Plan Review: 279 Issues Found

Summary: 17 index entries | 16 perfect matches | 0 mismatched | 1 missing Missing (1) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Z: - Z4-02 MiTek Z4 TIE-DOWN ELEVATIONS

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: 1 missing, 0 mismatched out of 17 sheets

Summary: The roof plan shows the RTU-1 mechanical unit installed immediately adjacent to a vertical line of seven 4"Ø U.T.R. penetrations. By cross-referencing the floor plan, these penetrations correspond directly to the seven stacked Washer/Dryer units in the Laundry Room below, meaning they are a combination of clothes dryer exhausts and washer plumbing vents. By comparing their placement to the "10 ...

Why it matters: Code Section 311.3 and Section 502.2.1 strictly prohibit outside air intakes for heating/cooling systems from being located less than 10 feet from plumbing drainage vents or the discharge outlet of environmental exhaust ducts (like clothes dryers) unless the exhaust is elevated at least 3 feet ab...

Suggested next step: Relocate the seven 4"Ø U.T.R. laundry/dryer vents to maintain a minimum 10-foot radial clearance from RTU-1's outdoor air intake, or verify and clearly detail that these vents will be extended vertically to terminate at least 3 feet above the RTU's air inlet per Section 311.3 ...

RFI draft: Relocate the seven 4"Ø U.T.R. laundry/dryer vents to maintain a minimum 10-foot radial clearance from RTU-1's outdoor air intake, or verify and clearly detail that these vents will be extended vertically to terminate at least 3 feet above the RTU'...

Summary: The Top of Slab Sheet Legend specifies a symbol that "INDICATES MIN. 2\" THICK CONCRETE SLAB". However, CRC Section R506.1 requires that concrete slab-on-ground floors be a minimum of 3 1/2 inches thick. If this 2" slab symbol is applied to slab-on-ground floors, it does not meet the minimum code requirement.

Why it matters: Constructing a slab-on-ground floor at only 2 inches thick compromises structural integrity, load-bearing capacity, and crack resistance. This violates the baseline minimum standard for concrete floors on ground and could result in failed structural inspections and potential concrete failure.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended application of the "MIN. 2\" THICK CONCRETE SLAB" symbol. If it applies to concrete slab-on-ground floors, please revise the thickness to a minimum of 3 1/2" to comply with CRC Section R506.1 minimum thickness requirements.

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended application of the "MIN. 2\" THICK CONCRETE SLAB" symbol. If it applies to concrete slab-on-ground floors, please revise the thickness to a minimum of 3 1/2" to comply with CRC Section R506.1 minimum thickness requireme...

Summary: The Building Plan Finish Schedule and Keynote 13 on sheet A1.1 specify Detail 10/D.15 for recessed Fire Extinguisher (F.E.) cabinets, and the floor plan shows these F.E. cabinets located in the 1-hour rated corridor walls. However, Detail 10/D.15 explicitly prohibits its use in corridor walls, stating: "NOT TO BE USED IN CORRIDOR WALLS".

Why it matters: This contradiction leaves the contractor without a compliant fire-resistive assembly for installing recessed F.E. cabinets in corridors. Improper installation without an approved detail could compromise the egress corridor's fire barrier.

Suggested next step: Please provide an approved fire-rated detail for recessed fire extinguisher cabinets located in corridor walls, as Detail 10/D.15 explicitly states it is not to be used in this location.

RFI draft: Please provide an approved fire-rated detail for recessed fire extinguisher cabinets located in corridor walls, as Detail 10/D.15 explicitly states it is not to be used in this location.

Summary: The Top of Slab Plan (A2.0) specifies a '2" AIRSPACE' between the building sections along the vertical separation lines. However, Exterior Elevations 2 and 4 (A2.6) call out a '6" SEISMIC JNT. PER STRUC.' at these exact same separation locations.

Why it matters: If the foundation slabs are poured with only a 2" separation, there will not be enough clearance to properly construct the 6" seismic joint required for the superstructure. This discrepancy can lead to non-compliance with structural seismic requirements, leading to costly concrete demolition and ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required width for the building separation joint. Should the foundation slab be poured with a 6" gap to match the seismic joint shown on the exterior elevations, or is the 2" airspace correct for the slab?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required width for the building separation joint. Should the foundation slab be poured with a 6" gap to match the seismic joint shown on the exterior elevations, or is the 2" airspace correct for the slab?

Summary: The Roof Plan references Exterior Elevation 1 (marker '1/A1.5') at the South edge of the building (bottom of the plan, pointing up). However, Exterior Elevation 1 graphically depicts architectural features that are located exclusively on the North edge of the Roof Plan. Specifically, Elevation 1 shows a parapet canopy referenced by detail '4/D.2' and keynote '14'. On the Roof Plan, detail '4/D....

Why it matters: If the elevation drawings are mislabeled or assigned to the wrong facade, it will cause severe coordination issues during framing, exterior finishing, and MEP rough-in. The contractor may incorrectly frame North facade elements (like the parapet canopy) on the South side of the building, leading ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the orientation of Exterior Elevation 1 on sheet A1.5. It is referenced on the South facade of the Roof Plan but depicts features (such as the parapet canopy, detail 4/D.2, and keynote 14) located on the North facade. Update the elevation tags and titles to refl...

RFI draft: Please clarify the orientation of Exterior Elevation 1 on sheet A1.5. It is referenced on the South facade of the Roof Plan but depicts features (such as the parapet canopy, detail 4/D.2, and keynote 14) located on the North facade. Update the ele...

Summary: There is a direct spatial contradiction between the First Floor Plan (A1.1) and the Stair 2 Plans (A4.3). On sheet A1.1, the main horizontal corridor is located to the north of Stair 2, and Unit 101 is located directly to the east of the stairwell. However, the Stair 2 First Level Plan on sheet A4.3 depicts the 'CORRIDOR' running along the east side of the stairwell (to the right of grid A2.0),...

Why it matters: If built according to the enlarged Stair 2 plan (A4.3), the stairwell's primary interior access point would open to the east directly into Unit 101's footprint instead of the main egress corridor. This misalignment severs the life safety path, prevents proper building egress, and represents a maj...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct orientation and layout for Stair 2. Should the enlarged Stair 2 plans on A4.3 be revised to show corridor access on the north wall to connect with the main corridor, and the east wall revised to a dwelling separation wall adjacent to Unit 101?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct orientation and layout for Stair 2. Should the enlarged Stair 2 plans on A4.3 be revised to show corridor access on the north wall to connect with the main corridor, and the east wall revised to a dwelling separation wal...

Summary: Exterior Elevations 2 and 4 explicitly show a vertical '6" SEISMIC JNT. PER STRUC.' bisecting the building's facade from the foundation up to the roofline. However, the 'ROOF PLAN' on sheet A2.5 lacks any corresponding linework, keynotes, or legend symbols detailing a 6-inch seismic or expansion joint traversing the roof deck to separate the building masses.

Why it matters: A 6-inch seismic joint requires a complete separation of the building structure to accommodate movement. This structural separation must carry continuously through the roof assembly, necessitating specialized roofing expansion joint covers, raised curbs, and flexible flashing to maintain watertig...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required location of the '6" SEISMIC JNT. PER STRUC.' referenced on the Exterior Elevations. Provide updated Roof Plan drawings showing the continuous routing of the seismic joint across the roof surface, and reference the appropriate roofing expansion joint...

RFI draft: Please confirm the required location of the '6" SEISMIC JNT. PER STRUC.' referenced on the Exterior Elevations. Provide updated Roof Plan drawings showing the continuous routing of the seismic joint across the roof surface, and reference the appro...

Summary: Building Sections A and B on A1.7 explicitly designate the building as "BUILDING TYPE I - 1-HR FIRE RATED", which strictly requires non-combustible structural elements (e.g., concrete, steel) by code. However, multiple structural keynotes on A1.7 and interior details on D.11 explicitly specify combustible wood framing, including "2X WALL FRAMING", "EXT. PLYWD. DECK SHTG.", and "WOOD STUD WALL".

Why it matters: Type I construction prohibits wood framing for major structural elements. This global contradiction impacts structural design, fire protection compliance, and building permitting, as the entire structural methodology shown contradicts the designated building type classification.

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct building construction type. If the building is Type V or III, update the building section titles to reflect combustible framing. If the building is truly Type I, revise all architectural keynotes and details to specify non-combustible framing (e.g., light g...

RFI draft: Clarify the correct building construction type. If the building is Type V or III, update the building section titles to reflect combustible framing. If the building is truly Type I, revise all architectural keynotes and details to specify non-comb...

Summary: There is a direct contradiction in the grid spacing and overall width for the Stair 1 layout between the Third Floor Plan and the detailed Stair 1 plan. Sheet A1.3 shows the distance between Grid A6.0 and A5.0 as 1'-2", and between A5.0 and A4.1 as 10'-0", resulting in an overall dimension of 11'-2". However, Sheet A4.1 indicates that the spacing between Grids A6.0, A5.0, and A4.1 is equal ("EQ...

Why it matters: This dimensional discrepancy between the global floor plan and the detailed stair plan will lead to significant structural framing misalignments. The stairwell foundation, structural walls, and prefabricated stair assemblies may be sized or positioned incorrectly if not coordinated. This must be ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct horizontal dimensions and grid spacing for Stair 1. Sheet A1.3 specifies distances of 1'-2" and 10'-0" (overall 11'-2") between Grids A6.0, A5.0, and A4.1, whereas Sheet A4.1 indicates equal spacing ('EQ.') with an overall width of 13'-4". Please upd...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct horizontal dimensions and grid spacing for Stair 1. Sheet A1.3 specifies distances of 1'-2" and 10'-0" (overall 11'-2") between Grids A6.0, A5.0, and A4.1, whereas Sheet A4.1 indicates equal spacing ('EQ.') with an overa...

Summary: The section markers on the Roof Plan are swapped relative to the actual section drawings. On the Roof Plan, Section A markers point North/South (indicating an East-West cut) and Section B markers point East/West (indicating a North-South cut). However, Building Section A displays horizontal B-series grid lines (confirming it is actually the North-South cut), while Building Section B displays ve...

Why it matters: Swapped section callouts will lead to severe confusion when trying to locate interior conditions, structural elements, and details within the building plan. This fundamental cross-reference error makes it impossible to correctly orient the sections without deduction.

Suggested next step: Please verify and correct the section markers on the Roof Plan (A2.5) or the titles on the section sheet (A2.9) so that Section A correctly identifies the North-South cut and Section B identifies the East-West cut.

RFI draft: Please verify and correct the section markers on the Roof Plan (A2.5) or the titles on the section sheet (A2.9) so that Section A correctly identifies the North-South cut and Section B identifies the East-West cut.

Summary: Floor Plan A3.1 shows the South exterior wall (referenced by elevation tag 1/A3.4) as a continuous wall with windows for offices, featuring a Drop Box and Knox Box but no exterior doors. However, Elevation 1 on A3.4 shows a significantly different layout: it depicts a main entrance storefront with double French doors (keynote 11) adjacent to the drop box area.

Why it matters: A conflict regarding the presence of a main entrance and double doors on the exterior envelope affects egress calculations, framing, security, and door ordering. It must be resolved prior to exterior wall framing.

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct layout for the South facade. Please update either Floor Plan A3.1 or Exterior Elevation 1 (A3.4) to consistently show whether a double French door entrance exists on this wall.

RFI draft: Clarify the correct layout for the South facade. Please update either Floor Plan A3.1 or Exterior Elevation 1 (A3.4) to consistently show whether a double French door entrance exists on this wall.

Summary: Floor Plan A3.1 references elevation 2/A3.4 for the East exterior wall. The plan shows this East facade as a solid, continuous wall enclosing the I.T. Room and Womens restroom. However, Elevation 2 on A3.4 depicts a completely different facade featuring a central double French door entrance (keynote 11) and a large exterior galvanized metal trellis structure (keynotes 24, 23).

Why it matters: Referencing the wrong elevation or drawing an incorrect facade leads to major errors in exterior envelope construction, framing, and structural provisions (for the trellis). Concrete footings and hardscape will also be affected.

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct design for the East facade. Does it feature a solid wall as shown on the Floor Plan, or does it include French doors and a metal trellis as shown on Elevation 2? Verify if elevation marker 2/A3.4 points to the correct facade.

RFI draft: Clarify the correct design for the East facade. Does it feature a solid wall as shown on the Floor Plan, or does it include French doors and a metal trellis as shown on Elevation 2? Verify if elevation marker 2/A3.4 points to the correct facade.

Summary: The Top of Slab Plan (A3.0) indicates that the rooms on the right side of the building are restrooms, featuring notes to 'PROVIDE SLOPE TOWARD FLOOR DRAINS, TYP.' and a visual depiction of a toilet fixture. However, Building Section A (A3.6), which is explicitly cross-referenced to cut through this exact area of the building, identifies these same spaces as a 'LAUNDRY' (showing stacked 'WASH.' ...

Why it matters: This discrepancy between the architectural section and the plumbing/foundation slab layout will lead to significant construction errors. Providing a depressed slab, slope-to-drain, and sanitary sewer stub-outs for toilets and floor drains in a space intended for electrical and I.T. equipment is a...

Suggested next step: Section A on sheet A3.6 shows a Laundry and I.T. Room on the right side of the building, whereas the Top of Slab Plan on sheet A3.0 details this same area with floor drains, slope-to-drain slabs, and a toilet fixture. Please confirm the correct layout and intended usage for th...

RFI draft: Section A on sheet A3.6 shows a Laundry and I.T. Room on the right side of the building, whereas the Top of Slab Plan on sheet A3.0 details this same area with floor drains, slope-to-drain slabs, and a toilet fixture. Please confirm the correct la...

Summary: Section A depicts 'HALL 1' as the room immediately adjacent to the left exterior wall. However, the floor plan shows 'HALL 1' as an interior corridor, and indicates the leftmost (West) exterior rooms are 'MAINTENANCE' and 'INTERVIEW RM'.

Why it matters: This indicates a fundamental mismatch between the section cut and the floor plan layout. Such geometric contradictions can lead to framing the wrong exterior wall assemblies and misinterpreting the overall building envelope.

Suggested next step: Section A on A3.6 shows HALL 1 against the exterior wall, but the floor plan on A3.1 shows HALL 1 as an interior space with MAINTENANCE and INTERVIEW RM on the exterior wall. Please provide an updated Section A that accurately reflects the floor plan layout.

RFI draft: Section A on A3.6 shows HALL 1 against the exterior wall, but the floor plan on A3.1 shows HALL 1 as an interior space with MAINTENANCE and INTERVIEW RM on the exterior wall. Please provide an updated Section A that accurately reflects the floor p...