Commercial Building Shell Addition: 17 Issues Found

Summary: 19 index entries | 0 perfect matches | 7 mismatched | 12 missing Mismatched (7): CS: Expected: COVERSHEET (CS) | Actual: null (CS)(p1) SP-1: Expected: SITE PLAN (SP-1) | Actual: MEHAR AFROZ REAL ESTATE COMMERCIAL BUILDING SHELL ADDITION 5942 PEACH STREET ERIE, PA 16509 (SP-1)(p2) A-1: Expected: FLOOR PLAN (A-1) | Actual: MEHAR AFROZ REAL ESTATE COMMERCIAL BUILDING SHELL ADDITION 5942 PEACH STREET ERIE, PA 16509 (A-1)(p3) A-2: Expected: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (A-2) | Actual: MEHAR AFROZ REAL ESTATE COMMERCIAL BUILDING SHELL ADDITION (A-2)(p4) A-3: Expected:

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Architectural Floor Plan (A-1) depicts the new 'COMMERCIAL BUILDING SHELL ADDITION' as physically attached to an 'EXISTING BUILDING' (Stanton Optical) along its entire eastern boundary. In direct contradiction, the Site Plan (SP-1) depicts the 'PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION' as a completely freestanding structure located centrally on the site, fully surrounded by exterior site improvements. SP-1 specifically designates the area immediately to the east of the addition as exterior space featuring a proposed concrete walk and a 5-space parking lot, rather than an attached existing building.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Structural General Notes (S-0) specify a ground snow load (pg) of 50 psf, while the Cover Sheet (CS) lists the Ground Snow Load as 40 PSF. This is a 25% discrepancy in a fundamental design parameter that directly affects roof framing, joist, and connection design for the entire addition.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Structural General Notes (S-0) specify Wind Exposure B, while the Cover Sheet (CS) specifies Wind Exposure C. Exposure C results in significantly higher wind pressures than Exposure B due to higher velocity pressure exposure coefficients. This affects all wind load calculations for the structure including MWFRS and C&C pressures.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Structural General Notes (S-0) list Ss=0.107, S1=0.039, Sds=0.114, Sd1=0.063. The Cover Sheet (CS) lists Ss: 0.166, S1: 0.049, Sds/Sd1: 0.177/0.078. All four seismic spectral acceleration parameters differ between the two documents. For example, Ss differs by over 55% (0.107 vs 0.166) and Sds differs by over 55% (0.114 vs 0.177).

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Structural General Notes (S-0) specify a Basic Wind Speed (V) of 107 psf, while the Cover Sheet (CS) specifies V ult = 115 MPH. Not only do the numerical values differ (107 vs 115), but the S-0 sheet incorrectly uses units of 'psf' for a wind speed parameter (should be mph). Under ASCE 7-16 for Risk Category II buildings, the 'Basic Wind Speed (V)' is the ultimate wind speed, so both values should represent the same parameter. The 8 mph numerical discrepancy significantly affects the calculated velocity pressure and all downstream wind load calculations.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Sheet A-2 masonry veneer notes specify 'THIN SET INSTALLATION WITH CEMENT BACKER BOARD' for the thin brick veneer, describing a direct adhesive-bonded application method. However, Wall Sections 1 and 2 on Sheet A-3 consistently detail the thin brick installation as 'THIN BRICK OVER BOND COAT, SCRATCH COAT, ON 2.5 DIAMOND MESH MECHANICALLY FASTENED OVER ADHERED ICE AND WATER SHIELD, ON CEMENT BOARD,' which is a mechanically-fastened wire mesh system with a two-coat plaster base—a fundamentally different installation method. These two approaches are not interchangeable: thin set installation bon

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Structural General Notes (S-0) itemize the Superimposed Roof Dead Load as: EPDM 2 psf, 6" Rigid Insulation 4 psf, Metal Deck 2 psf, MEP 3 psf, Acoustic Ceiling 3 psf, and Miscellaneous 4 psf, totaling 18 psf. The Cover Sheet (CS) lists Roof Dead Load as 10 PSF. These values are significantly different, with the S-0 value being 80% higher than the CS value.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The structural foundation details on S-4 consistently specify a "10 MIL VAPOR RETARDER" beneath the concrete slab on grade across multiple details (Typical Foundation Wall, Typical Exterior Column Foundation, Typical Interior Footing, and Foundation Wall at Openings). The architectural wall sections on A-3 consistently specify a "6 MIL POLY VAPOR BARRIER" beneath the concrete slab. Both disciplines are specifying the same sub-slab moisture protection membrane but with different thickness requirements (10 mil vs. 6 mil) and different terminology (vapor retarder vs. vapor barrier).

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The overall building footprint dimensions do not match between the Architectural Roof Plan and the Structural Framing Plan.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Architectural plan A-1 indicates "FUTURE FIT OUT BY TENANT / NO CONCRETE SLAB AT THIS TIME" for Suites B and C, which run the full depth of the building (dimensioned as 86' long). However, Structural plan S-1 specifies that the slab is excluded only between "COLUMN LINES 2 TO 4, A TO D". Because S-1 shows the foundation extending past Grid D to Grid E, this limits the exclusion zone and leaves the southernmost bay of Suites B and C to receive a concrete slab.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The architectural roof plan specifies sloping the framing to the West, but the structural elevations explicitly slope down to the North.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Site Plan (SP-1) labels the proposed building addition as 7,225 Sq. Ft., while the Floor Plan (A-1) totals the three tenant suites (Suite A at 3,304 SF + Suite B at 1,960 SF + Suite C at 1,960 SF) to 7,224 SF. These two sheets present different total areas for the same building addition.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Roof Plan indicates rooftop units (such as RTU-2 and RTU-3) installed on the sloped structure roof. However, the West Elevation does not show any rooftop units projecting above the roofline. Wall Section 5 confirms that the West edge of the roof has a continuous aluminum gutter rather than a raised parapet, meaning the RTUs should be clearly visible from this elevation.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Architectural plan A-1 states that 'SUITE A' has an area of 3,304 SF. However, the Electrical Device Legend on E-1 specifies that the Occupancy Sensor ('OS') has a maximum coverage area of 2,000 SF, and the Utility Plan on E-1 only depicts a single 'OS' device in the Suite A space.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: