Plan Review: 56 Issues Found

Summary: 22 index entries | 19 perfect matches | 3 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (3): A-002: Expected: GENERAL NOTES, SCOPE OF WORK & SPECIFICATIONS (A-002) | Actual: DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK (A-002)(p3) A-003: Expected: KEYNOTE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL MATRIX (A-003) | Actual: GENERAL PRODUCT MATRIX (A-003)(p4) A-300: Expected: BUILDING SECTIONS (A-300) | Actual: EXISTING BUI...

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, 3 mismatched out of 22 sheets

Summary: The 'CODE INFORMATION' section lists the parking garage as '(B-1)' and the library as '(B-2)'. Under the 2021 IBC, 'B-1' and 'B-2' are not valid occupancy classifications, as Business Group B is not subdivided. Furthermore, IBC Section 303.4 explicitly designates 'Libraries' as Assembly Group A-3, and IBC Section 311.3 designates 'Public parking garages, open or enclosed' as Storage Group S-2.

Why it matters: Incorrect occupancy classifications fundamentally impact the entire code analysis, including allowable building heights and areas, fire-resistance rating requirements, plumbing fixture calculations, and means of egress. If uncorrected, this will lead to flawed design assumptions, incorrect occupa...

Suggested next step: Please correct the occupancy classifications in the Code Information block to align with the 2021 IBC. The library should be classified as Group A-3, and the parking garage as Group S-2. Please also verify that all related code analyses (egress, fire ratings, area) are based o...

RFI draft: Please correct the occupancy classifications in the Code Information block to align with the 2021 IBC. The library should be classified as Group A-3, and the parking garage as Group S-2. Please also verify that all related code analyses (egress, f...

Summary: The site plan depicts the 'MAIN ENTRANCE' accessed exclusively via a 'curved set of steps' and a secondary 'ENTRANCE' accessed via 'Two sets of stairs'. By providing only stairs at the identified public entrances, the design fails to demonstrate an accessible route from the public streets to an accessible building entrance and fails to ensure that at least 60 percent of public entrances are acc...

Why it matters: Failure to provide accessible entrances and an accessible route from site arrival points prevents equitable access for individuals with mobility impairments and directly violates IBC accessibility requirements. This non-compliance will block permitting and requires a significant exterior hardscap...

Suggested next step: Please revise the site plan to delineate at least one accessible route from the public right-of-way to the building, and ensure that at least 60 percent of public entrances (including the Main Entrance) are provided with accessible pathways in accordance with IBC 1104.1 and 11...

RFI draft: Please revise the site plan to delineate at least one accessible route from the public right-of-way to the building, and ensure that at least 60 percent of public entrances (including the Main Entrance) are provided with accessible pathways in acc...

Summary: The Lower Floor Plan depicts a pedestrian ramp adjacent to Delivery Receiving designated "RAMP 1:12 SLOPE TYP", connecting an upper floor elevation of "216.0" to a lower corridor elevation of "212'-0"". This creates a continuous vertical drop of 4 feet (48 inches), violating IBC 1012.4, which limits any single ramp run to a maximum 30-inch vertical rise without an intermediate landing. Furtherm...

Why it matters: This is a severe design and coordination failure. The ramp as drawn lacks the required resting landing and cannot physically achieve the required 1:12 slope within the available space, resulting in an excessively steep and hazardous path for wheelchair users or staff moving heavy carts. Resolving...

Suggested next step: Please revise the pedestrian ramp design between elevations 216.0 and 212'-0" to comply with IBC 1012.2 and 1012.4. A 4-foot vertical drop requires 48 feet of horizontal run to achieve a 1:12 slope, plus an intermediate landing to prevent any single run from exceeding a 30-inc...

RFI draft: Please revise the pedestrian ramp design between elevations 216.0 and 212'-0" to comply with IBC 1012.2 and 1012.4. A 4-foot vertical drop requires 48 feet of horizontal run to achieve a 1:12 slope, plus an intermediate landing to prevent any sing...

Summary: There is a severe architectural mismatch between the Site Plan (A-001) and the South Elevations (A-201). The Site Plan establishes that Grid 1 is on the East (Hoyt Ave side) and Grids 2 and 3 progress to the West. However, A-201 Elevation 2 displays grids 1 through 6.9 from left to right, which incorrectly mirrors the facade (East-to-West progression) if viewed from the exterior. Additionally, ...

Why it matters: Elevation 1 on A-201 appears to actually depict the East facade (which features the Main Entrance, referenced by callout 1/2 A-202 on the Site Plan) but is incorrectly placed and titled as '1 SOUTH ELEVATION REPAIRS', and is physically connected via matchline to the South elevation. This topologi...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the orientation and contents of the South Elevations on sheet A-201. Confirm if Elevation 2 is intended to be mirrored or if it represents an interior view looking South. Furthermore, verify if Elevation 1 incorrectly depicts the East facade's Main Entrance and ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the orientation and contents of the South Elevations on sheet A-201. Confirm if Elevation 2 is intended to be mirrored or if it represents an interior view looking South. Furthermore, verify if Elevation 1 incorrectly depicts the Ea...

Summary: Detail 5 documents an existing condition where there is "NO WEATHER FLASHING FLANGE ON THE OUTSIDE OF SCUPPER". IBC Section 1503.2 requires flashing to be installed at penetrations through the roof plane and exterior walls to prevent water entry. While the drawing successfully identifies the code violation, it fails to provide a proposed repair detail to resolve the non-compliant condition.

Why it matters: Without a specific repair detail to install the code-required flashing, the contractor will not have approved instructions to properly seal the scupper penetration. This will lead to continued water intrusion, rot, and degradation of the wall assembly, as well as potential failure to pass permitt...

Suggested next step: Please provide a repair detail specifying the installation of a weather flashing flange at the scuppers in accordance with IBC Section 1503.2 to ensure a weather-resistant envelope.

RFI draft: Please provide a repair detail specifying the installation of a weather flashing flange at the scuppers in accordance with IBC Section 1503.2 to ensure a weather-resistant envelope.

Summary: Detail 12 identifies an existing condition at the North Elevation: "BRICK MASONRY EXTENDING BELOW (PERVIOUS) PAVING WITH NO WATERPROOFING & NO OVERFLOW". IBC Section 1402.2 requires exterior wall envelopes to have a water-resistive barrier and a means for draining water to the exterior to prevent water accumulation. Detail 12 notes this code-noncompliant condition but lacks a callout or referen...

Why it matters: Leaving the masonry below the pervious paving without waterproofing or overflow mechanisms guarantees water accumulation within the wall assembly, accelerating structural degradation and violating building code weather protection standards. Explicitly referencing a repair detail from the conditio...

Suggested next step: Please provide a callout or reference on Detail 12 pointing to an architectural and/or civil repair detail that shows the installation of a water-resistive barrier (waterproofing) and an overflow drainage system for the brick masonry extending below the pervious paving, as req...

RFI draft: Please provide a callout or reference on Detail 12 pointing to an architectural and/or civil repair detail that shows the installation of a water-resistive barrier (waterproofing) and an overflow drainage system for the brick masonry extending bel...

Summary: The floor plan shows double exterior doors exiting the "Children's Services" area, swinging outwards onto an exterior landing that directly serves a downward ramp. The landing depth is explicitly dimensioned as 5'-0" (60 inches). When a standard door leaf (typically 36 inches, minimum 32 inches) opens 90 degrees, it projects significantly into this landing space, leaving at most 28 inches of cl...

Why it matters: Restricting the clear width at the top landing of a ramp creates a hazardous pinch point during emergency egress and violates critical accessibility standards. If built as drawn, this non-compliant geometry will lead to failed inspections, requiring a costly redesign of the concrete landing, the ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the clear width of the exterior ramp landing at the Children's Services exit when the doors are fully open. The current 5'-0" landing depth results in less than the code-required 42 inches of clear width. Advise if the landing depth will be extended or the door ...

RFI draft: Please confirm the clear width of the exterior ramp landing at the Children's Services exit when the doors are fully open. The current 5'-0" landing depth results in less than the code-required 42 inches of clear width. Advise if the landing depth...

Summary: The drawing explicitly documents a 'LACK OF COUNTERFLASHING' at the building exterior. IBC Section 1503.2 requires flashing to be installed to prevent water from entering the wall and roof through joints in copings and at intersections with parapet walls.

Why it matters: Without adequate counterflashing, water can infiltrate the building envelope behind the coping or base flashing. The lack of detailed repair specifications for this documented deficiency will prevent the contractor from properly resolving the code violation during construction.

Suggested next step: Provide a repair detail specifying the installation of compliant counterflashing at the parapet and coping intersections in accordance with IBC 1503.2.

RFI draft: Provide a repair detail specifying the installation of compliant counterflashing at the parapet and coping intersections in accordance with IBC 1503.2.

Summary: The drawings document existing conditions where roof elements lack proper flashing and sealing. Notes explicitly identify "NO COUNTERFLASHING OF COPING FLASHING TO METAL WALL CLADDING", "ROOF MEMBRANE UPTURN COUNTERFLASHING\nNOT SEALED TO PARAPET TERRACOTTA COPING", and "INADEQUATE ROOF MEMBRANE TERMINATION ALLOWS\nWATER INTRUSION INTO STAIR BELOW". This directly violates IBC requirements, whic...

Why it matters: Failure to provide proposed repair details that correct these flashing, coping, and membrane termination failures will result in continued water intrusion and structural degradation, which violates the weather protection requirements of the building envelope.

Suggested next step: Provide proposed repair details for the documented flashing, coping, and membrane termination failures to demonstrate how the assemblies will be reconstructed to comply with IBC Section 1503.2 for weather protection.

RFI draft: Provide proposed repair details for the documented flashing, coping, and membrane termination failures to demonstrate how the assemblies will be reconstructed to comply with IBC Section 1503.2 for weather protection.

Summary: Detail 1 indicates "MASONRY COUNTERFLASHING BLOCKING MASONRY WEEPS". This condition violates IBC Section 1402.2, which mandates that the exterior wall envelope must be constructed to provide "a means for draining water that enters the assembly to the exterior."

Why it matters: Blocking the masonry weep holes entirely traps moisture within the wall cavity. Without a drainage path, accumulated water will cause long-term deterioration of the masonry, freeze-thaw damage, and potential mold or water intrusion into the interior spaces.

Suggested next step: Please provide a repair detail outlining the method to modify or reinstall the counterflashing to restore an unblocked drainage path for the masonry weeps in compliance with IBC Section 1402.2.

RFI draft: Please provide a repair detail outlining the method to modify or reinstall the counterflashing to restore an unblocked drainage path for the masonry weeps in compliance with IBC Section 1402.2.

Summary: Detail 10 specifically documents a "LACK OF COUNTERFLASHING WHERE ROOF TERMINATES AGAINST MASONRY WALL". This is a direct violation of IBC Section 1503.2.1, which mandates that "Flashing shall be installed at wall and roof intersections".

Why it matters: The omission of counterflashing at the intersection of the roof membrane and masonry wall permits bulk water to infiltrate the joint. This will compromise the weather envelope, leading to roofing system failure, interior leaks, and degradation of the building structure.

Suggested next step: Please provide a remediation detail specifying the required metal counterflashing at the roof-to-masonry wall termination to ensure adequate weather protection per IBC Section 1503.2.1.

RFI draft: Please provide a remediation detail specifying the required metal counterflashing at the roof-to-masonry wall termination to ensure adequate weather protection per IBC Section 1503.2.1.

Summary: The repair notes document an "UNFLASHED COPING EDGE" and "UNFLASHED HORIZONTAL MASONRY", which have led to spalled hollow concrete masonry units. IBC Section 1503.2 mandates that flashing must be installed to prevent water from entering the wall and roof through joints in copings.

Why it matters: Failing to provide flashing at copings and horizontal masonry surfaces violates the weather protection requirements of the building code. This allows continuous water intrusion into the wall assembly, resulting in further spalling and degradation of the structural masonry units. Any remediation p...

Suggested next step: Provide repair details that specify the installation of new flashing at all coping edges and horizontal masonry surfaces to comply with IBC Section 1503.2.

RFI draft: Provide repair details that specify the installation of new flashing at all coping edges and horizontal masonry surfaces to comply with IBC Section 1503.2.

Summary: Details 4 and 7 specify applying silicone waterproofing directly to the repointed mortar joints of the existing terra cotta coping caps. However, IBC Section 1503.2 requires flashing to be installed to prevent water from entering the wall and roof through joints in copings. Detail 7 shows the roof membrane terminating beneath a void behind a galvanized backing angle, while Detail 4 utilizes a c...

Why it matters: Silicone coatings are not approved flashing assemblies. Relying solely on exposed surface sealant at upward-facing coping joints is a common source of water infiltration. This missing flashing violates explicit weather protection requirements and will lead to water entering the wall assembly, ris...

Suggested next step: Please revise Details 4 and 7 to include an approved flashing assembly (such as a continuous through-wall flashing membrane under the terra cotta coping or a metal coping cover flashing over the terra cotta) to prevent water entry through the coping joints, per IBC Section 150...

RFI draft: Please revise Details 4 and 7 to include an approved flashing assembly (such as a continuous through-wall flashing membrane under the terra cotta coping or a metal coping cover flashing over the terra cotta) to prevent water entry through the copi...

Summary: Repair Keynote RN 9-A on Sheet A-300 requires the contractor to entirely 'REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING WALL SHEATHING' and install new sheathing. However, Detail 2 on Sheet A-501, which details the same roof-to-wall parapet condition where existing stucco is demolished (as indicated by the concurrent RN 5-A keynote and the detail's stucco demo note), instructs the contractor to retain the exi...

Why it matters: This contradiction creates a significant discrepancy in the expected scope of work, material quantities, and labor. Full replacement of sheathing across the entire cladding repair area requires substantially more time and material than spot-replacing damaged sections, which will lead to inaccurat...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended scope of work for the existing gypsum wall sheathing behind the stucco cladding. Should all existing sheathing be removed and replaced with new fiberglass-faced gypsum sheathing per Keynote RN 9-A, or should it be retained and patched only as necess...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended scope of work for the existing gypsum wall sheathing behind the stucco cladding. Should all existing sheathing be removed and replaced with new fiberglass-faced gypsum sheathing per Keynote RN 9-A, or should it be retai...