags to a compliant fire-rated assembly (e.g., D7) extending fully to the deck.

Summary: The enlarged floor plans identify interior walls using alphanumeric tags (e.g., "D1", "D3"), and the graphical legend shows cross-sections labeled "D1\nD2\nD3" but lacks material descriptions. The textual "TYPE LEGEND" provides detailed specifications but lists them under repeated, generic titles (e.g., listing "INTERIOR METAL STUD WALL" multiple times with different specifications like "(S.T.C...

Why it matters: Because the text specifications list "INTERIOR METAL STUD WALL" eight separate times with different STC ratings, stud sizes, and finishes, there is no associative key to determine which specification applies to which wall tag (D1, D2, D3) on the plans. This makes it impossible for contractors to ...

Suggested next step: Update the textual "TYPE LEGEND" descriptions to explicitly map to the corresponding alphanumeric wall tags (D1, D2, D3, etc.) used on the plans and graphical legend.

RFI draft: Update the textual "TYPE LEGEND" descriptions to explicitly map to the corresponding alphanumeric wall tags (D1, D2, D3, etc.) used on the plans and graphical legend.

Summary: The details call for a "WT6X15 HANGER" to support an "HSS8X3X1/4" tube above the storefront. The connection notes explicitly require the contractor to "PROVIDE SLOTTED HOLES IN CLIP BETWEEN HSS & WT HANGER; FIELD BOLT TO TOP OF SLOT & INSTALL FINGER TIGHT".

Why it matters: Leaving a gravity-loaded tension hanger "finger tight" is a severe structural hazard. Without a tightening requirement or a locking mechanism (e.g., lock nut or tack weld), the nut can back off due to building vibration or wind loads on the storefront, causing the hanger to fail and drop the stee...

Suggested next step: Revise the HSS support connection. If it must carry gravity load as a hanger, specify a fully tightened (snug-tight or pretensioned) connection. If the connection is intended to allow vertical slip to isolate deflection, the HSS cannot be hung from the deflecting beam; redesig...

RFI draft: Revise the HSS support connection. If it must carry gravity load as a hanger, specify a fully tightened (snug-tight or pretensioned) connection. If the connection is intended to allow vertical slip to isolate deflection, the HSS cannot be hung fro...

Summary: Elevator hoistway sections (Details 4 and 5) require post-installing vertical CMU reinforcement into the 2nd floor slab with a "MIN. 6" EMBED." However, Detail 1 defines the typical elevated slab as only 6" thick overall (T.O. Slab at (+)17'-0", T.O. Steel at (+)16'-6") poured over a 2" deep composite steel decking. This leaves a maximum of only 4" of solid concrete above the deck flutes.

Why it matters: Achieving a minimum 6" drill depth in a 6" overall slab featuring a 2" cellular acoustical deck is geometrically impossible without drilling completely through the concrete and penetrating the hollow acoustical cells/decking below. This blowout will cause the anchoring epoxy to drain into the voi...

Suggested next step: Please advise if the 2nd floor slab should be locally thickened at the CMU hoistway walls, or provide an alternative anchoring detail (e.g., shallower embedment with appropriate anchors or utilizing a continuous concrete curb) that does not penetrate the metal deck.

RFI draft: Please advise if the 2nd floor slab should be locally thickened at the CMU hoistway walls, or provide an alternative anchoring detail (e.g., shallower embedment with appropriate anchors or utilizing a continuous concrete curb) that does not penetr...

Summary: Plan 3 "ENLARGED STRUCTURAL PLAN @ GLASS ELEVATOR" specifies an "18" THICK FOUNDATION" and establishes the top of the pit slab at "B.O. PIT (-)5'-0" BFF". This places the bottom of the concrete foundation at -6'-6" BFF. The same plan details a sump with an interior bottom elevation of "B.O. SUMP (-)6'-6" BFF".

Why it matters: If the inside bottom of the sump pit is exactly at -6'-6" BFF, it is completely flush with the bottom of the 18" thick foundation slab. This arrangement leaves zero concrete thickness to form the floor of the sump, making it impossible to construct a structurally sound and waterproof pit base.

Suggested next step: Provide a structural detail for the sump pit and clarify the correct bottom of sump elevation. Does the sump foundation drop below the main -6'-6" BFF foundation bottom to provide adequate concrete thickness?

RFI draft: Provide a structural detail for the sump pit and clarify the correct bottom of sump elevation. Does the sump foundation drop below the main -6'-6" BFF foundation bottom to provide adequate concrete thickness?

Summary: The structural bay between Grid 9 and Grid 10 is shown with inconsistent dimensions at the north and south sides of the plan. At the north wall, the Rheology Lab (Room 221) exactly occupies the bay between Grids 9 and 10 with an interior width of 29' - 0 7/8". At the south wall, the same bay between Grids 9 and 10 contains both Chemist 243 and Chemist 244. Their combined interior widths (12' - ...

Why it matters: Structural grids define the fundamental building geometry and must be parallel. A nearly 5-foot discrepancy between grid lines on opposite sides of the building indicates a severe drafting scale error or a misalignment of the grids. This will cause immediate layout failures, structural misalignme...

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct distance between Grid 9 and Grid 10. Update the floor plan dimensions and grid layouts to reflect parallel structural grids and accurate room widths.

RFI draft: Clarify the correct distance between Grid 9 and Grid 10. Update the floor plan dimensions and grid layouts to reflect parallel structural grids and accurate room widths.