Senior Lofts Plan Review: 325 Issues Found

Summary: 77 index entries for Architecture sheets | 49 perfect matches | 25 mismatched | 3 missing Mismatched (25): A0.35: Expected: DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION FEATURES AGREEMENT | Actual: DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT (p12) A0.36: Expected: DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION FEATURES AGREEMENT | Actual: AIR SEALING DETAILS (p13) A0.37: Expected:...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 A0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 2

Summary: 32 index entries | 14 perfect matches | 17 mismatched | 1 missing Mismatched (17): C0.0: Expected: TITLE SHEET | Actual: VICINITY MAP (p1) C2.3: Expected: STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN | Actual: STORMWATER POLLUTION PROTECTION PLAN (p8) C2.4: Expected: SWP3 DETAIL SHEET - WET EXTENDED DETENTION POND | Actual:...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 C0.0 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1 --- 📄 C2.0 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 5

Summary: The plumbing equipment schedule lists EWH2 as a significantly larger electric load than what is shown on the electrical mechanical equipment schedule. Plumbing shows EWH2 at '15 KW' while the electrical schedule shows EWH2 as '4.5' (same magnitude as EWH1 on both schedules). This is a direct mismatch for the same equipment tag (EWH2).

Why it matters: This conflict can result in undersized feeders/breakers/disconnects and incorrect panel loading for EWH2, creating construction and inspection/commissioning delays and potential rework after equipment submittals are approved.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct electrical characteristics for EWH2 (kW/load, FLA/MCA, OCP, feeder size) and revise either the Plumbing Equipment & Rough-In Schedule (P2.11) or the Electrical Mechanical Equipment Schedule (E3.12) so EWH2 matches across disciplines.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct electrical characteristics for EWH2 (kW/load, FLA/MCA, OCP, feeder size) and revise either the Plumbing Equipment & Rough-In Schedule (P2.11) or the Electrical Mechanical Equipment Schedule (E3.12) so EWH2 matches across disciplines.

Summary: Sheet A0.50 identifies Wall Type 5 as a 1-hour rated corridor wall using UL U309, but the Wall Type 5 assembly is shown with 2x6 studs. The UL U309 listing provided on sheet A0.60 specifies nominal 2x4 wood studs (not 2x6). This is a direct conflict between the specified wall type construction and the referenced UL fire-rated assembly.

Why it matters: If constructed with 2x6 studs while still being labeled/relied upon as “UL #U309,” the corridor wall may not match the tested/listed assembly used for code compliance. This can jeopardize the required 1-hour rating and cause permitting/inspection failures or require costly field corrections (rebuild, alternate UL design selection, or...

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended listed assembly for corridor walls: either revise Wall Type 5 to match UL Design U309 stud requirements, or provide an alternate UL design/listing that matches the 2x6 stud configuration (and associated layers), and update Wall Type 5 notes/details accordingly.

RFI draft: Confirm the intended listed assembly for corridor walls: either revise Wall Type 5 to match UL Design U309 stud requirements, or provide an alternate UL design/listing that matches the 2x6 stud configuration (and associated layers), and update Wall Type 5 notes/details accordingly.

Summary: The Third Floor Plan identifies the core/common rooms as “ELEV LOBBY 301”, “CORRIDOR 302”, “LAUNDRY 304”, and “TRASH 305”. However, the Third Floor Finish Schedule lists different room names/numbers for these same functions, including “301 | CORRIDOR”, “304 | CORRIDOR”, and “306 | TRASH”, and it assigns “305 | ROOF ACCESS & STORAGE”. This is a...

Why it matters: Finish installation and procurement are typically driven by room number. If the room numbering is inconsistent, contractors may apply corridor finishes to the elevator lobby, install incorrect wall finishes in the laundry/trash rooms, or misidentify rooms during inspections and punchlist, causing rework and schedule impacts.

Suggested next step: Provide a corrected Third Floor Finish Schedule that matches the Third Floor Plan room numbers (e.g., confirm whether the corridor is Room 302, trash is Room 305, laundry is Room 304, and elevator lobby is Room 301), or revise the Third Floor Plan to match the intended finish schedule numbering.

RFI draft: Provide a corrected Third Floor Finish Schedule that matches the Third Floor Plan room numbers (e.g., confirm whether the corridor is Room 302, trash is Room 305, laundry is Room 304, and elevator lobby is Room 301), or revise the Third Floor Plan to match the intended finish schedule numbering.

Summary: The drawings label the elevator hoistway/shaft wall assembly as a 1-hour fire rating per UL U905 (including in the building section and the elevator head detail). However, the project specification for UL Design No. U905 indicates the elevator shaft assembly is a 2-hour rated system. The 1-hour rating shown on the drawings directly contradicts...

Why it matters: If built to a 1-hour assembly based on the drawing notes, the elevator shaft enclosure may not meet the required fire-resistance rating, creating a life-safety and code compliance risk and likely resulting in plan review and inspection failures.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required elevator hoistway fire-resistance rating (UL U905) and revise all shaft wall notes/details currently stating '(1 HR ... UL# U905)' to match the specified '2 HR' U905 requirement, including any associated UL references on the elevator details/sections.

RFI draft: Confirm the required elevator hoistway fire-resistance rating (UL U905) and revise all shaft wall notes/details currently stating '(1 HR ... UL# U905)' to match the specified '2 HR' U905 requirement, including any associated UL references on the elevator details/sections.

Summary: The drawing identifies Wall Type 5 as a 1-hour rated fire partition using “UL #U309”, but it specifies 2x6 studs. The UL U309 specification shown requires nominal 2x4 studs. This means the corridor wall as detailed does not match the referenced UL U309 assembly.

Why it matters: If constructed with non-listed stud size, the corridor fire partition may not achieve the required 1-hour rating, creating code compliance and permitting risk and requiring redesign/rework if rejected by the AHJ or inspector.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether Wall Type 5 must strictly follow UL U309. If yes, revise Wall Type 5 framing to nominal 2x4 studs at the required spacing per UL U309. If 2x6 studs are required, provide a tested/listed alternate UL design that permits 2x6 studs and update the wall type schedule and details accordingly.

RFI draft: Confirm whether Wall Type 5 must strictly follow UL U309. If yes, revise Wall Type 5 framing to nominal 2x4 studs at the required spacing per UL U309. If 2x6 studs are required, provide a tested/listed alternate UL design that permits 2x6 studs and update the wall type schedule and details...

Summary: The drawing’s exterior load bearing wall types 1a/1b (identified as “UL# W408”) specify 2x6 FRT wood studs at 16' O.C. The UL W408 specification provided allows 2x4 studs at 16' O.C., with an option for 2x6 studs only when spaced 24' O.C. Therefore, the stud size/spacing shown in the drawing contradicts the referenced UL W408 design requirements.

Why it matters: Using an unlisted stud spacing/configuration can invalidate the referenced UL fire-resistance design and may also affect structural assumptions tied to the UL assembly limitations, creating AHJ acceptance and construction rework risk.

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended UL W408 configuration. Revise the exterior load-bearing wall framing to match W408 (either 2x4 @ 16' O.C. or 2x6 @ 24' O.C.), or provide a different listed UL design that permits 2x6 @ 16' O.C. and update the wall type schedule/details accordingly.

RFI draft: Confirm the intended UL W408 configuration. Revise the exterior load-bearing wall framing to match W408 (either 2x4 @ 16' O.C. or 2x6 @ 24' O.C.), or provide a different listed UL design that permits 2x6 @ 16' O.C. and update the wall type schedule/details accordingly.

Summary: The drawing fire damper notes specify damper closing mechanism by mounting orientation (“Vertical mount; gravity drop” and “Horizontal mount; spring loaded to close”). The specification specifies the required closing mechanism by air stream orientation (“horizontal air stream = gravity drop” and “vertical air stream = spring loaded”). Because...

Why it matters: If the project team/fabricator interprets “vertical/horizontal mount” differently than “vertical/horizontal air stream,” fire dampers could be selected/installed with the wrong closing mechanism for the actual airflow condition, creating a life-safety/code compliance risk and potential AHJ rejection.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required fire damper closing mechanism based on actual air stream orientation for each condition, and revise/clarify the drawing fire damper notes so they unambiguously align with the specification (i.e., explicitly relate mounting orientation to air stream orientation, or restate the requirement using the same basis as the...

RFI draft: Confirm the required fire damper closing mechanism based on actual air stream orientation for each condition, and revise/clarify the drawing fire damper notes so they unambiguously align with the specification (i.e., explicitly relate mounting orientation to air stream orientation, or restate...

Summary: The sheet’s sustainability/code notes state the project is pursuing NGBS “BRONZE” via an alternative method. The project specification requires OHFA rental developments to obtain an approved green building certification, and when using ICC/ASHRAE 700 NGBS it must be “Silver Level Certification or higher.” This is a direct contradiction in...

Why it matters: Targeting Bronze instead of the required Silver (or higher) can drive incorrect design and product selections and can result in failing required third-party certification at closeout, creating major redesign/rework and potential funding/compliance delays.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required green building certification target for this project (e.g., NGBS Silver or higher as required by spec, or another listed certification) and revise the drawing notes (and any related design criteria) to match the specification requirements.

RFI draft: Confirm the required green building certification target for this project (e.g., NGBS Silver or higher as required by spec, or another listed certification) and revise the drawing notes (and any related design criteria) to match the specification requirements.

Summary: The plumbing sheet sets a maximum water-closet flush volume of 1.1 GPF, but the plumbing fixture schedule specifies 1.28 GPF for the water closet(s). The NGBS Emerald documentation sheet also reflects/assumes 1.28 GPF as the plumbing schedule value for water closets. These requirements cannot all be satisfied simultaneously without revising...

Why it matters: If 1.28 GPF toilets are procured/installed per the fixture schedule (and as reflected in the NGBS worksheet), the installation would directly conflict with the plumbing sheet’s water conservation maximum. This can cause procurement changes, submittal rejections, and potential disputes over which requirement governs, and it may also require...

Suggested next step: Confirm the required maximum flush volume for all water closets for this project (1.1 GPF per Water Conservation Notes vs 1.28 GPF per fixture schedule/NGBS worksheet). If 1.1 GPF is required, revise the plumbing fixture schedule (WC1/WC2) and update the NGBS Emerald documentation accordingly; if 1.28 GPF is acceptable, revise the Water...

RFI draft: Confirm the required maximum flush volume for all water closets for this project (1.1 GPF per Water Conservation Notes vs 1.28 GPF per fixture schedule/NGBS worksheet). If 1.1 GPF is required, revise the plumbing fixture schedule (WC1/WC2) and update the NGBS Emerald documentation accordingly;...

Summary: Architectural First Floor Plan and Plumbing Plan identify room 110A as a mechanical room, while the Architectural Enlarged Common Area Plan identifies room 110A as storage and assigns the mechanical room to 110B. This is a direct conflict in room naming/numbering for the same common-area support rooms adjacent to the community room/corridor.

Why it matters: Conflicting room numbers/names can cause incorrect MEP rough-ins, equipment placement, door signage, life-safety documentation, and can lead to trades installing work in the wrong room or per the wrong intent.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct assignments for rooms 110A and 110B (which room is MECH and which room is STOR.), and revise A7.10 and/or A2.10 (and any related MEP plans) so the room numbers and room names match consistently across the drawing set.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct assignments for rooms 110A and 110B (which room is MECH and which room is STOR.), and revise A7.10 and/or A2.10 (and any related MEP plans) so the room numbers and room names match consistently across the drawing set.

Summary: The plumbing firestop detail for UL System No. W-L-2768 is restricted to a 1-hr rated wall built to UL U400/V400 series and specifically requires steel channel studs that are minimum 6 in. wide. The architectural corridor wall types shown for 1-hr rated fire partitions (UL U309) are wood stud walls (2x6 and 2x4). These wall framing requirements...

Why it matters: If W-L-2768 is used in corridor walls as currently scheduled, the firestop installation would not match the UL system prerequisites (stud material/size), risking failed inspection and loss of the required fire-resistance rating at penetrations (e.g., cleanout access conditions).

Suggested next step: Confirm whether UL System W-L-2768 is intended to be used in the 1-hr corridor wall types (UL U309). If yes, revise either (a) the architectural corridor wall framing to meet W-L-2768 steel stud requirements, or (b) the plumbing firestop detail to a UL-listed membrane-penetrant system compatible with wood-stud UL U309 corridor walls.

RFI draft: Confirm whether UL System W-L-2768 is intended to be used in the 1-hr corridor wall types (UL U309). If yes, revise either (a) the architectural corridor wall framing to meet W-L-2768 steel stud requirements, or (b) the plumbing firestop detail to a UL-listed membrane-penetrant system compatible...

Summary: The plumbing firestop detail for UL System No. W-L-2078 states that when wood studs are used, they are nominal 2x4 studs spaced a maximum of 16 in. O.C. The architectural 1-hr corridor wall types (UL U309) are shown with wood studs at 24 in. O.C. This is a direct incompatibility between the wall framing assumed by the firestop system detail and...

Why it matters: If penetrations in the 1-hr corridor walls are firestopped using W-L-2078 while corridor walls are framed at 24 in. O.C. wood studs, the installation would not meet the UL system description, risking rejection by the AHJ and requiring rework or selection of a different UL-listed firestop system.

Suggested next step: Confirm which UL firestop system is intended for nonmetallic pipe penetrations in the 1-hr corridor walls (UL U309) framed at 24 in. O.C. If W-L-2078 is intended, clarify whether corridor walls at these penetrations will be reframed to 16 in. O.C. max, or provide an alternate UL-listed firestop system compatible with the corridor wall framing.

RFI draft: Confirm which UL firestop system is intended for nonmetallic pipe penetrations in the 1-hr corridor walls (UL U309) framed at 24 in. O.C. If W-L-2078 is intended, clarify whether corridor walls at these penetrations will be reframed to 16 in. O.C. max, or provide an alternate UL-listed firestop...

Summary: The electrical lighting plan labels the right-side stair as 'STAIR 3' with tag 'S403', while the electrical power plan labels the same tag 'S403' as 'STAIR5-1'. The structural fourth floor framing plan shows a core/shaft label 'S303' in the corresponding stair/core area, creating a third identifier for what appears to be the same stair/core on...

Why it matters: If the stair/core identifiers do not match across disciplines, coordination of framed openings, shear wall locations, and any required penetrations/sleeves for electrical may be directed to the wrong location or wrong stair. This can lead to field RFIs, rework, and potential structural modifications if openings are missed or incorrectly placed.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct stair/core designation for the right-side stair currently tagged 'S403' on Electrical (and whether it corresponds to Structural core label 'S303'). Provide a mapping table of Architectural/Electrical stair numbers vs Structural core/opening labels for this level, and update the sheets to use consistent identifiers.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct stair/core designation for the right-side stair currently tagged 'S403' on Electrical (and whether it corresponds to Structural core label 'S303'). Provide a mapping table of Architectural/Electrical stair numbers vs Structural core/opening labels for this level, and...