Plan Review: 142 Issues Found

Summary: 17 index entries | 11 perfect matches | 6 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (6): S3: Expected: FOUNDATION PLAN (S3) | Actual: FOUNDATION REACTIONS (S3)(p5) S3.2: Expected: FOUNDATION DETAILS (S3.2) | Actual: FOUNDATION DETAILS (S3.1)(p6) S4B: Expected: FIRST FLOOR LATERAL PLAN (S4B) | Actual: SECOND FLOOR LATERAL FRAMING PLAN (S4B)(p8) S5A: Expected: SECOND FLOOR ...

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, 6 mismatched out of 17 sheets

Summary: The main level electrical layout shows smoke/CO detector symbols (SD and SD CO) only within the Master Bedroom. No smoke alarm or carbon monoxide alarm devices are shown in the hallway or corridor area immediately outside the Master Bedroom sleeping area. Per IRC R314.3, smoke alarms are required both in each sleeping room and outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the...

Why it matters: Missing smoke and CO alarms outside sleeping areas is a critical life safety deficiency that will be identified during plan review or field inspection. If caught after rough-in, additional wiring must be run to the hallway or corridor outside the bedroom, potentially requiring opening finished wa...

Suggested next step: Request the designer add smoke alarm and carbon monoxide alarm device locations outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms on the main level electrical layout, in compliance with IRC R314.3 and R315.3. Confirm specific placement locations and...

RFI draft: Request the designer add smoke alarm and carbon monoxide alarm device locations outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms on the main level electrical layout, in compliance with IRC R314.3 and R315.3. Confirm sp...

Summary: The electrical plan for Bed 2 shows all interior electrical devices (ceiling fan, two I.C. rated recessed ceiling fixtures, switched duplex outlets, standard duplex outlets, and a 3-gang switch bank) but does not include a smoke alarm inside the room. The drawing description explicitly places the smoke detector (SD) 'just outside the entry in the hallway' rather than within the bedroom. By cont...

Why it matters: This is a life-safety violation that will be caught during the electrical rough-in or final inspection and will result in a failed inspection. The missing in-room smoke alarm in Bed 2 leaves occupants without early warning in the event of a fire originating within that sleeping room. A smoke alar...

Suggested next step: Request that the electrical designer add a smoke alarm (SD) inside Bedroom 2 as required by IRC R314.3(1). The alarm must be hardwired with battery backup per R314.6 and interconnected with all other smoke alarms in the dwelling unit per R314.4. Confirm the location satisfies ...

RFI draft: Request that the electrical designer add a smoke alarm (SD) inside Bedroom 2 as required by IRC R314.3(1). The alarm must be hardwired with battery backup per R314.6 and interconnected with all other smoke alarms in the dwelling unit per R314.4. C...

Summary: Detail 2/A4.2 shows an exterior "CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE" and "GRAVEL SUBGRADE PREPARATION" placed flush with the interior floor assembly to create a flush entry. The self-adhered flashing is shown extending "OVER SBFL... & DOWN FDN WALL", indicating the wood blocking and subfloor are positioned vertically below the top of the exterior concrete slab (zero clearance). The IRC requires wood wall f...

Why it matters: Providing a flush entry by raising the exterior porch slab against the wood floor framing creates a high-risk condition. Moisture from the adjacent concrete slab and gravel subgrade can bypass the flashing and isolation joint over time. Using untreated subfloor and blocking below the exterior sla...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 2/A4.2 to explicitly specify that all wood blocking, rim joists, and subfloor materials located adjacent to or below the top elevation of the exterior concrete slab must be pressure-preservative-treated or naturally durable wood. Alternatively, redesign th...

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 2/A4.2 to explicitly specify that all wood blocking, rim joists, and subfloor materials located adjacent to or below the top elevation of the exterior concrete slab must be pressure-preservative-treated or naturally durable wo...

Summary: The Bulkhead Section (2/A3.1) indicates '8R @ 11.55"' for the basement access stairs. Using the same notation convention as the interior stairways on this sheet (e.g., '9R @ 7.37"' and '8R @ 7.38"', where the value after '@' represents riser height confirmed by matching total vertical dimensions), this means 8 risers at 11.55 inches each. IFC Section 1011.5.2 states that stair riser heights sha...

Why it matters: Stairs with 11.55" risers are extremely steep and present a significant fall hazard. This will fail code review and building inspection, requiring complete redesign and reconstruction of the bulkhead stairs. With a total rise of approximately 7'-8" (8 × 11.55" = 92.4"), the stairs need to be reco...

Suggested next step: Request the architect to redesign the bulkhead stairs in Section 2/A3.1 to comply with IFC Section 1011.5.2 maximum riser height requirements. For the approximately 7'-8" total rise, a minimum of 12 risers (at approximately 7.7" each) would be required to meet the residential ...

RFI draft: Request the architect to redesign the bulkhead stairs in Section 2/A3.1 to comply with IFC Section 1011.5.2 maximum riser height requirements. For the approximately 7'-8" total rise, a minimum of 12 risers (at approximately 7.7" each) would be req...

Summary: The Roof Framing Plan indicates that horizontal beams B401 and B402 are supported by columns marked C401 and C402. The Beam Schedule specifies both B401 and B402 have a width of 7 inches (being 4-ply 1.75" members). However, the Column Schedule specifies C401 is only 4 1/2" wide and C402 is 6" wide. A 7-inch wide beam cannot achieve full bearing on a narrower 4 1/2" or 6" column without overhan...

Why it matters: Inadequate bearing width can lead to eccentric loading and crushing of the column or beam edge. The columns must be upsized to match or exceed the width of the supported beams to ensure proper load transfer.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the column sizes for C401 and C402. The Beam Schedule specifies a 7" width for beams B401 and B402, but the Column Schedule specifies C401 is 4 1/2" wide and C402 is 6" wide. Should the columns be upsized to 7" to match the supported beams?

RFI draft: Please clarify the column sizes for C401 and C402. The Beam Schedule specifies a 7" width for beams B401 and B402, but the Column Schedule specifies C401 is 4 1/2" wide and C402 is 6" wide. Should the columns be upsized to 7" to match the supporte...

Summary: The dimensions of the South-East foundation extension differ significantly. The Architectural plan designates this area as "CRAWL" with a horizontal dimension of 27'-3" and East vertical dimensions including 5'-8", 7'-0", and 8'-0". The Structural plan shows a horizontal dimension of 33'-6" and East vertical dimensions including 15'-8" and 16'-2 3/4".

Why it matters: This discrepancy alters the entire South-East footprint of the building. Constructing from conflicting layout dimensions will result in foundation walls that do not align with the architectural floor plan and structural framing above.

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct footprint dimensions for the South-East foundation extension (crawl space) and update the architectural and structural plans to match.

RFI draft: Clarify the correct footprint dimensions for the South-East foundation extension (crawl space) and update the architectural and structural plans to match.

Summary: The 1st Floor Lateral Plan (S4B) indicates that the front portico projection (between Grids 10-12) is enclosed by solid shear walls on its front (14'-0") and sides (7'-0"). However, the Front Elevation (A2.1) shows this as an open entry porch supported only by 6x6 wood posts.

Why it matters: If constructed as detailed on the structural plan, solid shear walls would be built across the perimeter of the front portico, entirely blocking the main entrance to the building. This is a severe coordination error where the structural engineer has likely over-hatched an open porch area.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the lateral framing requirements for the front portico. The 1st Floor Lateral Plan (S4B) shows the 14'x7' portico enclosed by perforated shear walls, but the Front Elevation (A2.1) shows it as an open porch supported by posts. Please revise the structural plan t...

RFI draft: Please clarify the lateral framing requirements for the front portico. The 1st Floor Lateral Plan (S4B) shows the 14'x7' portico enclosed by perforated shear walls, but the Front Elevation (A2.1) shows it as an open porch supported by posts. Pleas...

Summary: The Architectural and Electrical plans clearly show window wells along the exterior walls, with the Architectural schedule specifically calling out an egress ladder for the window well (Keynote 86). However, the Structural Coordination Plan completely omits these window wells, showing only straight perimeter foundation walls at these locations.

Why it matters: Window wells, especially those requiring egress ladders, require structural foundation retaining walls that must be formed and poured at the same time as the main perimeter foundation. Missing this on the structural plan will result in formwork being built straight, requiring costly rework, concr...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the window wells shown on architectural sheet A1.1 (Keynotes 86 & 87) are required. If so, please update the structural foundation coordination plan (X 1.0) to include the dimensions, reinforcement, and elevations for the window well foundation walls.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the window wells shown on architectural sheet A1.1 (Keynotes 86 & 87) are required. If so, please update the structural foundation coordination plan (X 1.0) to include the dimensions, reinforcement, and elevations for the window ...

Summary: The Point Loads table and Wall Foundation Loadings table on this sheet provide Dead, Live, Snow, and Wind reactions but completely omit seismic/earthquake (E) load reactions. Sheet Note 3 explicitly directs the foundation engineer to design using only 'THE ASD REACTION PROVIDED ON THE TABLE SHOWN ON THIS SPACE.' IBC Section 1605.2 requires foundations to be designed for load combinations that i...

Why it matters: The foundation design is being delegated to a licensed engineer per Sheet Note 3, and that engineer is explicitly directed to use the reaction tables on this sheet as the basis for design. The complete absence of seismic load data from both the point load and wall load tables means the delegated ...

Suggested next step: Request that the structural engineer of record provide seismic (E) load reactions in both the Point Loads table and the Wall Foundation Loadings table, or provide a separate seismic reaction schedule, so that the foundation engineer can evaluate all code-required load combinat...

RFI draft: Request that the structural engineer of record provide seismic (E) load reactions in both the Point Loads table and the Wall Foundation Loadings table, or provide a separate seismic reaction schedule, so that the foundation engineer can evaluate a...

Summary: Sheet Note 3 explicitly directs the designer to use the 'ASD REACTION PROVIDED ON THE TABLE' and states that 'WIND LOADS MAY BE REDUCED BY 0.6 FACTOR'. Furthermore, the point loads schedule explicitly states 'Notes: Loads are shown as ASD unfactored loads according to ASCE 7-16'. If the tabulated wind loads are already provided at 'ASD' levels, applying another 0.6 factor results in an improper...

Why it matters: Applying a 0.6 factor to wind loads that have already been scaled to ASD levels will result in foundations and anchorages being designed for only 60% of the code-mandated wind shear and uplift forces. This leads to severely undersized foundations, posing a critical risk of structural failure duri...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the wind loads in the schedules are nominal (strength-level) ASCE 7-16 loads or if they have already been factored to ASD levels. If they are already at ASD levels, revise Sheet Note 3 to remove the instruction stating 'WIND LOADS MAY BE REDUCED BY 0.6 FACTOR' ...

RFI draft: Clarify whether the wind loads in the schedules are nominal (strength-level) ASCE 7-16 loads or if they have already been factored to ASD levels. If they are already at ASD levels, revise Sheet Note 3 to remove the instruction stating 'WIND LOADS ...

Summary: The Column Schedule specifies Column C104 with a Type of "4-PLY LVL 2.1E-2500FB" and a size of "5 1/2" X 7"", indicating an engineered wood member. However, the Remarks column for the exact same mark specifies "HSS 5.5X5.5X4 A500 GR.C", indicating a hollow structural steel tube. This direct contradiction fails to clearly define the section of the structural member, violating IBC Section 1603.1,...

Why it matters: Providing two entirely different primary materials for the same column makes it impossible for the contractor to definitively know what to order or how to detail the structure. A wood column and a steel tube require completely different procurement, bearing details, base plates, and top connectio...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended material and section for Column C104. If it is meant to be a 4-ply LVL, please remove the HSS remark. If it is meant to be a steel tube, please update the Size and Type columns accordingly.

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended material and section for Column C104. If it is meant to be a 4-ply LVL, please remove the HSS remark. If it is meant to be a steel tube, please update the Size and Type columns accordingly.

Summary: The drawings specify to "STRAP SIDE OF BEAM TO SIDE OF\nBEAM W/ SIMPSON MST60 STRAP" and "STRAP TOP OF WALL TO\nBOTTOM OF BEAM W/ SIMPSON MST60". However, the connected structural members are identified as a "STEEL BEAM ABOVE". Simpson MST60 straps are light-gauge cold-formed steel connectors designed for wood-to-wood framing using nails. They cannot be directly attached to structural steel bea...

Why it matters: Per IBC Section 2205.1, structural steel elements and their connections must be designed and erected in accordance with AISC 360. This requires appropriate structural steel detailing (e.g., welded or bolted steel plates and angles). Specifying a wood framing strap to connect structural steel beam...

Suggested next step: Please revise the connection details between the intersecting structural steel beams, and the wall-to-steel-beam connection, to specify appropriate AISC 360 compliant structural steel connections (such as welded/bolted clip angles).

RFI draft: Please revise the connection details between the intersecting structural steel beams, and the wall-to-steel-beam connection, to specify appropriate AISC 360 compliant structural steel connections (such as welded/bolted clip angles).

Summary: Detail 4 ('ROOF PANELS TO RIDGE BEAM') specifies a 'MAX 2" NOTCH' at the bottom bearing of the 'I-JOIST RAFTERS PER PLAN' where they connect to the ridge beam. Prefabricated wood I-joists rely on intact top and bottom flanges for their structural strength. A 2-inch notch will completely sever the bottom flange, destroying the joist's bending capacity and causing it to exceed its strength limit ...

Why it matters: Notching the flanges of an I-joist severely compromises its structural integrity and its ability to safely carry roof loads. If constructed as detailed, the roof rafters are at a high risk of structural failure at the ridge beam connection. This will result in a failed framing inspection and nece...

Suggested next step: Clarify the bearing connection for the I-joist rafters at the ridge beam in Detail 4. The current detail specifies a 'MAX 2" NOTCH', which severs the I-joist flange and violates strength limit states. Please provide an approved bearing detail (such as a beveled bearing plate, ...

RFI draft: Clarify the bearing connection for the I-joist rafters at the ridge beam in Detail 4. The current detail specifies a 'MAX 2" NOTCH', which severs the I-joist flange and violates strength limit states. Please provide an approved bearing detail (suc...

Summary: The general notes state that "Structural details for this project are for illustration only." This invalidates the structural drawings as definitive design documents, directly conflicting with the building code's requirement that construction documents "shall show the size, section and relative locations of structural members".

Why it matters: Labeling details as merely illustrative places the engineering burden entirely on the contractor and fails to provide legally enforceable construction documents. This prevents the building official from verifying code compliance and will result in the rejection of the permit application.

Suggested next step: Remove the note stating that details are "for illustration only" and confirm that all details provided act as the definitive, engineered structural requirements for the project.

RFI draft: Remove the note stating that details are "for illustration only" and confirm that all details provided act as the definitive, engineered structural requirements for the project.