Plan Review: 450 Issues Found

Summary: 34 index entries | 1 perfect matches | 0 mismatched | 33 missing Missing (33) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Architectural: - A001 PROJECT DATA - A002 GENERAL NOTES - A003 ZONING PLAN - A100 EXISTING SITE PLAN - A101 PROPOSED SITE PLAN - A103 DEMOLITION PLAN - A104 PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN - A105 PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN - A...

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: 33 missing, 0 mismatched out of 34 sheets

Summary: On A104, the duplex is shown with Unit 1352 at the top (north) and Unit 1354 at the bottom (south), with the demising wall running horizontally (east-west) and the building's long dimension of 44'-9" spanning east-west along the north wall. On S101, the demising wall runs vertically (north-south) along gridline C, dividing the building into left and right (east and west) mirrored halves, with t...

Why it matters: A 90° rotation of the entire building between the architectural and structural plans is a fundamental coordination failure. The structural foundation layout, load-bearing CMU wall positions, lintel locations and orientations, and column placements on S101 will not align with the architectural lay...

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct building orientation relative to true north. Clarify whether the unit demising wall runs east-west (as shown on A104) or north-south (as shown on S101), and revise the conflicting drawing set accordingly. Verify which sheet's north arrow orientation is corr...

RFI draft: Confirm the correct building orientation relative to true north. Clarify whether the unit demising wall runs east-west (as shown on A104) or north-south (as shown on S101), and revise the conflicting drawing set accordingly. Verify which sheet's n...

Summary: The architectural wall legend on A105 defines four distinct wall types with different hatching patterns: 'LOAD BEARING CMU WALL' (solid black fill), '1 HR FIRE RATED WALL' (grid pattern), 'NON LOAD BEARING INTERIOR PARTITION' (diagonal hatching), and '5" CHASE WALL' (cross-hatching). The separation wall between the two duplex units is shown with the grid pattern and labeled '1 HR FIRE RATED SEP...

Why it matters: If the party wall is constructed as a lightweight (non-CMU) fire-rated partition as indicated by the architectural wall legend, it will not provide adequate bearing capacity for the floor trusses, which are designed to transfer 2,411 lbs of gravity load per support location to this wall. This cou...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the Architect and Structural Engineer on the party/separation wall material and construction type. Specifically: (1) Is the party wall between the two duplex units intended to be load-bearing CMU as shown on the structural plans, or a non-CMU fire-ra...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the Architect and Structural Engineer on the party/separation wall material and construction type. Specifically: (1) Is the party wall between the two duplex units intended to be load-bearing CMU as shown on the structur...

Summary: Mechanical plan M102 and Electrical plan E101 show the A/C and Washer/Dryer units in completely different locations. M102 places the 'A/C' and 'W/D' centrally next to the 'STAIRS', while designating the spaces near 'BATHROOM 3' on the exterior edge as standard closets ('CL 2' with a dryer duct passing through). Conversely, E101 places the 'A/C' and 'WASHER DRYER' (along with dedicated power cir...

Why it matters: The mechanical and electrical disciplines appear to be utilizing inconsistent iterations of the architectural floor plan. If not resolved, electrical power will be roughed-in at the exterior walls, while the mechanical ductwork and equipment will be framed and installed in the center of the build...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct architectural layout for the A/C and Washer/Dryer closets. Coordinate the mechanical and electrical plans to ensure ductwork, mechanical equipment, and dedicated electrical circuits are located in the exact same areas.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct architectural layout for the A/C and Washer/Dryer closets. Coordinate the mechanical and electrical plans to ensure ductwork, mechanical equipment, and dedicated electrical circuits are located in the exact same areas.

Summary: The Drainage Plan (CS100) shows the property width as 50'-0" along the northern property line, with 5'-0" wide drainage swales required on both the east and west sides between the property lines and the building's exterior walls. Section A-A on CS100 confirms the swale occupies 5 FT (2.5 FT + 2.5 FT) between the property line (PL) and the exterior wall on the west side, and Section B-B shows th...

Why it matters: This 4'-9" discrepancy means the building footprint as designed on A104 would encroach into the required drainage swale areas on one or both sides. The drainage calculations on CS100 depend on these swale dimensions to achieve the required surface storage (total = 711 FT³). Reducing swale widths ...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the correct building width. Should the architectural floor plan be revised to fit within a 40'-0" building envelope to maintain the 5'-0" drainage swales on each side, or should the drainage plan be redesigned with narrower swales to accommodate the 44...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the correct building width. Should the architectural floor plan be revised to fit within a 40'-0" building envelope to maintain the 5'-0" drainage swales on each side, or should the drainage plan be redesigned with narrowe...

Summary: The sanitary plan (P103) indicates multiple vertical plumbing lines dropping from the second floor, including '3"Ø' sanitary drops and '2" Ø VENT TO SECOND FLOOR' lines, routed within the central demising wall and the exterior walls. However, the structural framing plan (S101) specifies these exact walls as 'LOAD BEARING 8" CMU WALL' that must be 'REINFORCED WITH #4 BARS 8" O.C.'.

Why it matters: Fully grouted 8" CMU walls with #4 rebar spaced at 8" on center cannot physically accommodate 2" or 3" vertical plumbing pipes within their cells. The piping would displace the mandatory structural grout and rebar, fundamentally compromising the load-bearing integrity of the wall. Dedicated archi...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the routing for the 3" sanitary and 2" vent vertical stacks located on the exterior and demising walls. Shall architectural furring chases be added to the plans to conceal these pipes, or will the structural engineer provide an alternative CMU detail that permit...

RFI draft: Please clarify the routing for the 3" sanitary and 2" vent vertical stacks located on the exterior and demising walls. Shall architectural furring chases be added to the plans to conceal these pipes, or will the structural engineer provide an alte...

Summary: The Door Schedule on A104 lists Door Type 2 (Sliding Glass Door, exterior) with NOA/FL# 24-0116.13. However, on the A200 Proposed South elevation, the sliding glass doors tagged as type '2' are annotated with Florida Product Approval number 24-0116.07. The number 24-0116.07 is actually the approval number assigned to all window types (A, B, C, D) per the Window Schedule on A104, not to the slid...

Why it matters: In Florida, the correct NOA (Notice of Acceptance) number is essential for demonstrating compliance with the Florida Building Code for wind-borne debris regions. The two approval numbers (24-0116.13 vs. 24-0116.07) likely correspond to different products with different tested design pressures. Th...

Suggested next step: Please clarify which Florida Product Approval number is correct for the exterior Sliding Glass Door (Door Type 2): 24-0116.13 as shown in the Door Schedule on A104, or 24-0116.07 as shown on the Proposed South elevation on A200. Please revise the conflicting document according...

RFI draft: Please clarify which Florida Product Approval number is correct for the exterior Sliding Glass Door (Door Type 2): 24-0116.13 as shown in the Door Schedule on A104, or 24-0116.07 as shown on the Proposed South elevation on A200. Please revise the ...

Summary: Sheet A002 allows two species for structural wood: Douglas Fir with a minimum fiber stress of Fb 1200 PSI, or Southern Pine with a minimum fiber stress of Fb 1000 PSI. Sheet S000 exclusively specifies #2 Southern Yellow Pine (S.Y.P) or better, with higher minimum fiber stress values: Fb = 1100 PSI for beams/headers, Fb = 1150 PSI for 2x4 & 2x6 studs, and Fb = 1150 PSI for 6x6 & larger posts. Th...

Why it matters: If a contractor follows the architectural notes and procures Southern Pine lumber meeting only the 1000 PSI fiber stress minimum, or procures Douglas Fir lumber (permitted by A002 but not by S000), the structural design assumptions would be violated. The structural engineer's calculations are bas...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the acceptable species and minimum fiber stress (Fb) requirements for all structural wood members. Specifically: (1) Is Douglas Fir an acceptable alternative to Southern Yellow Pine? (2) What is the correct minimum Fb value for Southern Pine — 1000 PSI per A002 ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the acceptable species and minimum fiber stress (Fb) requirements for all structural wood members. Specifically: (1) Is Douglas Fir an acceptable alternative to Southern Yellow Pine? (2) What is the correct minimum Fb value for Sout...

Summary: The door system product approval (NOA-1) requires sill anchoring into a minimum 3500 PSI concrete substrate. Specifically, the installation fastener notes state 'AT SILL: 5/16" TAPCON w/ 1 1/2" MIN. EMBED. INTO 3500 PSI CONC. MIN.' and sill details indicate '1 1/2" MIN EMBED. INTO 3500 PSI CONC. (TYP.)'. However, the structural notes on S000 specify a slab on grade compressive strength of only ...

Why it matters: If the sill tapcons are embedded into 2500 PSI concrete when the manufacturer's tested and approved design requires 3500 PSI, the anchorage capacity may be reduced below the values used to certify the product under Miami-Dade NOA No. 24-0116.12. This could void the product approval for the impact...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required concrete compressive strength at door sill anchor locations. The impact door system NOA requires a minimum of 3500 PSI concrete for sill tapcon embedment, while the structural notes specify f'c = 2500 PSI for slab on grade. Should the slab on grade ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the required concrete compressive strength at door sill anchor locations. The impact door system NOA requires a minimum of 3500 PSI concrete for sill tapcon embedment, while the structural notes specify f'c = 2500 PSI for slab on gr...

Summary: The 'SCOPE OF WORK STATEMENT' on sheet A001 states the project involves a 'ONE-STORY, REINFORCED CMU-BLOCK SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE'. However, the 'BUILDING SCOPE OF WORK' on the same sheet describes a 'TWO-DWELLING RESIDENCE'. Furthermore, the Zoning Site Plan on sheet A003 labels the building as a 'TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE', and the 'BUILDING DISPOSITION' schedule on A003 lists the provided buildi...

Why it matters: Fundamental inconsistencies regarding the building's use classification (single-family vs. two-family/two-dwelling) and the number of stories (one vs. two) will cause severe issues with zoning approval, permitting, and subsequent structural and MEP engineering.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct scope of work. Is the project a one-story single-family residence or a two-story two-family residence? Update all applicable notes, schedules, and plans for consistency.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct scope of work. Is the project a one-story single-family residence or a two-story two-family residence? Update all applicable notes, schedules, and plans for consistency.

Summary: The Architectural Zoning Plan (A003) indicates the "TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE" has a width of "36' - 5 1/2"" with side setbacks of "6' - 8 1/2"" and "6' - 9 1/2"". Conversely, the Civil Boundary Survey (V-1) shows the existing "RESIDENCE # 1352" has a front wall dimension of "31.72'", a western setback of "1.4'" to "1.1'", and an eastern setback of "15.9'".

Why it matters: The architectural site layout directly contradicts the established civil boundary survey. If the zoning plan intends to utilize the existing structure, the footprint dimensions and property line offsets are entirely incorrect. If it represents proposed new construction, it fails to account for th...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the A003 Zoning Plan is for a proposed new residence or an alteration to the existing structure. If it is an existing alteration, revise the architectural footprint and side setbacks to match the 1.1' West and 15.9' East offsets shown on the V-1 Boundary Survey.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the A003 Zoning Plan is for a proposed new residence or an alteration to the existing structure. If it is an existing alteration, revise the architectural footprint and side setbacks to match the 1.1' West and 15.9' East offsets ...

Summary: P102 shows a walkable "BALCONY" at the front of the 2nd floor, accessed from Bedroom 2. However, the structural framing plan S102 shows this exact front area framed with "FRONT ROOF TRUSSES" and multiple "4\" / 1'-0\"" pitch annotations, indicating a sloped roof rather than a flat balcony.

Why it matters: A sloped roof cannot serve as a walkable balcony. This fundamental contradiction between the architectural/plumbing background and the structural framing plan will prevent construction. It must be determined whether the front elevation features a balcony or a sloped roof, so the framing or archit...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the design intent for the front exterior area of the 2nd floor. P102 shows a "BALCONY", while S102 calls for "FRONT ROOF TRUSSES" with a "4\" / 1'-0\"" pitch. Should this area be framed flat for a walkable balcony, or does it feature a sloped roof? Please update...

RFI draft: Please clarify the design intent for the front exterior area of the 2nd floor. P102 shows a "BALCONY", while S102 calls for "FRONT ROOF TRUSSES" with a "4\" / 1'-0\"" pitch. Should this area be framed flat for a walkable balcony, or does it featur...

Summary: The General Structural Notes require all precast lintels to have a minimum of 8" bearing at each end. However, the First Floor Framing plan indicates that opening L-3 is adjacent to a wall segment measuring only 0'-7" before the corner. Furthermore, the Lintel Schedule lists L-3 with a 4'-4" overall span for a 3'-0" opening, mathematically relying on a full 8" bearing on both sides (36" + 8" + ...

Why it matters: Installing a lintel with inadequate bearing violates structural requirements and may lead to improper load transfer, masonry cracking, or structural failure at the building corner. The architectural layout or structural detailing must be adjusted to ensure sufficient bearing capacity.

Suggested next step: Please clarify how the required 8" lintel bearing should be achieved at opening L-3, given the adjacent 7" wall segment. Provide a revised layout or a specific structural detail for this corner condition.

RFI draft: Please clarify how the required 8" lintel bearing should be achieved at opening L-3, given the adjacent 7" wall segment. Provide a revised layout or a specific structural detail for this corner condition.

Summary: The Architectural plan dimensions the interior width of Bathroom 1 as 8'-6 1/2" (102.5") and allocates 4'-8" (56") for the shower/tub. This leaves 46.5" of wall space for the lavatory and water closet. However, the Plumbing plan specifies minimum clearances that sum to 60" for these fixtures (15" from wall to LAV center, 30" from LAV center to WC center, and 15" from WC center to shower edge).

Why it matters: The required plumbing clearances (60") plus the architectural shower dimension (56") require a minimum room width of 116" (9'-8"). The architectural room dimension of 102.5" is 13.5" too narrow to accommodate the fixtures per the plumbing plan clearances. This will result in fixtures not fitting ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the dimensions for Bathroom 1. Should the overall room width be increased to 9'-8", or should the shower/tub dimension be reduced to accommodate the required 60" of plumbing clearances for the lavatory and water closet?

RFI draft: Please clarify the dimensions for Bathroom 1. Should the overall room width be increased to 9'-8", or should the shower/tub dimension be reduced to accommodate the required 60" of plumbing clearances for the lavatory and water closet?

Summary: The S101 framing plan legend specifies that all load-bearing 8" CMU walls are 'REINFORCED WITH #4 BARS 8" O.C.' This applies universally to every CMU wall shown on the plan. However, S400 Detail 4 (Strip Footing Section F2), which is directly referenced from the S101 plan via a section callout labeled '4 / S400', shows the wall reinforcement as '4 #4 BARS @ 48" O.C.' This is a sixfold reduction...

Why it matters: This discrepancy has significant structural implications. Vertical reinforcement spacing in load-bearing CMU walls is critical for resisting axial loads, lateral loads (wind/seismic), and out-of-plane bending. If walls at the F2 footing locations are built with reinforcement at 48" O.C. instead o...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct vertical reinforcement spacing for load-bearing 8" CMU walls at Strip Footing F2 locations. The S101 legend specifies #4 bars at 8" O.C. for all load-bearing CMU walls, while S400 Detail 4 (Strip Footing Section F2) indicates #4 bars at 48" O.C. Addi...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct vertical reinforcement spacing for load-bearing 8" CMU walls at Strip Footing F2 locations. The S101 legend specifies #4 bars at 8" O.C. for all load-bearing CMU walls, while S400 Detail 4 (Strip Footing Section F2) indi...