Texas Coastal Multifamily: 160 Issues Found

Summary: 33 indexed pages | 20 match | 13 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 0 missing Minor Mismatch (13): S2.8: Expected: 4TH LEVEL FLOOR FRAMING LAYOUT (S2.8) | Actual: Structural framing plan (Page 14)(p14) | Reason: Sheet number is unparsed and title differs slightly from the index, but it logically corresponds to the sequence. S2.13: ...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 S0.0 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1

Summary: The '2ND LEVEL FLOOR FRAMING LAYOUT' plan (S2.4) shows the enclosed building footprint extending from vertical grid 1 to grid 8. However, the 'LONGITUDINAL BUILDING SECTION' (1 / S2.22), which is explicitly referenced on S2.4, shows the enclosed main building framing starting at grid 4 on the left and ending at grid 9 on the right. Furthermore,...

Why it matters: This direct contradiction in the primary structural and architectural grid extents indicates that the referenced section likely belongs to a different building iteration, a different wing, or is mislabeled. Proceeding with this discrepancy will result in major coordination failures, incorrect material procurement, and errors in establishing the...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct longitudinal extents of the building structure. Does the enclosed 2nd-level footprint extend from Grid 1 to Grid 8 as shown on the floor plan S2.4, or from Grid 4 to Grid 9 as depicted in Section 1 on S2.22? Provide updated sheets that coordinate the building footprint and grid references across the plan and section...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct longitudinal extents of the building structure. Does the enclosed 2nd-level footprint extend from Grid 1 to Grid 8 as shown on the floor plan S2.4, or from Grid 4 to Grid 9 as depicted in Section 1 on S2.22? Provide updated sheets that coordinate the building footprint...

Summary: Sheet S2.7 is stamped 'ISSUED FOR PERMIT' and explicitly directs the contractor via Keynote 601 to reference the '4TH LEVEL BALCONY ROOF FRAMING LAYOUT' for the balcony roof edge. However, the referenced Balcony Roof Framing Layout drawing (Sheet S2.10) contains a prominent disclaimer stating 'NOTE: THESE DRAWINGS ARE INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE...

Why it matters: A valid permit set cannot rely on drawings explicitly marked as incomplete and invalid for permitting or construction. If Sheet S2.10 is truly incomplete, the framing contractor cannot legally or safely build the balcony roof as referenced by Sheet S2.7. This discrepancy will likely result in permit rejection or unapproved construction practices.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the status of the Balcony Roof Framing Layout (Sheet S2.10). If it is intended to be part of the active permit/construction set, please remove the 'INCOMPLETE / NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION' disclaimer so it matches the 'ISSUED FOR PERMIT' status of Sheet S2.7. If it is genuinely incomplete, please issue the finalized construction...

RFI draft: Please clarify the status of the Balcony Roof Framing Layout (Sheet S2.10). If it is intended to be part of the active permit/construction set, please remove the 'INCOMPLETE / NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION' disclaimer so it matches the 'ISSUED FOR PERMIT' status of Sheet S2.7. If it is genuinely...

Summary: The drawing explicitly states that the drawings are 'INCOMPLETE' and 'MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION.' However, the project specifications indicate that the documents are 'ISSUED FOR PERMIT'. This creates a direct contradiction regarding the legal and permit status of the document package.

Why it matters: Permitting authorities strictly verify the release status of submitted documents. A sheet stamped as not for permit will result in the immediate rejection of the entire drawing package during the permit review process. The issuance status must be consistent across all documents in a permit set.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the issuance status of the construction documents. If the package is ready for permit, please remove the 'MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION' note from the drawing to uniformly match the 'ISSUED FOR PERMIT' status indicated in the specifications.

RFI draft: Please clarify the issuance status of the construction documents. If the package is ready for permit, please remove the 'MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION' note from the drawing to uniformly match the 'ISSUED FOR PERMIT' status indicated in the specifications.

Summary: Drawing Notes 6.6 and 6.8 state that 'ALL CANTILEVERED JOISTS SHALL EXTEND INTO THE BUILDING A DISTANCE EQUAL TO THE CANTILEVER', which dictates a 1:1 backspan-to-cantilever ratio. According to standard wood framing practice and building codes, cantilevered joists require a minimum 2:1 backspan ratio to safely resist applied loads.

Why it matters: A 1:1 backspan ratio provides insufficient leverage to resist the overturning moments and uplift forces generated by live loads on the cantilevered portion. Without heavy, specialized engineered tie-downs, this will lead to severe floor deflection, structural instability, or failure.

Suggested next step: Please revise framing notes 6.6 and 6.8 to require a standard 2:1 minimum backspan ratio for cantilevered joists, or provide specific engineered tie-down details if a 1:1 ratio is strictly intended.

RFI draft: Please revise framing notes 6.6 and 6.8 to require a standard 2:1 minimum backspan ratio for cantilevered joists, or provide specific engineered tie-down details if a 1:1 ratio is strictly intended.

Summary: The framing plan (S2.3) specifies the use of wide-flange steel beams (e.g., 'W27X84') at the upper floor/roof level where Section 2/S2.21 is cut. However, the corresponding Building Section 2 on S2.21 depicts entirely wood-framed assemblies at this level, explicitly calling out a 'PREFABRICATED 4X WOOD FLOOR TRUSS' (Note 6.6) and 'FLOOR...

Why it matters: This is a major discrepancy in the primary structural system. If the contractor follows the section drawing, they will install wood trusses instead of the required structural steel beams indicated on the plan, leading to potentially catastrophic structural failure or severe rework once the error is discovered.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the primary floor/roof support system at the location of Section 2 should be wide-flange steel beams (as indicated on the S2.3 plan) or prefabricated wood floor trusses (as detailed in the S2.21 section). Update the conflicting drawings to reflect the correct structural assembly.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the primary floor/roof support system at the location of Section 2 should be wide-flange steel beams (as indicated on the S2.3 plan) or prefabricated wood floor trusses (as detailed in the S2.21 section). Update the conflicting drawings to reflect the correct structural...

Summary: The structural general notes explicitly state that the structural documents were prepared using the 2021 International Building Code as the basic code document. However, the project is required to comply with the 2024 International Building Code.

Why it matters: Submitting structural documents based on an outdated building code edition will result in permit rejection by the building official, causing project delays. Structural design requirements, load combinations, and design parameters must be validated against the 2024 edition to ensure legal compliance and structural adequacy.

Suggested next step: Please update General Note 13 to reference the 2024 International Building Code, and confirm that all structural design criteria, load combinations, and specifications comply with the 2024 IBC requirements.

RFI draft: Please update General Note 13 to reference the 2024 International Building Code, and confirm that all structural design criteria, load combinations, and specifications comply with the 2024 IBC requirements.

Summary: Framing notes specify that all cantilevered joists shall extend into the building a distance equal to the cantilever (a 1:1 ratio) and that those running perpendicular to framing inside the building shall be connected with 'STANDARD JOIST HANGERS'. A 1:1 cantilever backspan generates significant pure uplift reactions at the internal support...

Why it matters: Relying on standard gravity joist hangers at the backspan support of a 1:1 cantilever will lead to connection pull-out and failure when the cantilever is fully loaded, risking structural collapse of the cantilevered floor or roof element. Engineered uplift connections or an increased backspan ratio must be specified to safely transfer these loads.

Suggested next step: Please revise the framing notes to specify an increased minimum cantilever backspan ratio (e.g., 2:1 or 3:1) and require engineered uplift connections (such as inverted hangers or specialized hold-downs) where 1:1 backspans are unavoidable, to safely resist the resulting uplift forces.

RFI draft: Please revise the framing notes to specify an increased minimum cantilever backspan ratio (e.g., 2:1 or 3:1) and require engineered uplift connections (such as inverted hangers or specialized hold-downs) where 1:1 backspans are unavoidable, to safely resist the resulting uplift forces.

Summary: The wind loading calculation sheet states 'Risk category I' for the building. However, the Structural Design Criteria in the general notes specify 'RISK CATEGORY: II' under IBC 1603.1.5 Earthquake Design Data. In both IBC and ASCE 7, Risk Category is a building-level parameter determined by occupancy and applies to all load types including...

Why it matters: For this hurricane-prone coastal location, the ASCE Hazard Report shows that the 700-year MRI wind speed (corresponding to Risk Category II) is 158 mph, significantly higher than the 145 mph (300-year MRI for Risk Category I) used in the calculations. This misclassification could result in substantially under-designed structural members and...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer confirm the correct Risk Category for the building. The general notes indicate Risk Category II while the wind calculations use Risk Category I. If Risk Category II governs, request that all wind loading calculations be revised using the appropriate design wind speed and that all affected structural members and...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer confirm the correct Risk Category for the building. The general notes indicate Risk Category II while the wind calculations use Risk Category I. If Risk Category II governs, request that all wind loading calculations be revised using the appropriate design wind...

Summary: Framing Key Note 6.6 on the drawing instructs the contractor to toenail the roof trusses to the top plate using at least (4) 8d nails. However, the structural specifications explicitly require roof trusses to be connected to the bearing plate using Simpson Strong-Tie hurricane clips.

Why it matters: Engineered hurricane clips provide significantly greater resistance to wind uplift forces than standard toenailing. Relying on toenails instead of the specified structural connectors will compromise the integrity of the roof-to-wall connection, leading to potential structural failure during high wind events and a direct failure to meet the...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required attachment method for roof trusses. Should the contractor use (4) 8d toenails as indicated in Framing Key Note 6.6 on S2.17, or install Simpson Strong-Tie Hurricane Clips as specified in section 06 17 53 of the structural general notes?

RFI draft: Please confirm the required attachment method for roof trusses. Should the contractor use (4) 8d toenails as indicated in Framing Key Note 6.6 on S2.17, or install Simpson Strong-Tie Hurricane Clips as specified in section 06 17 53 of the structural general notes?

Summary: Framing Key Note 6.6 on the drawing specifies to 'TOENAIL TRUSS TO TOP PLATE WITH AT LEAST (4) 8d NAILS' for floor and roof trusses. However, the structural specification for prefabricated wood trusses (Section 06 17 53, Note 8) explicitly requires that 'ROOF TRUSSES SHALL BE CONNECTED TO BEARING PLATE WITH SIMPSON STRONG-TIE HURRICANE CLIPS.'

Why it matters: Using 8d toenails instead of engineered hurricane clips for roof trusses directly violates the structural specifications. This provides significantly less resistance against wind uplift forces and compromises the structural integrity of the roof assembly, which is especially critical in high-wind/hurricane-prone regions. Failing to correct this...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the connection requirements for roof trusses to the bearing plate. Confirm that Simpson Strong-Tie Hurricane Clips must be used in accordance with Specification Section (06 17 53) Note 8, and that the instruction to toenail roof trusses with (4) 8d nails in Framing Key Note 6.6 should be removed or revised to apply only to floor...

RFI draft: Please clarify the connection requirements for roof trusses to the bearing plate. Confirm that Simpson Strong-Tie Hurricane Clips must be used in accordance with Specification Section (06 17 53) Note 8, and that the instruction to toenail roof trusses with (4) 8d nails in Framing Key Note 6.6...

Summary: Framing Key Note 6.6 on drawing S2.20 instructs to 'TOENAIL TRUSS TO TOP PLATE WITH AT LEAST (4) 8d NAILS' for both floor and roof trusses. However, the project specification for prefabricated wood trusses (Section 06 17 53, Item 8) explicitly mandates that 'ROOF TRUSSES SHALL BE CONNECTED TO BEARING PLATE WITH SIMPSON STRONG-TIE HURRICANE CLIPS.'

Why it matters: Using 8d toenails instead of the specified Simpson Strong-Tie hurricane clips significantly reduces the roof system's resistance to wind uplift forces. This direct contradiction with the structural specifications could lead to a catastrophic connection failure during high-wind events and will likely fail structural inspection.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required connection method for roof trusses to the top plate. Should the framing contractor follow the toenailing instruction in Framing Key Note 6.6 on sheet S2.20, or use the Simpson Strong-Tie hurricane clips required by specification section (06 17 53) Item 8?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required connection method for roof trusses to the top plate. Should the framing contractor follow the toenailing instruction in Framing Key Note 6.6 on sheet S2.20, or use the Simpson Strong-Tie hurricane clips required by specification section (06 17 53) Item 8?

Summary: The structural general notes explicitly state that the roof framing design does not account for the construction loads of roof materials stacked along the ridge. This directly violates the building code, which strictly mandates that structural roof components must be capable of supporting the material and equipment loads encountered during the...

Why it matters: Failing to account for construction loads in the structural design poses a significant structural failure and collapse hazard during construction when contractors stage heavy materials (like shingles or tiles) on the roof. The code specifically requires the structure to bear these temporary but substantial loads to ensure worker safety.

Suggested next step: Please revise the structural design of the roof framing to safely account for and support the expected material and equipment construction loads encountered during the installation of the roof-covering system, in compliance with IBC Section 3301.3.

RFI draft: Please revise the structural design of the roof framing to safely account for and support the expected material and equipment construction loads encountered during the installation of the roof-covering system, in compliance with IBC Section 3301.3.

Summary: Wood Framing Layout General Note 9 explicitly states that the structural design of the roof framing does not account for construction loads of roof material stacked along the ridge. This directly violates IBC Section 3301.3, which requires structural roof components to be capable of supporting the material and equipment loads encountered during...

Why it matters: Failing to design for required construction loads presents a severe life-safety hazard during roof installation, potentially leading to structural failure or collapse when roofing materials are staged. Permitting will likely be denied because the structural design attempts to waive a mandatory code requirement for construction safety.

Suggested next step: Please revise the roof framing design and calculations to ensure the structural components can safely support the material and equipment loads anticipated during roof installation in compliance with IBC Section 3301.3, and remove the conflicting prohibition in General Note 9.

RFI draft: Please revise the roof framing design and calculations to ensure the structural components can safely support the material and equipment loads anticipated during roof installation in compliance with IBC Section 3301.3, and remove the conflicting prohibition in General Note 9.

Summary: The wind loading calculation sheet explicitly states it was prepared 'In accordance with ASCE7-10 / Using the directional design method / Tedds calculation version 2.1.00'. Section 1609.1.1 of the 2024 IBC requires that wind loads be 'determined in accordance with Chapters 26 to 30 of ASCE 7,' where 'ASCE 7' refers to the edition adopted by the...

Why it matters: Using the incorrect edition of the referenced loading standard is a fundamental code compliance deficiency. A plan reviewer would reject the structural calculations during the permitting process, requiring the engineer to recompute all wind loads using the correct edition. If the correct edition produces different wind pressures, the structural...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record recompute all wind loading calculations using the edition of ASCE 7 referenced by the 2024 IBC. The updated calculations should include the ground elevation factor Ke in the velocity pressure equation and use the current wind speed maps, exposure coefficients, and pressure coefficients. Confirm whether...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record recompute all wind loading calculations using the edition of ASCE 7 referenced by the 2024 IBC. The updated calculations should include the ground elevation factor Ke in the velocity pressure equation and use the current wind speed maps, exposure...