Tennessee Commercial Plan Review: 27 Issues Found

Summary: 16 index entries | 12 perfect matches | 0 mismatched | 4 missing Missing (4) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Civil: - C2.01 SITE DEMOLITION PLAN - C4.02 DETAILED GRADING PLAN Landscape: - L-1.1 - L-1.2 LANDSCAPE PLAN ES: - ES1.2A - ES1.2B PHOTOMETRIC PLAN

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 233702_REVIVE IMPLANT & COSMETIC DENTISTRY.pdf - Page 1 Schedule

Summary: Sheet C3.01 (Site Layout Plan) designates the retaining wall along the northern property boundary as a 'REQ'D SEGMENTAL VERSALOCK HARMONY RETAINING WALL (DESIGN BY OTHERS)'. However, Sheet C4.01 (Grading and Drainage Plan) designates what appears to be the same retaining wall in the same location as a 'REQ'D MSE RETAINING WALL (DESIGNED BY...

Why it matters: Because both sheets note the wall is to be 'DESIGN(ED) BY OTHERS', the wall designer must know which system to design. An MSE wall requires significant geogrid reinforcement zone behind the wall face, while a segmental block wall may not. This discrepancy directly impacts structural calculations, material specifications, excavation limits,...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended retaining wall type along the northern property boundary. Sheet C3.01 specifies a 'Segmental Versalock Harmony Retaining Wall' while Sheet C4.01 specifies an 'MSE Retaining Wall'. Please confirm which wall system is required and revise the conflicting sheet accordingly, so that the wall designer can proceed with the...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended retaining wall type along the northern property boundary. Sheet C3.01 specifies a 'Segmental Versalock Harmony Retaining Wall' while Sheet C4.01 specifies an 'MSE Retaining Wall'. Please confirm which wall system is required and revise the conflicting sheet...

Summary: The proposed grading contour lines on the north side of the building show elevations increasing from approximately 615 near the building face to 622 at the north property line within the 20' rear setback area. This represents a continuous grade sloping toward the building from the north at approximately 35%. Section 1804.4 requires the ground...

Why it matters: Surface water draining from the higher terrain to the north will be directed toward the building foundation, increasing the risk of foundation settlement, moisture infiltration, and potential structural damage. This non-compliant grading condition is likely to be identified during plan review and could delay the building permit. If constructed...

Suggested next step: Request the civil engineer to clarify how the proposed grading on the north side of the building satisfies Section 1804.4's requirement for a minimum 5% slope away from the foundation for at least 10 feet perpendicular to the wall face. If the existing terrain precludes achieving this slope, identify the approved alternative method for...

RFI draft: Request the civil engineer to clarify how the proposed grading on the north side of the building satisfies Section 1804.4's requirement for a minimum 5% slope away from the foundation for at least 10 feet perpendicular to the wall face. If the existing terrain precludes achieving this slope,...

Summary: The site layout plan specifies public sidewalks along N. Mt. Juliet Road and Hillview Drive, but it fails to provide an accessible pedestrian route connecting these public sidewalks to the building. The only paths shown from the street into the site are vehicular driveways (labeled as REQ'D LIGHT DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT and REQ'D CONCRETE...

Why it matters: Per IBC 1104.1, an accessible route must connect site arrival points (such as public sidewalks) to the accessible building entrance. Furthermore, IBC 1009.2 requires each accessible means of egress to be continuous to a public way via an accessible route. Requiring pedestrians and wheelchair users to share a vehicular driveway without a...

Suggested next step: Please revise the site plan to provide a dedicated, accessible pedestrian route (such as a concrete sidewalk) connecting the building entrance to the public sidewalks on N. Mt. Juliet Road or Hillview Drive.

RFI draft: Please revise the site plan to provide a dedicated, accessible pedestrian route (such as a concrete sidewalk) connecting the building entrance to the public sidewalks on N. Mt. Juliet Road or Hillview Drive.

Summary: The typical asphalt pavement, concrete paving, and concrete curb details specify that subgrade and stone base materials be compacted based on the ASTM D698 standard (Standard Proctor). However, IBC Section J107.5 explicitly requires all fill material to be compacted to a density determined by the ASTM D1557 standard (Modified Proctor).

Why it matters: Using ASTM D698 instead of the required ASTM D1557 provides a lower compactive effort during testing, which can result in the placement of under-compacted fill on site. This could lead to excessive settlement, cracking, and structural failure of the pavement and concrete flatwork over time.

Suggested next step: Please revise the compaction testing standard in Details 1, 3, and 4 from ASTM D698 to ASTM D1557 to comply with IBC Section J107.5, or provide an approved geotechnical report that justifies the use of the alternative standard in accordance with IBC Section J107.1.

RFI draft: Please revise the compaction testing standard in Details 1, 3, and 4 from ASTM D698 to ASTM D1557 to comply with IBC Section J107.5, or provide an approved geotechnical report that justifies the use of the alternative standard in accordance with IBC Section J107.1.

Summary: The site layout plan designates the parking lot drive aisles — which serve as the sole fire apparatus access route from Hillview Dr to the proposed medical office building — as 'REQ'D LIGHT DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT (SEE DETAIL SHEET C7 01).' In standard civil engineering practice, 'light duty' asphalt pavement is designed for passenger vehicle and...

Why it matters: If the fire apparatus access road pavement is constructed as light duty asphalt, the pavement section would be insufficient to support fire apparatus (ladder trucks, engine companies) that may weigh up to 75,000 lbs. This could result in pavement failure, denied fire department approval, or required pavement reconstruction — all causing...

Suggested next step: Request the civil engineer to confirm whether the fire apparatus access route (drive aisles from Hillview Dr to the building) has been designed to support fire apparatus loading of 75,000 lbs per IFC Section D102.1. If the light duty pavement section on detail sheet C7.01 does not meet this requirement, revise the pavement design for the fire...

RFI draft: Request the civil engineer to confirm whether the fire apparatus access route (drive aisles from Hillview Dr to the building) has been designed to support fire apparatus loading of 75,000 lbs per IFC Section D102.1. If the light duty pavement section on detail sheet C7.01 does not meet this...

Summary: The detailed grading plan depicts a dead-end drive aisle on the west side of the proposed medical office building. This drive functions as the fire apparatus access road for the west and north portions of the facility. Stationing markers on the drive aisle indicate that it begins near station '0+00' at the southern entrance and extends to at...

Why it matters: Without an adequately sized turnaround, fire apparatus and other emergency vehicles will be forced to back out of a 160-foot-long parking lot corridor after responding to an incident. This creates a critical operational hazard and violates life safety standards. This missing scope will likely result in a rejection during the Fire Marshal's site...

Suggested next step: Please revise the site and grading plans to incorporate an approved fire apparatus turnaround (such as a 120-foot hammerhead, 60-foot 'Y', or 96-foot cul-de-sac) at the northern end of the west access drive, or clarify if the Fire Code Official has approved an alternative design.

RFI draft: Please revise the site and grading plans to incorporate an approved fire apparatus turnaround (such as a 120-foot hammerhead, 60-foot 'Y', or 96-foot cul-de-sac) at the northern end of the west access drive, or clarify if the Fire Code Official has approved an alternative design.

Summary: The drawing explicitly specifies the 6-inch SDR 35 sanitary sewer service pipe at a minimum slope of 1.00%. Per Table 704.1 of the 2018 IPC, horizontal drainage pipe sized 3 to 6 inches requires a minimum slope of 1/8 inch per foot, which equals approximately 1.042% (0.125 in / 12 in × 100). The specified 1.00% slope (0.12 inch per foot) is...

Why it matters: This slope deficiency would be flagged during plan review or field inspection by the authority having jurisdiction, causing permitting delays or a failed inspection requiring rework. Insufficient slope can lead to inadequate flow velocity, causing solids deposition and potential blockages in the sanitary sewer service line. Correcting the slope...

Suggested next step: Request the civil engineer revise the sanitary sewer service slope to comply with Table 704.1 of the 2018 IPC. The minimum slope for 6-inch pipe must be not less than 1/8 inch per foot (approximately 1.04%). Verify that the revised slope is achievable given the site elevations and connection points to the pump station and existing force main.

RFI draft: Request the civil engineer revise the sanitary sewer service slope to comply with Table 704.1 of the 2018 IPC. The minimum slope for 6-inch pipe must be not less than 1/8 inch per foot (approximately 1.04%). Verify that the revised slope is achievable given the site elevations and connection...

Summary: Sheet C3.01 (Site Layout Plan) directs the contractor to Sheet C7.01 for multiple construction details: 'REQ'D DETACHED CURB (SEE DETAIL SHEET C7.01)', 'REQ'D LIGHT DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT (SEE DETAIL SHEET C7.01)', and 'REQ'D ADA COMPLIANT HANDICAP RAMP (SEE DETAIL SHEET C7.01)'. However, Sheet C7.01 is titled 'INITIAL EPSC PLAN' and contains...

Why it matters: During construction, the contractor following the Site Layout Plan will be unable to locate the required details for detached curb, light duty asphalt pavement, and ADA handicap ramp on the referenced sheet. This could lead to construction delays, incorrect material or section assumptions, or non-compliant ADA ramp installations. The missing...

Suggested next step: Request the engineer to clarify the correct sheet location for the detached curb detail, light duty asphalt pavement detail, and ADA compliant handicap ramp detail currently referenced as 'SEE DETAIL SHEET C7.01' on C3.01, since C7.01 is the Initial EPSC Plan and does not contain these construction details. Update cross-references on C3.01...

RFI draft: Request the engineer to clarify the correct sheet location for the detached curb detail, light duty asphalt pavement detail, and ADA compliant handicap ramp detail currently referenced as 'SEE DETAIL SHEET C7.01' on C3.01, since C7.01 is the Initial EPSC Plan and does not contain these...

Summary: Details on sheet C7.03 (e.g., 'SLOPE DETAIL' and 'SLOPE TRENCHING METHOD 'A'') have their detail bubbles labeled with sheet 'C4.0' (e.g., '1/C4.0', '4/C4.0'). However, the grading plan is labeled sheet 'C4', not 'C4.0'. Furthermore, because these slope details are drawn on C7.03 but maintain their '1' through '6' numbering, they duplicate the...

Why it matters: The incorrect sheet reference (C4.0 instead of C4 or C7.03) and the duplicated detail numbers on the same sheet create a confusing cross-reference mismatch. Contractors following the 'SEE DETAIL 4' note might incorrectly reference the Concrete Washout detail instead of the intended Trenching detail, potentially leading to improper installation...

Suggested next step: Please revise the detail bubbles for the slope installation details to correctly reference their actual sheet location and renumber them to prevent duplication with existing details 1-6 on sheet C7.03. Also clarify if references to sheet 'C4.0' were intended to point to sheet 'C4'.

RFI draft: Please revise the detail bubbles for the slope installation details to correctly reference their actual sheet location and renumber them to prevent duplication with existing details 1-6 on sheet C7.03. Also clarify if references to sheet 'C4.0' were intended to point to sheet 'C4'.

Summary: The Final EPSC Plan (C7.02) directs the contractor to 'SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C4.01' for the construction of Bioretention Area 'A'. However, upon following this cross-reference, sheet C4.01 contains conflicting information regarding the required elevation of the filter media. The Grading and Drainage Plan view on C4.01 specifies the 'TOP OF FILTER...

Why it matters: The elevation of the filter media directly impacts the stormwater treatment volume, the physical depth of the pond, and the required grading around the bioretention basin. A 1.25-foot discrepancy is significant. If installed at 608.00', the pond may not provide the required storage volume or may overflow prematurely. If installed at 606.75', it...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct 'TOP OF FILTER MEDIA' elevation for Bioretention Area 'A' referenced on the EPSC Plan. Should it be 608.000' as indicated on the Grading and Drainage Plan view, or 606.75 as specified in the Bioretention Area 'A' Detail table on sheet C4.01?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct 'TOP OF FILTER MEDIA' elevation for Bioretention Area 'A' referenced on the EPSC Plan. Should it be 608.000' as indicated on the Grading and Drainage Plan view, or 606.75 as specified in the Bioretention Area 'A' Detail table on sheet C4.01?

Summary: The detention pond bottom elevation is shown inconsistently across the drawing set. Sheet C4.01 (Grading and Drainage Plan) indicates 'BOTTOM OF POND: 603.450''. Sheet C8.03 (Civil Details) shows 'BOTTOM OF POND ELEV. 603.45' in the Detention Pond Outlet Structure Detail, which also places the '6 IN ORIFICE CULV B - INV. 603.45' at the same...

Why it matters: A 0.05' discrepancy in the pond bottom elevation directly affects the detention storage volume calculations (currently stated as 5,291 CF), the placement of the 6-inch orifice (Culv B) at the outlet structure, and grading operations for the pond. If the contractor builds to the higher 603.500' elevation, the orifice invert at 603.45' shown on...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct bottom of pond elevation for the detention pond. Sheet C4.01 shows 603.450', Sheet C8.03 shows 603.45', and Sheet C5.01 shows 603.500'. Please confirm which is correct and revise the affected drawings accordingly, including any impact on storage volume calculations and outlet structure orifice placement.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct bottom of pond elevation for the detention pond. Sheet C4.01 shows 603.450', Sheet C8.03 shows 603.45', and Sheet C5.01 shows 603.500'. Please confirm which is correct and revise the affected drawings accordingly, including any impact on storage volume calculations and...

Summary: The Temporary Construction Entrance detail (Detail 1) on sheet C7.03 contains two views of the same stone entrance pad. Section A-A indicates a minimum length of '100' MIN.' measured from the roadway to existing natural ground, while the Plan View of the same entrance specifies '50' MIN.' for the entrance length. Both views depict the same...

Why it matters: A 2:1 discrepancy in the required minimum entrance length (100 feet vs 50 feet) will cause confusion during construction regarding the required amount of clean washed stone, geotextile fabric, and undercut excavation. An undersized construction entrance could allow sediment tracking onto Hillview Dr and N Mt Juliet Rd, potentially resulting in...

Suggested next step: Request the Engineer of Record clarify the correct minimum length for the Temporary Construction Entrance on Detail 1 of sheet C7.03. Should the stone pad be a minimum of 100 feet (as indicated in Section A-A) or 50 feet (as indicated in the Plan View)? Please revise the detail so that both views show consistent minimum length dimensions.

RFI draft: Request the Engineer of Record clarify the correct minimum length for the Temporary Construction Entrance on Detail 1 of sheet C7.03. Should the stone pad be a minimum of 100 feet (as indicated in Section A-A) or 50 feet (as indicated in the Plan View)? Please revise the detail so that both...

Summary: There is a significant conflict regarding the design elevations of Bioretention Area 'A'. The plan view label calls out the Top of Filter Media at 608.000' and the Top of Berm at 609.000'. However, the schedule in the Bioretention Area 'A' Detail contradicts this, specifying the Top of Filter Media at 606.75 and the Top of Pond at 608.00.

Why it matters: An elevation difference of 1.25' for the engineered filter media and 1.00' for the pond's top boundary is a major constructability issue. This conflict will drastically affect site grading, excavation depth, material quantities, and the engineered stormwater treatment volumes required by local code.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct design elevations for Bioretention Area 'A'. Which set of elevations governs: the plan view callout (Top of Filter Media 608.000', Top of Berm 609.000') or the detail table (Top of Filter Media 606.75, Top of Pond 608.00)?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct design elevations for Bioretention Area 'A'. Which set of elevations governs: the plan view callout (Top of Filter Media 608.000', Top of Berm 609.000') or the detail table (Top of Filter Media 606.75, Top of Pond 608.00)?

Summary: Sheet C3.01 establishes the project is located at 2960 N Mt Juliet Rd, Mount Juliet, Tennessee, and calls out 'REQ'D CONCRETE PAVEMENT (SEE DETAIL SHEET C8.01)'. On sheet C8.01, the Typical Concrete Paving Section (Detail 3) specifies the base course as 'CRUSHED AGGREGATE STONE BASE COURSE ALDOT 825, TYPE B'. ALDOT refers to the Alabama...

Why it matters: Using an Alabama DOT specification for construction in Tennessee could result in non-compliant base course materials that do not meet Tennessee DOT or City of Mt. Juliet requirements. The local jurisdiction (Mt. Juliet) may reject this specification during plan review or field inspection. Material suppliers in Tennessee may not stock or be...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the aggregate base course specification for the Typical Concrete Paving Section (Detail 3 on C8.01). The current specification references ALDOT 825, TYPE B (Alabama DOT), while all other pavement and curb details on C8.01 reference TDOT (Tennessee DOT) standards, and the project is located in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee. Should this be...

RFI draft: Please clarify the aggregate base course specification for the Typical Concrete Paving Section (Detail 3 on C8.01). The current specification references ALDOT 825, TYPE B (Alabama DOT), while all other pavement and curb details on C8.01 reference TDOT (Tennessee DOT) standards, and the project...