Plan Review: 184 Issues Found

Summary: 52 index entries | 45 perfect matches | 3 mismatched | 4 missing Mismatched (3): 3: Expected: SURVEY (3) | Actual: SURVEY - SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (3)(p3) 9: Expected: PARKING / TRANSPORTATION PLAN (9) | Actual: EXQU THE CENTER ( (9)(p9) 13: Expected: FIRE SHEET (13) | Actual: SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (13)(p13) Missing (4) — listed in drawing index but not found in the ...

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: 4 missing, 3 mismatched out of 52 sheets

Summary: Detail 4 'CONSTRUCTION JOINT' specifies a '1/2" Ø x 36" SMOOTH DOWEL'. Assuming it is placed symmetrically, the dowel extends 18 inches into each side of the joint. However, the thickened portion of the slab is dimensioned to extend only 10 inches from the centerline on each side (6" flat bottom + 4" horizontal run for the 1:1 slope), making the maximum overall width of the thickened trench 20 ...

Why it matters: If the contractor attempts to install the specified 36-inch dowels, they will have to drive the ends of the dowels into the subgrade dirt. This destroys the required concrete cover, anchors the dowel in the soil (preventing it from acting as a slip dowel to relieve stresses), and exposes the stee...

Suggested next step: Please revise the 'CONSTRUCTION JOINT' detail to either reduce the dowel length to fit entirely within the thickened slab with proper 3-inch cover (e.g., 14-inch max dowel length) or widen the thickened slab trench to properly encapsulate the 36-inch dowels with at least 3 inc...

RFI draft: Please revise the 'CONSTRUCTION JOINT' detail to either reduce the dowel length to fit entirely within the thickened slab with proper 3-inch cover (e.g., 14-inch max dowel length) or widen the thickened slab trench to properly encapsulate the 36-i...

Summary: The CONCRETE PILASTER SCHEDULE specifies (8) #6 vertical bars for Pilaster P2, which has a 24x24 inch cross-section. The gross cross-sectional area (Ag) is 576 sq in. Eight #6 bars provide a total longitudinal reinforcement area of approximately 3.52 sq in. However, ACI 318-14 Section 10.6.1.1 requires the area of longitudinal reinforcement for nonprestressed columns to be at least 0.01Ag. For ...

Why it matters: Failing to provide the minimum 1% longitudinal reinforcement ratio in a concrete column or pilaster can lead to premature yielding of the reinforcement under sustained service loads due to concrete creep and shrinkage. This compromises the structural integrity, load-bearing capacity, and overall ...

Suggested next step: Please review and revise the vertical reinforcement specified for Pilaster P2 to meet the minimum 1% longitudinal reinforcement ratio (0.01Ag) required by ACI 318-14 Section 10.6.1.1. A minimum of 5.76 sq in of steel is required (e.g., providing at least (10) #7 or (8) #8 bars).

RFI draft: Please review and revise the vertical reinforcement specified for Pilaster P2 to meet the minimum 1% longitudinal reinforcement ratio (0.01Ag) required by ACI 318-14 Section 10.6.1.1. A minimum of 5.76 sq in of steel is required (e.g., providing a...

Summary: Detail 1 shows a C5x6.7 channel "NESTED OVER DECKING" and specifies a 3/16" fillet weld to attach it to the steel joist below. A fillet weld physically requires the joined surfaces to directly intersect, which is impossible because the continuous metal deck separates the channel from the joist. Substituting an arc spot (puddle) weld to weld through the deck is also prohibited because AWS D1.3 S...

Why it matters: Providing unbuildable welding details causes RFI delays in the field. Attempting to force a weld through the decking using a C-channel will result in a non-compliant connection that cannot be properly executed or inspected, potentially leading to failure of the mechanical unit support.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the connection of the C5x6.7 channel to the steel joist in Detail 1. If the channel is placed over the decking, provide an approved attachment method (e.g., cutting the deck to allow direct welding to the joist) that complies with AWS thickness limitations.

RFI draft: Please clarify the connection of the C5x6.7 channel to the steel joist in Detail 1. If the channel is placed over the decking, provide an approved attachment method (e.g., cutting the deck to allow direct welding to the joist) that complies with A...

Summary: The single shear plate connection schedule notes (e.g., SC-1) explicitly state that '1. ALL CAPACITIES SHOWN ARE SERVICE LEVEL CAPACITIES.' However, the capacity tables concurrently provide a column for '3/4"Ø LRFD'. LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Design) capacities are evaluated against factored loads, not service (nominal) level loads.

Why it matters: Designating LRFD factored capacities as service level capacities is a critical design misrepresentation. If contractors, engineers, or inspectors evaluate unfactored service loads against the numerically higher LRFD capacities—as instructed by the schedule note—it will result in severely under-de...

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the capacities listed in the 'LRFD' columns are true factored capacities or service level capacities. Revise Note 1 on the shear connection schedules to clearly distinguish between ASD (service/nominal) and LRFD (factored) capacities in accordance with I...

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the capacities listed in the 'LRFD' columns are true factored capacities or service level capacities. Revise Note 1 on the shear connection schedules to clearly distinguish between ASD (service/nominal) and LRFD (factored) c...

Summary: The West (Angled) Wall Loading Elevation is explicitly watermarked "NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION". IBC Section 1603.1 requires that the design loads and structural design information be indicated on valid construction documents. A drawing explicitly labeled as not for construction cannot be considered a valid construction document to convey the required structural design.

Why it matters: Including drawings marked "NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION" in a set intended for permitting or construction invalidates the design information for that portion of the building. This will lead to immediate rejection by the building official during plan review, or cause work stoppages in the field since the ...

Suggested next step: Please review and finalize the design loads for the West (Angled) Wall Loading Elevation, remove the "NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION" watermark, and reissue the drawing as a valid construction document.

RFI draft: Please review and finalize the design loads for the West (Angled) Wall Loading Elevation, remove the "NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION" watermark, and reissue the drawing as a valid construction document.

Summary: The enlarged structural plans (e.g., Level 2, Level 3, Roof) show structural beams (C12x20.7 and W10x12) framing directly into grid line 4. These beam ends are tagged with Keynote 2, which specifies a "STEEL EMBED PLATE WITH HEADED STUDS IN MASONRY WALL". However, no structural masonry wall or column is depicted along grid 4 to support these beams. Additionally, the foundation plan confirms the...

Why it matters: The omission of the supporting wall or column on grid 4 creates an unbuildable structural condition where floor and roof beams lack a documented load path, leading to inevitable construction delays and RFIs. Additionally, combining the stairwell and elevator in a single enclosure violates critica...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the structural support for the beams framing into grid 4 and update the plans to show the required column or masonry bearing wall. Ensure the foundation plan is updated to support this load. Additionally, confirm that a fire-resistance-rated separation wall will...

RFI draft: Please clarify the structural support for the beams framing into grid 4 and update the plans to show the required column or masonry bearing wall. Ensure the foundation plan is updated to support this load. Additionally, confirm that a fire-resista...

Summary: The Level 1 Floorplan denotes a "ROOF OVERHANG DIMENSION 9.96'" along the South exterior wall, where section cuts 1/A500 and 2/A500 are located. However, Wall Sections 1 and 2 on sheet A500 do not depict any such roof overhang; instead, they show a standard flat roof terminating at a vertical parapet flush with the exterior wall assembly.

Why it matters: A nearly 10-foot roof overhang is a major structural and architectural feature. Its omission from the primary exterior wall sections creates a critical conflict between the plan and detailing. If framed according to the sections, the overhang will be completely missed, altering the building's ext...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the 9.96' roof overhang shown on the South wall of the Level 1 Floorplan is correct. If so, please update Wall Sections 1 and 2 on sheet A500 to accurately detail the structural framing and architectural assembly for this overhang.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the 9.96' roof overhang shown on the South wall of the Level 1 Floorplan is correct. If so, please update Wall Sections 1 and 2 on sheet A500 to accurately detail the structural framing and architectural assembly for this overhang.

Summary: The Civil Site Plan (Sheet 4) indicates a "14.3' ADA RAMP" and "TWO 7\" RISERS" directly outside the main entrance to accommodate a grade change. However, the Architectural Site Plan (Sheet A005) depicts this exact same area as a flat outdoor patio populated with furniture (an L-shaped sofa and a dining table), with no indication of the required ramp or stairs.

Why it matters: This represents a major coordination failure between civil grading and architectural programming. The Civil plan accounts for the elevation difference between the building FFE (5259.48') and the exterior sidewalk (~5258.19') by utilizing a ramp and stairs. If the Civil grading is required, the ar...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the design intent for the main entrance. Verify whether the grade change requires the ADA ramp and stairs shown on the Civil plan, or if the flat patio layout on the Architectural plan is correct. Provide updated, coordinated details for this area across both di...

RFI draft: Please clarify the design intent for the main entrance. Verify whether the grade change requires the ADA ramp and stairs shown on the Civil plan, or if the flat patio layout on the Architectural plan is correct. Provide updated, coordinated detail...

Summary: The Architectural Floorplan designates the room directly below the elevator shaft as a "BOILER" room with "EXTERIOR ACCESS". In direct contradiction, the Electrical Power Plan depicts this exact same room as a "POWDER ROOM/BATHROOM" containing a toilet, a wall-mounted sink, and two "GFI" wall outlets.

Why it matters: This is a critical space planning failure. A boiler room has significantly different mechanical, electrical, plumbing, venting, and fire rating requirements compared to a powder room. Building systems cannot be accurately engineered or routed until the primary function of this space is resolved. ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended use of the room located directly below the elevator shaft. Is it a Boiler Room as shown on the Architectural Floorplan, or a Powder Room/Bathroom as shown on the Electrical Power Plan? Please update all applicable drawings to reflect the correct lay...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended use of the room located directly below the elevator shaft. Is it a Boiler Room as shown on the Architectural Floorplan, or a Powder Room/Bathroom as shown on the Electrical Power Plan? Please update all applicable drawi...

Summary: Foundation Plan S1.10 Note 15 specifies that typical exterior walls are Cold-Formed Steel (CFS). However, section callouts along the left perimeter wall on S1.10 reference detail 3/S5.01, which details a 'CONCRETE STEM WALL TO CMU BEARING WALL' and requires a CMU Wall schedule (which is not scheduled on the plans). Conversely, the right perimeter wall references detail 4/S5.01, which correctly ...

Why it matters: A discrepancy between CMU and CFS for exterior bearing walls fundamentally changes the required foundation doweling, structural load paths, and architectural details. If the contractor follows the 3/S5.01 callout, they will erroneously prep the foundation for a masonry wall instead of the specifi...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required exterior wall construction for the left perimeter wall. Should the 3/S5.01 callouts be revised to a CFS detail (such as 1/S5.01 or 4/S5.01) to align with Foundation Plan Note 15, or is this specific wall intended to be CMU?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required exterior wall construction for the left perimeter wall. Should the 3/S5.01 callouts be revised to a CFS detail (such as 1/S5.01 or 4/S5.01) to align with Foundation Plan Note 15, or is this specific wall intended to be ...

Summary: The structural general notes specify a Flat Roof Snow Load (PF) of 46.5 PSF (with a slope factor Cs of 1.0) and specific roof dead loads including 20 PSF for asphalt shingles and 5 PSF for M/E/P. However, the 'TRUSS SUPPLIER NOTE' on the roof framing plan directs the truss supplier to use significantly lower design loads: a top chord snow load of 24.5 PSF and a top chord dead load of 10 PSF.

Why it matters: Designing the roof trusses to a 24.5 PSF snow load and 10 PSF dead load instead of the 46.5 PSF snow load and 25+ PSF combined dead load required by the general notes will result in a severely under-designed roof structure. This is a critical life-safety issue that could lead to structural failur...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct design loads for the roof trusses. Should the 'TRUSS SUPPLIER NOTE' on S1.40 be revised to match the 46.5 PSF flat roof snow load and the heavier top chord dead loads (20 PSF shingle + 5 PSF M/E/P) specified in the Structural General Notes on S0.00?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct design loads for the roof trusses. Should the 'TRUSS SUPPLIER NOTE' on S1.40 be revised to match the 46.5 PSF flat roof snow load and the heavier top chord dead loads (20 PSF shingle + 5 PSF M/E/P) specified in the Struc...

Summary: The Level 3 floor plan shows the 'EGRESS STAIR' completely enclosed by a solid 'DARK GREY WALL' (Insulated CMU Block) with no stairway door or opening provided from the interior corridor.

Why it matters: An interior exit stairway must have a door to provide an accessible means of egress from the floor it serves. The complete omission of a stairway door on Level 3 prevents occupants from accessing the egress stair, severely compromising life safety and rendering the stairwell non-functional as a r...

Suggested next step: Please revise the floor plan to include a stairway exit door providing access to the Egress Stair from the Level 3 corridor, ensuring it meets required egress width and swing direction.

RFI draft: Please revise the floor plan to include a stairway exit door providing access to the Egress Stair from the Level 3 corridor, ensuring it meets required egress width and swing direction.

Summary: The project scope is explicitly defined as a "RETAIL SALES, SERVICE & REPAIR" building. However, the Regulatory Requirements improperly classify the building as "Occupancy: R-3. Single Family Residence". Under Chapter 3, retail spaces cannot be classified as Residential Group R. This misclassification violates the code's requirement to properly categorize buildings based on their intended use.

Why it matters: Occupancy classification dictates egress, fire protection, allowable area, and structural requirements. Classifying a commercial retail building as a single-family residence will cause the permit application to be rejected and would result in non-compliant life safety systems if built to resident...

Suggested next step: Revise the "Regulatory Requirements" to correctly classify the building according to its retail use (e.g., Group M Mercantile) and remove the incorrect "R-3. Single Family Residence" designation.

RFI draft: Revise the "Regulatory Requirements" to correctly classify the building according to its retail use (e.g., Group M Mercantile) and remove the incorrect "R-3. Single Family Residence" designation.

Summary: The drawings specify multiple outdated or incorrect codes as the regulatory basis for the project, including the "2022 Denver Building and Fire Code", the "2009 Edition" of the International Residential Code, and the obsolete "UBC". Additionally, the temporary facilities notes incorrectly mandate compliance with the "Construction Regulations of Eagle County". The project must be designed and pe...

Why it matters: Establishing the design basis on outdated codes or incorrect jurisdictions provides wrong regulatory directives to the construction team. This will result in a failure to secure a building permit, as all designs must comply with the currently adopted code standards for the City and County of Denver.

Suggested next step: Update all regulatory requirements across the sheet notes to exclusively reference the 2025 Denver Building and Fire Code. Remove all citations to the 2022 DBC, 2021 IBC, 2009 IRC, UBC, and Eagle County regulations.

RFI draft: Update all regulatory requirements across the sheet notes to exclusively reference the 2025 Denver Building and Fire Code. Remove all citations to the 2022 DBC, 2021 IBC, 2009 IRC, UBC, and Eagle County regulations.