Connecticut Mixed-Use Plan Review: 1141 Issues Found

Summary: 89 index entries | 50 perfect matches | 34 mismatched | 5 missing Mismatched (34): C7.0: Expected: EROSION CONTROL & PAVEMENT DETAILS | Actual: EROSION CONTROL, PAVEMENT, & STORM DETAILS (p11) C7.2: Expected: STORM & UTILITY DETAILS | Actual: DETAILS (p13) L-1: Expected: SITE, LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING PLAN | Actual:...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 M0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 49 --- 📄 E0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 56 --- 📄 P0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 64 --- 📄 A0.00 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1

Summary: 88 index entries | 51 perfect matches | 33 mismatched | 4 missing Mismatched (33): C7.0: Expected: EROSION CONTROL & PAVEMENT DETAILS | Actual: EROSION CONTROL, PAVEMENT, & STORM DETAILS (p11) C7.2: Expected: STORM & UTILITY DETAILS | Actual: DETAILS (p13) L-2: Expected: 6-UNIT AND 7-UNIT BUILDING FOUNDATION PLANS AND...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 A0.00 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1 --- 📄 M0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 49 --- 📄 E0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 56 --- 📄 P0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 64

Summary: 91 index entries | 53 perfect matches | 31 mismatched | 7 missing Mismatched (31): C7.0: Expected: EROSION CONTROL & PAVEMENT DETAILS | Actual: EROSION CONTROL, PAVEMENT, & STORM DETAILS (p11) C7.2: Expected: STORM & UTILITY DETAILS | Actual: DETAILS (p13) L-2: Expected: 6-UNIT AND 7-UNIT BUILDING FOUNDATION PLANS AND...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 M0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 51 --- 📄 E0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 58 --- 📄 P0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 66 --- 📄 A0.00 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1

Summary: 89 index entries | 55 perfect matches | 31 mismatched | 3 missing Mismatched (31): C7.0: Expected: EROSION CONTROL & PAVEMENT DETAILS | Actual: EROSION CONTROL, PAVEMENT, & STORM DETAILS (p11) C7.2: Expected: STORM & UTILITY DETAILS | Actual: DETAILS (p13) L-2: Expected: 6-UNIT AND 7-UNIT BUILDING FOUNDATION PLANS AND...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 P0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 64 --- 📄 A0.00 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1 --- 📄 M0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 49 --- 📄 E0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 56

Summary: 89 index entries | 51 perfect matches | 33 mismatched | 5 missing Mismatched (33): C7.0: Expected: EROSION CONTROL & PAVEMENT DETAILS | Actual: EROSION CONTROL, PAVEMENT, & STORM DETAILS (p11) C7.2: Expected: STORM & UTILITY DETAILS | Actual: DETAILS (p13) L-2: Expected: 6-UNIT AND 7-UNIT BUILDING FOUNDATION PLANS AND...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 M0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 49 --- 📄 E0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 56 --- 📄 P0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 64 --- 📄 A0.00 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1

Summary: 89 index entries | 53 perfect matches | 32 mismatched | 4 missing Mismatched (32): C7.0: Expected: EROSION CONTROL & PAVEMENT DETAILS | Actual: EROSION CONTROL, PAVEMENT, & STORM DETAILS (p11) C7.2: Expected: STORM & UTILITY DETAILS | Actual: DETAILS (p13) L-2: Expected: 6-UNIT AND 7-UNIT BUILDING FOUNDATION PLANS AND...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 A0.00 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1 --- 📄 M0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 49 --- 📄 E0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 56 --- 📄 P0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 64

Summary: 89 index entries | 53 perfect matches | 32 mismatched | 4 missing Mismatched (32): C7.0: Expected: EROSION CONTROL & PAVEMENT DETAILS | Actual: EROSION CONTROL, PAVEMENT, & STORM DETAILS (p11) C7.2: Expected: STORM & UTILITY DETAILS | Actual: DETAILS (p13) L-2: Expected: 6-UNIT AND 7-UNIT BUILDING FOUNDATION PLANS AND...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 M0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 49 --- 📄 E0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 56 --- 📄 P0.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 64 --- 📄 A0.00 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1

Summary: S1.01 Floor Framing Notes state shearwalls extend only from the second floor slab on deck up to the third floor framing and reference S602. S1.02 Roof Construction Notes state shearwalls extend from the foundation to the top of the third floor sheathing and reference S601. These are conflicting extents and conflicting sheet references for the...

Why it matters: Conflicting shear wall extents can change the lateral load path, required sheathing/holdowns/collectors, and inspection expectations. This can impact structural permitting compliance and cause major field changes if the wrong extent is built.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct shearwall requirements sheet reference (S601 vs S602) and the correct vertical extent of the shearwalls ('TOP OF THE SECOND FLOOR SLAB ON DECK TO THE THIRD FLOOR FRAMING' vs 'FOUNDATION TO TOP OF THE THIRD FLOOR SHEATHING'). Revise notes to align across sheets.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct shearwall requirements sheet reference (S601 vs S602) and the correct vertical extent of the shearwalls ('TOP OF THE SECOND FLOOR SLAB ON DECK TO THE THIRD FLOOR FRAMING' vs 'FOUNDATION TO TOP OF THE THIRD FLOOR SHEATHING'). Revise notes to align across sheets.

Summary: Sheet S5.01 Typical Wall Base Plate Detail shows '5/8\'Ø X 10\' LONG J-HOOK ANCHOR (GALV) AT 2'-8\' O.C. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE,' while the Shear Wall Schedule on S5.01 lists 'J-HOOK ANCHOR SPACING AT BOTTOM OF WALL' as 16' for SW Type A and B at 1ST–2ND. Sheet S3.00 also directs: 'REFER TO SHEARWALL SCHEDULE FOR SHEARWALL BASE ATTACHMENT.'...

Why it matters: If the wrong J-hook anchor spacing is used at shear wall lines, the shear wall base attachment may be under-anchored, which can lead to failed inspection and potentially inadequate lateral performance. If the tighter spacing is installed where not required, it can cause unnecessary drilling/anchors, cost, and coordination conflicts with slab...

Suggested next step: Confirm which J-hook anchor spacing governs at shear wall lines and at non-shear exterior wall base plates: the '5/8\'Ø X 10\' LONG J-HOOK ANCHOR (GALV) AT 2'-8\' O.C. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE' callout in the Typical Wall Base Plate Detail, or the 'J-HOOK ANCHOR SPACING AT BOTTOM OF WALL' values in the Shear Wall Schedule (e.g., 16\' for SW Type...

RFI draft: Confirm which J-hook anchor spacing governs at shear wall lines and at non-shear exterior wall base plates: the '5/8\'Ø X 10\' LONG J-HOOK ANCHOR (GALV) AT 2'-8\' O.C. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE' callout in the Typical Wall Base Plate Detail, or the 'J-HOOK ANCHOR SPACING AT BOTTOM OF WALL' values...

Summary: The ENERGY STAR specification letter lists performance-based efficiency targets for the 2BR and 3BR mixed heat pumps (SEER2 and HSPF2) based on Mitsubishi MXZ-SM36 and MXZ-SM48. However, the drawing’s VRF outdoor unit schedule for the corresponding Mitsubishi outdoor units shows much lower bracketed values in the “EER2 [SEER2]” column (e.g.,...

Why it matters: If the scheduled equipment efficiencies do not meet the ENERGY STAR performance-based items, the project may fail the ENERGY STAR v3.2 HVAC efficiency prerequisites/targets, potentially requiring equipment reselection, resubmittals, or redesign to maintain the intended certification/compliance path.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the intended ENERGY STAR v3.2 performance-based HVAC efficiencies for the installed heat pumps and provide the AHRI listing/certificate for the selected MXZ outdoor units and matching indoor units. If the project is required to meet 20.35/20.5 SEER2 (and the listed HSPF2 targets), update sheet M5.01 schedules to match compliant...

RFI draft: Please confirm the intended ENERGY STAR v3.2 performance-based HVAC efficiencies for the installed heat pumps and provide the AHRI listing/certificate for the selected MXZ outdoor units and matching indoor units. If the project is required to meet 20.35/20.5 SEER2 (and the listed HSPF2 targets),...

Summary: The ENERGY STAR v3.2 specification letter lists whole-house ventilation as an ERV at '300 cfm'. The mechanical drawings and schedules instead indicate ERV airflows of '50 CFM' (ERV-A) and '75 CFM' (ERV-B), which is a different ventilation rate than specified for the project.

Why it matters: If the project is installed and balanced to the lower ERV rates shown on the drawings, it may not meet the project’s ENERGY STAR whole-house ventilation specification and could jeopardize program participation and/or require redesign/rebalancing late in construction.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required whole-house ventilation airflow for each dwelling unit (is the intent truly an 'In-unit ERV, 70% efficient, 300 cfm' per unit, or is 300 cfm a different basis/aggregate?). If 300 cfm is required, revise ERV equipment selection and the plans/schedules (ERV-A/ERV-B) to match the required airflow and show final...

RFI draft: Confirm the required whole-house ventilation airflow for each dwelling unit (is the intent truly an 'In-unit ERV, 70% efficient, 300 cfm' per unit, or is 300 cfm a different basis/aggregate?). If 300 cfm is required, revise ERV equipment selection and the plans/schedules (ERV-A/ERV-B) to match...

Summary: The supporting ENERGY STAR checklist calls for whole-house ventilation of 'In-unit ERV, 70% efficient, 300 cfm'. The drawing’s ERV schedule shows smaller scheduled capacities: ERV-A lists NOMINAL CFM of '30–130' with O.A. CFM '50', and ERV-B lists NOMINAL CFM of '65–182' with O.A. CFM '75'. This indicates the scheduled ERV equipment does not...

Why it matters: Because the checklist states that noncompliance can jeopardize program participation, the ERV airflow discrepancy creates a significant certification and design compliance risk and may require equipment selection and/or ventilation design revisions before construction.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required whole-house ventilation ERV airflow target associated with the ENERGY STAR checklist item ('300 cfm') and clarify whether it is intended per dwelling unit/ERV or another basis. Confirm whether scheduled ERV-A (30–130 nominal, 50 O.A.) and ERV-B (65–182 nominal, 75 O.A.) satisfy the requirement; if not, revise the ERV...

RFI draft: Confirm the required whole-house ventilation ERV airflow target associated with the ENERGY STAR checklist item ('300 cfm') and clarify whether it is intended per dwelling unit/ERV or another basis. Confirm whether scheduled ERV-A (30–130 nominal, 50 O.A.) and ERV-B (65–182 nominal, 75 O.A.)...

Summary: The stair detail shows a minimum tread depth of 10 inches, and the stair plan note indicates winder treads can be as small as 6 inches. IBC 2021 requires rectangular tread depths to be at least 11 inches, and winder treads to be at least 11 inches at the walkline and at least 10 inches within the clear stair width. The drawing values (10' and...

Why it matters: Noncompliant stair tread geometry is a life-safety issue and will typically be rejected during plan review/inspection, requiring redesign/rework of the stair framing/finishes and causing schedule and cost impacts.

Suggested next step: Revise the stair tread and winder geometry to meet IBC 2021 Section 1011.5.2 minimums (11' rectangular treads; winder treads 11' at walkline and 10' minimum within clear width), or provide an approved code-based justification on the drawings for any permitted alternate dimensions.

RFI draft: Revise the stair tread and winder geometry to meet IBC 2021 Section 1011.5.2 minimums (11' rectangular treads; winder treads 11' at walkline and 10' minimum within clear width), or provide an approved code-based justification on the drawings for any permitted alternate dimensions.

Summary: On sheet M4.02, the “TYPICAL DETAIL OF PIPE THRU RATED WALL” includes the note: 'SEAL OR CAULK SLEEVES THRU FIRE WALLS IN A SMOKE TIGHT MANNER REFER TO SPECIFICATION.' The detail itself does not explicitly require or identify a listed penetration firestop system (e.g., UL system/design number) or state required firestop performance criteria on...

Why it matters: If the specifications do not clearly require and define an appropriate tested/listed firestop system for the rated wall/fire wall penetrations (or if the field interprets the detail as allowing generic caulk only), the installation may be rejected at inspection and require rework with a tested/UL-listed system. This can also compromise the...

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the project specifications require a listed penetration firestop system for rated wall/fire wall penetrations and, if so, revise/coordinate the detail and specs to clearly require a 'listed penetration firestop system' and identify the system (e.g., UL system/design number) and installation criteria (required F/T rating, annular...

RFI draft: Confirm whether the project specifications require a listed penetration firestop system for rated wall/fire wall penetrations and, if so, revise/coordinate the detail and specs to clearly require a 'listed penetration firestop system' and identify the system (e.g., UL system/design number) and...

Summary: The drawing’s rated wall penetration detail instructs to “SEAL OR CAULK SLEEVES THRU FIRE WALLS IN A SMOKE TIGHT MANNER,” which does not identify a listed penetration firestop system or require installation per a listing. IBC 2021 requires penetrations of fire-resistance-rated assemblies to be protected with a listed penetration firestop system...

Why it matters: If constructed per this detail (caulk/smoke-tight only), the penetration protection is likely to be rejected by the AHJ and will fail required fire-resistance-rated penetration protection requirements, resulting in inspection failures and costly rework to replace the noncompliant seal with a listed firestop system.

Suggested next step: For pipes/sleeves shown in the “TYPICAL DETAIL OF PIPE THRU RATED WALL,” provide the specific listed penetration firestop system to be used and revise the detail to require installation in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and the listing criteria for the fire-resistance-rated wall assembly penetrated.

RFI draft: For pipes/sleeves shown in the “TYPICAL DETAIL OF PIPE THRU RATED WALL,” provide the specific listed penetration firestop system to be used and revise the detail to require installation in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and the listing criteria for the...