Plan Review: 91 Issues Found

Summary: The door schedule specifies Door D1 as a 30x80 single door. Door callout '1' is shown on the First Floor Plan at the entry from the stairway into the Nook/Dining area, serving as the dwelling unit's primary exit access door to the exit stairway. Per Section 1010.1.1, means of egress doors shall provide a minimum clear opening width of 32 inches, measured between the face of the door and the fra...

Why it matters: This door is on the sole egress path from the dwelling unit to the exit stairway. An undersized egress door would be flagged during plan review or field inspection, requiring door and potentially frame replacement. This would cause construction delays and additional material and labor costs.

Suggested next step: Request that the architect revise Door D1 to a minimum 34-inch-wide door leaf to achieve the required 32-inch minimum clear opening width per Section 1010.1.1, or confirm an alternative egress configuration that meets code requirements.

RFI draft: Request that the architect revise Door D1 to a minimum 34-inch-wide door leaf to achieve the required 32-inch minimum clear opening width per Section 1010.1.1, or confirm an alternative egress configuration that meets code requirements.

Summary: CMU Section Detail 6 specifies '2X12" JOIST WITH SIMPSON HUS26(TYP.)' and CMU Section Detail 7 specifies '2X12" ROOF JOIST WITH SIMPSON HUS26(TYP.)'. The Simpson HUS26 hanger is designated for 2x6 nominal-depth members, as confirmed by its correct application elsewhere on this same sheet where '2X6 OUTRIGGERS AFFIXED TO 2X6 ROOF JOIST WITH SIMPSON HUS26(TYP.)' is specified. The main Building Ro...

Why it matters: This incorrect hanger specification would directly impact construction. A contractor attempting to install HUS26 hangers on 2x12 joists would find the hangers physically cannot fit the members, requiring an immediate work stoppage and RFI. This would cause scheduling delays and potential cost ove...

Suggested next step: Request the engineer of record clarify the correct joist hanger for the 2X12 joists at CMU wall connections in Details 6 and 7. It appears the Simpson HUS26 should be revised to Simpson HUS210 (or equivalent rated for 2x12 members), consistent with the hanger specified for 2X1...

RFI draft: Request the engineer of record clarify the correct joist hanger for the 2X12 joists at CMU wall connections in Details 6 and 7. It appears the Simpson HUS26 should be revised to Simpson HUS210 (or equivalent rated for 2x12 members), consistent wit...

Summary: The electrical legend on Sheet E100 defines symbols for "S SMOKE DETECTOR" and "S/C CEILING CARBON MONOXIDE & SMOKE DETECTOR," establishing these devices as within the scope of this drawing. However, neither the Ground Floor Electrical Plan nor the First Floor Electrical Plan shows any smoke detector (S) or CO/smoke combination detector (S/C) symbol placed anywhere. The First Floor Plan clearly...

Why it matters: The absence of smoke and CO detection device locations from the electrical plans is a critical life safety deficiency that will likely result in plan review rejection. During construction, if the electrical contractor does not install conduit or wiring for these devices during rough-in because th...

Suggested next step: Request the electrical engineer to add smoke detector (S) and CO/smoke combination detector (S/C) locations to both the Ground Floor and First Floor Electrical Plans. Specifically, ensure CO/smoke combination detectors are placed within 10 feet of each sleeping room (Master Be...

RFI draft: Request the electrical engineer to add smoke detector (S) and CO/smoke combination detector (S/C) locations to both the Ground Floor and First Floor Electrical Plans. Specifically, ensure CO/smoke combination detectors are placed within 10 feet of...

Summary: The drawing specifies that base and cap flashing shall be any "CORROSION RESISTANT METAL OF MINIMUM NOMINAL 0.019 INCH (0.483 MM) THICKNESS". This violates Section 1503.2 and Table 1503.2 of the Florida Building Code, which requires metal flashing to meet minimum thickness standards for specific approved materials. Permitting any corrosion-resistant metal at 0.019 inches violates the code, as a...

Why it matters: Using metals that are thinner than the code minimums will lead to premature corrosion, failure of the weather-resistant exterior wall envelope, and water intrusion. This will result in failed inspections and structural water damage, especially in a 147 MPH wind zone.

Suggested next step: Please revise the roof flashing material specifications to align with the minimum metal types and thicknesses required by FBC Table 1503.2, such as 0.0179 inch minimum for galvanized steel or 0.024 inch minimum for aluminum.

RFI draft: Please revise the roof flashing material specifications to align with the minimum metal types and thicknesses required by FBC Table 1503.2, such as 0.0179 inch minimum for galvanized steel or 0.024 inch minimum for aluminum.

Summary: The General Notes (Glazing, Items 5 and 9) incorrectly restrict the definition of hazardous locations for safety glazing. For bathtubs and showers, the notes measure the 60-inch vertical threshold from the "DRAIN INLET," whereas FBC Section 2406.4.5 requires measuring "vertically above any standing or walking surface." For swimming pools, the notes limit the hazardous area to within "36\" (914 ...

Why it matters: Measuring from the drain inlet rather than the actual standing or walking surface may result in standard glass being installed in impact-prone areas (e.g., if a shower floor slopes or steps down to the drain). Similarly, limiting the horizontal requirement for pools to 36 inches instead of the co...

Suggested next step: Please revise the Glazing General Notes to conform with FBC 2406.4.5. Update Item 5 to measure the 60-inch vertical threshold from "any standing or walking surface" rather than the drain inlet. Update Item 9 to define the horizontal hazard distance for swimming pools as within...

RFI draft: Please revise the Glazing General Notes to conform with FBC 2406.4.5. Update Item 5 to measure the 60-inch vertical threshold from "any standing or walking surface" rather than the drain inlet. Update Item 9 to define the horizontal hazard distanc...

Summary: Sheet notes and the foundation detail specify an 8" thick CMU wall with vertical #5 rebar spaced at 4" on center. Standard concrete masonry units have cell cores spaced at 8 inches on center. Specifying vertical reinforcement at 4 inches on center is physically impossible without modifying or destroying the block webs, failing to comply with standard masonry unit construction per FBC 2104.1.

Why it matters: This detail is unbuildable using standard concrete masonry units. The contractor cannot place vertical rebar every 4 inches in an 8-inch cell block. This will cause an immediate halt to masonry wall construction, requiring a redesign of the wall reinforcement or a change to a solid cast-in-place ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the vertical reinforcement spacing for the 8" CMU wall to align with standard block cell spacing (e.g., 8", 16", 24" O.C.), or clarify if a different wall system (such as solid cast-in-place concrete) is intended.

RFI draft: Please revise the vertical reinforcement spacing for the 8" CMU wall to align with standard block cell spacing (e.g., 8", 16", 24" O.C.), or clarify if a different wall system (such as solid cast-in-place concrete) is intended.

Summary: The Gable End Diagonal Bracing Detail explicitly notes that all allowable shear capacities for diaphragms and shear walls have been used from the "2004 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE". However, general drawing notes require the project to be built in accordance with the 2023 Florida Building Code, which mandates that structural design and wood-frame shear walls be designed to current code provisions and...

Why it matters: The 2004 FBC utilizes severely outdated wind load criteria and shear wall capacities. Failing to design the lateral force-resisting system to the current 2023 FBC means the structure may be critically under-designed for high-wind events, which poses a significant safety risk and will lead to imme...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that all shear walls and diaphragms have been designed in accordance with the 2023 Florida Building Code and current AWC SDPWS allowable shear values, and update Note 2 on the Gable End Diagonal Bracing Detail to reference the correct code edition.

RFI draft: Please confirm that all shear walls and diaphragms have been designed in accordance with the 2023 Florida Building Code and current AWC SDPWS allowable shear values, and update Note 2 on the Gable End Diagonal Bracing Detail to reference the corre...

Summary: Detail 4 (WEEP SCREED DETAIL) explicitly specifies 'VULCUM CAULK BOTTOM JOINT ONLY', with a leader pointing directly to the bottom edge of the weep screed at the mid-wall transition. Caulking this bottom joint seals the weep holes and the gap necessary for water drainage, directly preventing moisture from escaping the exterior wall assembly.

Why it matters: FBC Section 1403.2 requires the exterior wall envelope to provide 'a means for draining water that enters the assembly to the exterior.' Blocking the weep screed's drainage path with caulk violates this requirement. This will lead to water accumulation within the wall, causing severe moisture dam...

Suggested next step: Revise the weep screed detail to remove the requirement to caulk the bottom joint. Please verify that the detail provides an unobstructed drainage path for water to exit the exterior wall envelope as required by FBC 1403.2.

RFI draft: Revise the weep screed detail to remove the requirement to caulk the bottom joint. Please verify that the detail provides an unobstructed drainage path for water to exit the exterior wall envelope as required by FBC 1403.2.

Summary: The elevator details repeatedly specify that the hoistway doors and wall framing must comply with the "3\" × 5\" RULE". However, per FBC Section 3013.1, elevators in private residences are subject to stricter clearance limits to prevent entrapment hazards: the distance between the hoistway face of the hoistway doors and the landing sill may not exceed 3/4 inch for swinging doors.

Why it matters: Using the outdated 3" x 5" clearance rule poses a severe life safety and child entrapment hazard. The elevator installation will fail inspection and require significant reframing and door rework if not designed to the current maximum 3/4 inch sill and 4 inch door-to-door limits.

Suggested next step: Please update the wall construction, door framing, and clearance notes to comply with the current FBC 3013.1 requirements, specifically the maximum 3/4 inch landing sill clearance and maximum 4 inch space between doors, replacing the obsolete 3" x 5" rule.

RFI draft: Please update the wall construction, door framing, and clearance notes to comply with the current FBC 3013.1 requirements, specifically the maximum 3/4 inch landing sill clearance and maximum 4 inch space between doors, replacing the obsolete 3" x...

Summary: The General Notes specify roof sheathing attachment using 'COMMON NAILS' (8d at 4" o.c. edges, 6" o.c. field). Section R803.2.3.1 of the 2023 Florida Residential Code explicitly requires ring shank nails conforming to ASTM F1667 RSRS-03, RSRS-01, or RSRS-04 for wood structural panel roof sheathing fastening. Common nails do not meet the RSRS ring shank specification. This is especially critical...

Why it matters: Using common nails instead of the code-mandated ring shank nails significantly reduces the withdrawal resistance of the roof sheathing fasteners. In a 147 MPH Exposure D wind zone, this could lead to roof sheathing blow-off during a hurricane event. This would almost certainly be rejected at the ...

Suggested next step: Request the designer revise the General Notes roof sheathing fastener specification from 'common nails' to ring shank nails complying with ASTM F1667 RSRS-03 (2-1/2" × 0.131" × 0.281" head), RSRS-01 (2-3/8" × 0.113"), or RSRS-04 (3" × 0.120" × 0.281" head) as required by Secti...

RFI draft: Request the designer revise the General Notes roof sheathing fastener specification from 'common nails' to ring shank nails complying with ASTM F1667 RSRS-03 (2-1/2" × 0.131" × 0.281" head), RSRS-01 (2-3/8" × 0.113"), or RSRS-04 (3" × 0.120" × 0.2...

Summary: The East Elevation shows FOUNDATION. EL. at 3'-4" and FIN. GRADE. EL. at 3'-11 1/2". The difference between finished grade and the top of the foundation is 3'-11 1/2" minus 3'-4" = 7 1/2 inches. Section R403.1.4 of the 2023 Florida Residential Code requires that exterior footings be placed not less than 12 inches below the finished grade. The foundation as shown is 4 1/2 inches shallower than t...

Why it matters: A foundation placed only 7 1/2 inches below grade does not meet the minimum 12-inch depth requirement, which exists to ensure footings bear on stable soil below the zone subject to erosion, moisture variation, and organic activity. This will be flagged during plan review and will not receive a bu...

Suggested next step: Request the design team to revise the foundation elevation so that the bottom of the exterior footing is at least 12 inches below the finished grade elevation of 3'-11 1/2", which would require a foundation elevation of no higher than 2'-11 1/2". Confirm that the revised depth...

RFI draft: Request the design team to revise the foundation elevation so that the bottom of the exterior footing is at least 12 inches below the finished grade elevation of 3'-11 1/2", which would require a foundation elevation of no higher than 2'-11 1/2". ...

Summary: Sheet Note 2 and Foundation Detail 2 both specify #5 vertical rebar at 4" O.C. in the 8" thick CMU block wall. Standard load-bearing concrete masonry units conforming to ASTM C90 (as required by Section R606.2.1) have grouted cells spaced at approximately 8" on center. Vertical reinforcement in masonry must be placed in grouted cells per TMS 402, as required by Section R606.1. A 4-inch on-cente...

Why it matters: This specification affects all 8" CMU foundation walls on the project. During construction, masons will be unable to place rebar as specified, requiring an immediate RFI and potential structural redesign. This will cause significant construction delays and additional engineering costs. The intend...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify the intended vertical reinforcement spacing for the 8" CMU block walls. The specified 4" O.C. spacing is not achievable with standard CMU units per ASTM C90. Confirm whether the intended spacing is 48" O.C. (4'-0"), 32" O.C., or another ...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify the intended vertical reinforcement spacing for the 8" CMU block walls. The specified 4" O.C. spacing is not achievable with standard CMU units per ASTM C90. Confirm whether the intended spacing is 48" O.C. ...

Summary: The drawing specifies '8D NAILS @ 6" EDGES, 12" FIELD' for the 3/4" CDX plywood roof sheathing in both the Building Roof Cross Section (Section 1) and the Cantilever Floor & Roof Section (Section 4). Section R803.2.3.1 of the 2023 Florida Residential Code requires roof sheathing to be fastened with ASTM F1667 RSRS ring shank nails. Since the 3/4" sheathing exceeds 15/32" thickness, only RSRS-03...

Why it matters: Using standard 8d common nails instead of RSRS ring shank nails significantly reduces the withdrawal resistance of roof sheathing fasteners. In Florida's hurricane-prone environment, inadequate nail withdrawal resistance is a primary cause of roof sheathing blow-off during high-wind events. This ...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer revise the roof sheathing nailing specification on Sections 1 and 4 of sheet S125 to require ASTM F1667 RSRS-03 (2-1/2" × 0.131" × 0.281" head diameter) ring shank nails as mandated by Section R803.2.3.1, replacing the currently specified 8D nails.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer revise the roof sheathing nailing specification on Sections 1 and 4 of sheet S125 to require ASTM F1667 RSRS-03 (2-1/2" × 0.131" × 0.281" head diameter) ring shank nails as mandated by Section R803.2.3.1, replacing ...

Summary: The building roof section specifies roof sheathing fastening as '8D NAILS @ 6" EDGES, 12" FIELD'. Section R803.2.3.1 of the 2023 Florida Residential Code explicitly requires that wood structural panel roof sheathing 'shall be fastened with ASTM F1667 RSRS-03 (2 1/2" × 0.131" × 0.281 head diameter) nails', which are ring shank nails. The designation '8D NAILS' without any ring shank qualifier co...

Why it matters: Ring shank nails provide significantly greater withdrawal resistance compared to smooth-shank common nails, which is essential in Florida for resisting wind uplift forces on roof sheathing during hurricane events. Using common 8D nails instead of the mandated ring shank nails would substantially ...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer revise the roof sheathing fastening specification from '8D NAILS' to ASTM F1667 RSRS-03 (2 1/2" × 0.131" × 0.281" head diameter) ring shank nails as required by Section R803.2.3.1 of the 2023 Florida Residential Code, and verify that the nailing...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer revise the roof sheathing fastening specification from '8D NAILS' to ASTM F1667 RSRS-03 (2 1/2" × 0.131" × 0.281" head diameter) ring shank nails as required by Section R803.2.3.1 of the 2023 Florida Residential Cod...

Summary: Detail 9 (Gable End Diagonal Bracing Detail) explicitly states that 'ALL ALLOWABLE SHEAR (OR) FOR DIAPHRAGMS AND SHEAR WALLS HAVE BEEN USED FROM THE 2004 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.' However, the project title block on this same sheet states the project shall be built in accordance with the 'FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 8TH EDITION, 2023 (CURRENT EDITION).' Section R301.1 of the 2023 FBC requires that bui...

Why it matters: Allowable shear values for diaphragms and shear walls have been revised between the 2004 and 2023 editions of the Florida Building Code, particularly given changes to wind design criteria and load path requirements. Using outdated 2004 values could result in shear walls and diaphragms that are st...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record to confirm that all allowable shear values for diaphragms and shear walls referenced in Detail 9 and any other applicable details have been recalculated and updated to comply with the 2023 Florida Building Code, 8th Edition (R301.1). T...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record to confirm that all allowable shear values for diaphragms and shear walls referenced in Detail 9 and any other applicable details have been recalculated and updated to comply with the 2023 Florida Building...