Pacific Northwest Multifamily: 148 Issues Found

Summary: 33 indexed pages | 9 match | 11 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 13 missing Minor Mismatch (11): A1.0: Expected: FOUNDATION PLAN (A1.0) | Actual: BUILDING PERMITS - FOUNDATIO (A1.0)(p2) | Reason: Sheet number matches exactly; title appears prefixed and truncated by OCR but clearly refers to the foundation plan. A1.2: Expected:...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 G0.1 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1

Summary: 8 indexed pages | 2 match | 4 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 2 missing Minor Mismatch (4): SP.2: Expected: SITE PLAN SHEET (SP.2) | Actual: SITE PLAN (SP.1)(p2) | Reason: Best-fit actual sheet is the site plan on page 2; the index entry appears misnumbered or duplicated, with a close title variant. SP.3: Expected: SITE...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 SP.0 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1 --- 📄 SP.1 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 2

Summary: Building Section B shows THIRD FL. ELEV. 23.00' and SECOND FL. ELEV. 18.00', producing only a 5'-0' floor-to-floor height between the second and third floors. Building Section C shows the identical elevations. In Section B, habitable spaces including LIVING ROOM, SUITE BEDROOM, and SUITE BATHROOM are located between and above these floor...

Why it matters: If constructed with a third floor elevation of 23.00' as noted in Sections B and C, the resulting ceiling height in the living room would be approximately 3'-10' to 4'-0' after deducting floor framing depth, which is physically unusable for habitable occupancy. This elevation discrepancy between sections will cause confusion during plan review,...

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct Third Floor elevation for Building Sections B and C. Section A shows THIRD FL. ELEV. 28.00' while Sections B and C show THIRD FL. ELEV. 23.00'. Clarify whether the 23.00' notation is an error and should be revised to 28.00' to match Section A, and issue revised building sections with the corrected elevation datum.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct Third Floor elevation for Building Sections B and C. Section A shows THIRD FL. ELEV. 28.00' while Sections B and C show THIRD FL. ELEV. 23.00'. Clarify whether the 23.00' notation is an error and should be revised to 28.00' to match Section A, and issue revised building...

Summary: Building Sections B and C label the third floor elevation as 23.00' while the second floor elevation is labeled 18.00', resulting in a floor-to-floor height of only 5'-0' (60 inches). This floor-to-floor dimension, before even accounting for the thickness of the floor/ceiling assembly, is well below the minimum 80-inch (6'-8') stairway headroom...

Why it matters: If the 23.00' elevation is used during construction, the resulting 5-foot floor-to-floor height would create uninhabitable spaces and non-code-compliant stairways. This error, if not corrected before construction, could lead to structural rework affecting framing, floor assemblies, and roof bearing heights. Even if caught during framing, the...

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct THIRD FL. ELEV. for Building Sections B and C. Section A shows THIRD FL. ELEV. 28.00' while Sections B and C show THIRD FL. ELEV. 23.00'. Confirm the intended elevation and revise the affected section drawings to ensure the floor-to-floor height between the second and third floors provides the minimum 80-inch stairway...

RFI draft: Clarify the correct THIRD FL. ELEV. for Building Sections B and C. Section A shows THIRD FL. ELEV. 28.00' while Sections B and C show THIRD FL. ELEV. 23.00'. Confirm the intended elevation and revise the affected section drawings to ensure the floor-to-floor height between the second and third...

Summary: Building Sections B and C label the Third Floor elevation at 23.00' while the Second Floor is at 18.00', yielding a floor-to-floor height of only 5'-0'. After deducting the floor/ceiling assembly depth, the clear ceiling height for the Living Room (a habitable space on the second floor level) would be approximately 4 feet or less. IBC Section...

Why it matters: If the structure is framed to the 23.00' third floor elevation shown on Sections B and C, the second-floor habitable rooms (Living Room, Suite Bedroom, Suite Bathroom) would be uninhabitable and would fail building inspection. Correcting this after framing would require demolition and reconstruction of upper-floor structure, causing major...

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct Third Floor elevation. Section A shows THIRD FL. ELEV. 28.00' while Sections B and C show THIRD FL. ELEV. 23.00'. Please confirm the correct elevation and revise all building sections to be consistent, ensuring minimum ceiling heights per IBC 1207.2 are maintained in all habitable spaces.

RFI draft: Clarify the correct Third Floor elevation. Section A shows THIRD FL. ELEV. 28.00' while Sections B and C show THIRD FL. ELEV. 23.00'. Please confirm the correct elevation and revise all building sections to be consistent, ensuring minimum ceiling heights per IBC 1207.2 are maintained in all...

Summary: The South Elevation on sheet A3.1 labels the Third Floor elevation as 28.00', whereas the West Elevation on the same sheet A3.1, the North Elevation on sheet A3.2, and the East Elevation on sheet A3.2 all consistently label the Third Floor elevation as 23.00'. This is a 5'-0' discrepancy for the same horizontal reference datum. With the Second...

Why it matters: This discrepancy directly impacts structural framing heights, window head and sill heights relative to floor datums, stair riser counts and geometry between floors, guardrail heights, and overall building height calculations for zoning and fire code compliance. The '30' ABOVE GRADE - FIRE AERIAL APPARATUS' reference line position is also...

Suggested next step: Request the architect to confirm the correct Third Floor elevation. Is it 28.00' (consistent with the 10'-0' floor-to-floor dimension above Second Floor at 18.00') or 23.00' (as shown on three of four elevations)? Request that all four exterior elevations on sheets A3.1 and A3.2 be corrected to reflect the confirmed value and that all affected...

RFI draft: Request the architect to confirm the correct Third Floor elevation. Is it 28.00' (consistent with the 10'-0' floor-to-floor dimension above Second Floor at 18.00') or 23.00' (as shown on three of four elevations)? Request that all four exterior elevations on sheets A3.1 and A3.2 be corrected to...

Summary: The South Elevation on SP.3 shows the Third Floor Elevation as 28.00', which is consistent with a 10'-0' floor-to-floor height above the Second Floor at 18.00'. However, the North Elevation on SP.4 shows the Third Floor Elevation as 23.00', and the East Elevation on SP.4 also shows 23.00'. A third floor elevation of 23.00' would produce only a...

Why it matters: The 5-foot discrepancy in the third floor elevation directly affects structural coordination. The structural framing plans (S4.1 and S4.2) show full-height wall framing with 11 7/8' TJI 110 joists, manufactured trusses, and balloon-framed members from Level 2 to Roof. All of these framing elements depend on an accurate and consistent...

Suggested next step: Request the Architect clarify the correct Third Floor Elevation. The South Elevation shows 28.00' (consistent with a 10'-0' floor-to-floor from the Second Floor at 18.00'), while the North and East Elevations show 23.00'. Confirm the correct value and issue revised elevation drawings. Request the Structural Engineer verify that framing on S4.1...

RFI draft: Request the Architect clarify the correct Third Floor Elevation. The South Elevation shows 28.00' (consistent with a 10'-0' floor-to-floor from the Second Floor at 18.00'), while the North and East Elevations show 23.00'. Confirm the correct value and issue revised elevation drawings. Request...

Summary: The North and East Elevations show an overall building height dimension of 31'-7 1/2' with SLAB ELEV. at 8.00' and EXISTING GRADE at 6.50'. The building features prominent front-facing gable roofs on Units 1 and 3 with a 4:12 pitch. Per IFC D105.1, the 'highest roof surface' shall be determined by measurement to 'the eave of a pitched roof, the...

Why it matters: If D105.1 is triggered, approved aerial fire apparatus access roads must be provided. This imposes significant site design requirements for road width, proximity to the building, and unobstructed aerial access zones. Failure to address this during design could result in fire department plan review rejection, delayed building permits, or costly...

Suggested next step: Request the architect clarify the building height measurement relative to grade plane for IFC D105.1 compliance, specifically addressing whether the 'highest roof surface' was measured to the eave (T.O.P.) or to the intersection of the roof with the exterior gable wall (ridge). If the ridge exceeds 30 feet above grade plane, confirm that aerial...

RFI draft: Request the architect clarify the building height measurement relative to grade plane for IFC D105.1 compliance, specifically addressing whether the 'highest roof surface' was measured to the eave (T.O.P.) or to the intersection of the roof with the exterior gable wall (ridge). If the ridge...

Summary: The structural detail EDL on sheet S2.1 specifies deck ledger fasteners as 1/4' diameter x 4' #SDS screws at 8' on center into a solid rim, with a 2x pressure-treated ledger matched to joist depth. The architectural detail 20 on sheet A5.2 specifies a typical deck-to-floor connection using a 2X P.T. ledger fastened with 1/2' lag screws at 12'...

Why it matters: Deck ledger connections are a critical life-safety element; improper attachment is a leading cause of deck collapse. The two drawings provide contradictory fastener instructions for the same connection. If the contractor follows the architectural detail instead of the structural detail, the resulting connection capacity may not meet the...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on which fastener specification governs for the exterior deck ledger connection: the 1/4' diameter x 4' #SDS screws at 8' OC shown in structural detail EDL on sheet S2.1, or the 1/2' lag screws at 12' OC alternating top-to-bottom with 6' minimum embedment shown in architectural detail 20 on sheet A5.2. Request that the...

RFI draft: Request clarification on which fastener specification governs for the exterior deck ledger connection: the 1/4' diameter x 4' #SDS screws at 8' OC shown in structural detail EDL on sheet S2.1, or the 1/2' lag screws at 12' OC alternating top-to-bottom with 6' minimum embedment shown in...

Summary: The east property line dimensions differ significantly between the two drawings. The Landscape Plan (L1) shows the east boundary bearing as N24°52'20'W with a length of 124.00', while the Site Civil Plan (C2) shows it as N24°45'20'W with a length of 70.00'. This is a 7-minute angular difference in bearing and a 54-foot difference in length....

Why it matters: Property boundary dimensions are the foundational reference for all site improvements. A 54-foot discrepancy in one boundary line means the landscape planting layout, parking buffer extents, setback compliance (15' BSBL shown on both drawings), tree placement along the east perimeter, and underground utility routing as designed on C2 could all...

Suggested next step: Request the surveyor and both design teams confirm the correct bearing and length for the east property line. Clarify whether the correct dimension is N24°45'20'W at 70.00' (as shown on C2) or N24°52'20'W at 124.00' (as shown on L1), and update both drawings to match the certified legal survey.

RFI draft: Request the surveyor and both design teams confirm the correct bearing and length for the east property line. Clarify whether the correct dimension is N24°45'20'W at 70.00' (as shown on C2) or N24°52'20'W at 124.00' (as shown on L1), and update both drawings to match the certified legal survey.

Summary: The Foundation Plan slab notes repeatedly call out 'f'c = 2500psi' for the 8' concrete slab. However, the General Structural Notes on S1.0 state 'f'c = 3000 psi minimum for environmental exposure (2500 psi used in structural design, or unless greater psi indicated on the plans).' The specification establishes 3000 psi as the minimum concrete...

Why it matters: Using 2500 psi concrete in the foundation instead of the required 3000 psi minimum could compromise the long-term durability of the concrete against environmental exposure (freeze-thaw, sulfate attack, moisture ingress). This is a code-driven durability requirement that is separate from structural adequacy. If constructed at 2500 psi, the...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify the intended concrete strength for the foundation slab. The General Structural Notes specify f'c = 3000 psi minimum for environmental exposure, while the Foundation Plan notes f'c = 2500 psi. Please confirm whether the slab note should be revised to f'c = 3000 psi to comply with the environmental exposure...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify the intended concrete strength for the foundation slab. The General Structural Notes specify f'c = 3000 psi minimum for environmental exposure, while the Foundation Plan notes f'c = 2500 psi. Please confirm whether the slab note should be revised to f'c =...

Summary: Building Section A shows 'THIRD FL. ELEV. 28.00'' while Building Section B shows 'THIRD FL. ELEV. 23.00'' and Building Section C also shows 'THIRD FL. ELEV. 23.00''. All three sections cut through the same triplex building, as confirmed by the Roof Plan (A2.1) where the section callouts A and B are both shown passing through the same building...

Why it matters: A 5-foot difference in the Third Floor elevation has major implications for structural framing, stair design, window placement, and building height calculations. With the Second Floor at 18.00', Sections B and C's Third Floor at 23.00' would result in only 5'-0' floor-to-floor height, which is not feasible for habitable residential space and...

Suggested next step: Request the architect to confirm the correct Third Floor elevation. Verify whether 28.00' (as shown in Section A) or 23.00' (as shown in Sections B and C) is the intended elevation, and revise all building sections to reflect a consistent datum. Given that a 5'-0' floor-to-floor height is not feasible for habitable space, 28.00' appears to be...

RFI draft: Request the architect to confirm the correct Third Floor elevation. Verify whether 28.00' (as shown in Section A) or 23.00' (as shown in Sections B and C) is the intended elevation, and revise all building sections to reflect a consistent datum. Given that a 5'-0' floor-to-floor height is not...

Summary: Building Section A on sheet A4.1 labels the third floor elevation as 28.00', while Building Section B and Building Section C on the same sheet (A4.1) and Building Sections on sheet A4.2 all label the third floor elevation as 23.00'. This is a 5'-0' discrepancy for the same datum level within the same building. With the second floor elevation...

Why it matters: A 5-foot ambiguity in a major floor elevation directly affects structural framing design, stair geometry, wall heights, window head elevations, exterior cladding layout, and building height for zoning compliance. If 28.00' is correct, any structural, mechanical, or framing work sized to a 23.00' third floor would be 5 feet too short. If 23.00'...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct Third Floor Elevation. Section A on A4.1 shows THIRD FL. ELEV. 28.00' while Sections B, C (A4.1) and Sections E, F (A4.2) show THIRD FL. ELEV. 23.00'. Please confirm the intended elevation and issue revised sections as needed. Also confirm floor-to-floor height from the second floor to the third floor and verify stair...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct Third Floor Elevation. Section A on A4.1 shows THIRD FL. ELEV. 28.00' while Sections B, C (A4.1) and Sections E, F (A4.2) show THIRD FL. ELEV. 23.00'. Please confirm the intended elevation and issue revised sections as needed. Also confirm floor-to-floor height from...

Summary: The Site Plan Cover Sheet (SP.0) lists the lot size as '0.34 ACRES / 13,503 S.F.' under the LAND section. The Landscape Plan (L1) Site Calculations list the total site as '0.34 ACRES' with 'TOTAL SQUARE FEET: 14,968 SF'. While both documents agree on the acreage (0.34 acres), the square footage differs by 1,465 SF. Notably, SP.0 also provides...

Why it matters: Total site area is the basis for zoning compliance calculations including density (DU/AC), impervious coverage ratios, stormwater management sizing, and landscape area requirements. A 1,465 SF discrepancy (nearly 11%) could affect whether the project meets code thresholds for the City of Stanwood. The tree calculation on L1 uses 14,968 SF as...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct total site area in square feet. SP.0 states 13,503 S.F. while L1 states 14,968 SF. The lot dimensions listed on SP.0 (214' × 70') appear to support the 14,968 SF figure. Please reconcile and update all area-dependent calculations (impervious area, landscape area, tree requirements, density, recreation area) on both...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct total site area in square feet. SP.0 states 13,503 S.F. while L1 states 14,968 SF. The lot dimensions listed on SP.0 (214' × 70') appear to support the 14,968 SF figure. Please reconcile and update all area-dependent calculations (impervious area, landscape area, tree...

Summary: The Landscape Plan Site Calculations state the total site area is 14,968 SF, while the permit application Site Information sheet records the total square footage of the property as 13,503 S.F. This is a direct contradiction of 1,465 SF for the same parcel (both documents agree on 0.34 acres). The drawing's tree requirement calculation is based...

Why it matters: The lot area is a foundational figure that drives multiple site-development metrics including lot coverage, tree density requirements, and landscape-area ratios. The permit application's own lot coverage calculation (1,931 SF building footprint / 14.30% = ~13,503 SF) is internally consistent with its stated 13,503 SF, suggesting the permit...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct total square footage of the site. The Landscape Plan states 14,968 SF while the permit application states 13,503 SF. Please reconcile and confirm the correct figure, and revise the Site Calculations on L1 (including the tree requirement calculation) accordingly to ensure consistency with the permit application.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct total square footage of the site. The Landscape Plan states 14,968 SF while the permit application states 13,503 SF. Please reconcile and confirm the correct figure, and revise the Site Calculations on L1 (including the tree requirement calculation) accordingly to...