Plan Review: 29 Issues Found

Summary: 34 index entries | 19 perfect matches | 15 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (15): TI: Expected: PROJECT INFORMATION (TI) | Actual: PROJECT INFORMATION (T1)(p1) D1.2: Expected: SELECTIVE DEMOLITION PARTIAL SITE PLAN (D1.2) | Actual: SELECTIVE DEMO PARTIAL SITE PLAN (D1.2)(p6) D2.1.1: Expected: SELECTIVE DEMOLITION LEVEL 1 PORCH RCP (D2.1.1) | Actual: SELECTIVE DEMO L...

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: 0 missing, 15 mismatched out of 34 sheets

Summary: Surveyor's Note 1 states "THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHOWN HEREON... CONTOURS ARE SHOWN FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. DESIGN SHOULD RELY ON SPOT ELEVATIONS." Similarly, the Steep Slope/Buffer Disclaimer references steep slopes "SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING". However, the plan provided only displays property lines and street centerlines ("SITE LOT 1"), with absolutely no topographic contours, spot elevations, or s...

Why it matters: The complete absence of topographic data directly contradicts the surveyor's notes and the sheet title ("TOPOGRAPHIC & BOUNDARY SURVEY"). Without contours or spot elevations, the survey is unusable for architectural site design, grading, drainage planning, and building placement, which will compl...

Suggested next step: Please reissue the Topographic Survey with the topography layers turned on, including the contours, spot elevations, and physical site features referenced in Surveyor's Note 1, the Legend, and the Steep Slope Disclaimer.

RFI draft: Please reissue the Topographic Survey with the topography layers turned on, including the contours, spot elevations, and physical site features referenced in Surveyor's Note 1, the Legend, and the Steep Slope Disclaimer.

Summary: The demolition note on the Level 1 Porch RCP specifies the removal of "LIGHT FIXTURES, 2x10 WOOD FRAMING" as part of the dashed demolition scope. However, the typical demolition notes on the referenced deck sections on D3.1 state to remove "DECKING, TRIM, GUTTER, & PORCH CEILING", entirely omitting the structural wood framing and light fixtures from the explicitly listed removal scope.

Why it matters: This textual inconsistency creates ambiguity regarding the structural demolition requirements. If the wood framing is not explicitly listed for removal in the section notes, contractors may assume the structural framing is to remain, leading to inaccurate bidding, potential change orders, or inco...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the selective demolition scope for the existing porch/deck structure. Are the existing 2x10 wood framing and light fixtures to be completely removed as indicated on D2.1.1, and should the typical notes on D3.1 be updated to reflect this complete scope?

RFI draft: Please clarify the selective demolition scope for the existing porch/deck structure. Are the existing 2x10 wood framing and light fixtures to be completely removed as indicated on D2.1.1, and should the typical notes on D3.1 be updated to reflect ...

Summary: Detail 7 on S3.1 details a 'Steel Channel to (E) Steel Beam Connection' but its fastener specification incorrectly requires 'SDS SCREWS' attaching to an '(E) LEDGER' (a wood connection). The S2.2 framing plan confirms that callout 7/S3.1 points to the intersection of a new steel channel ((N) C8x11.5) and an existing steel beam ((E)W8), indicating no wood ledger is present at this structural ste...

Why it matters: Providing wood fastener specifications (SDS screws) for a steel-to-steel connection creates an unbuildable detail that will cause field confusion and RFI delays. The contractor needs the correct bolt or weld specifications to properly secure the C8 channels to the existing W8 steel beams.

Suggested next step: Please provide the correct fastener specifications (e.g., bolts or welds) for connecting the (N) C8x11.5 steel channels to the (E)W8 steel beams at detail 7/S3.1, and confirm the removal of the SDS screws and '(E) LEDGER' references from this detail.

RFI draft: Please provide the correct fastener specifications (e.g., bolts or welds) for connecting the (N) C8x11.5 steel channels to the (E)W8 steel beams at detail 7/S3.1, and confirm the removal of the SDS screws and '(E) LEDGER' references from this detail.

Summary: The S2.2 Level 2 Deck Framing Plan shows section cut 10/S3.1 at the parapet screen, where new steel channels labeled '(N) C8x11.5' frame perpendicularly into the '(E) W10x19' edge beam. However, Detail 10 on S3.1 details the supporting members at this location as wood joists ('JOIST/NAILER PER PLAN') attached with a 'JOIST HGR.' and 'SIMPSON SCREWS', completely omitting the steel channels speci...

Why it matters: The mismatch between steel channels on the plan and wood joists in the section detail creates a major coordination issue for steel fabrication and framing installation. The parapet screen connection cannot be built using wood hangers if steel C8 members are required.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the framing members at the parapet screen (10/S3.1). Are they (N) C8x11.5 steel channels as shown on S2.2, or wood joists as detailed on S3.1? Please update the plan or detail 10 to match.

RFI draft: Please clarify the framing members at the parapet screen (10/S3.1). Are they (N) C8x11.5 steel channels as shown on S2.2, or wood joists as detailed on S3.1? Please update the plan or detail 10 to match.

Summary: The Selective Demolition Site Plan (D1.1) specifies only to "REMOVE (E) DECKING & WOOD FRAMING FROM UPPER LEVEL EXTERIOR DECK." However, the Proposed Site Plan (A1.1) introduces conflicting and expanded demolition instructions for the same assembly, adding the bead board porch ceiling and light fixtures to the demolition scope. Furthermore, A1.1 contains a critical structural note stating "ALL ...

Why it matters: Placing partial demolition instructions and critical structural retention notes on the Proposed Site Plan rather than the Demolition Plan creates a high risk for contractor error. The demolition subcontractor relying primarily on D1.1 may fail to remove the ceiling and electrical fixtures, or wor...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the complete demolition scope for the upper-level exterior deck. Should the bead board ceiling and light fixtures be added to the demolition scope on D1.1? Please also confirm that the note 'ALL (E) STEEL FRAMING ABOVE TO REMAIN' will be added to the Demolition ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the complete demolition scope for the upper-level exterior deck. Should the bead board ceiling and light fixtures be added to the demolition scope on D1.1? Please also confirm that the note 'ALL (E) STEEL FRAMING ABOVE TO REMAIN' wi...

Summary: Drawing A2.2 specifies to "INSTALL NEW GUTTER" at the deck perimeter. However, drawing A2.2.1 specifies "SCUPPER, TYP." for perimeter drainage, showing directional slopes routing water to localized points rather than a continuous gutter line. Additionally, drawing S2.2 calls for a "(N) CAST-STONE PARAPET SCREEN, TYP." along this edge, which physically blocks a standard edge gutter and necessita...

Why it matters: A continuous edge gutter requires an open roof perimeter to shed water directly into the trough. The presence of a cast-stone parapet screen forms a solid exterior curb, meaning water must be drained through the parapet wall via localized scuppers. The callout for a new continuous gutter on A2.2 ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the intended perimeter drainage design for the Level 2 Deck. Should the deck drain through the new cast-stone parapet via scuppers (as shown on A2.2.1), or should it utilize a continuous new gutter (as noted on A2.2)? If scuppers are intended, confirm the 'INSTA...

RFI draft: Please confirm the intended perimeter drainage design for the Level 2 Deck. Should the deck drain through the new cast-stone parapet via scuppers (as shown on A2.2.1), or should it utilize a continuous new gutter (as noted on A2.2)? If scuppers ar...

Summary: Architectural Section 1 on A3.0 dictates that the new 8" concrete retaining wall is located adjacent to the 'PROPERTY LINE', with the footing extending only to the left (zero toe on the exposed side). However, the Structural 'Retaining Wall Schedule 12' on S3.2 requires a minimum 5-inch toe ('B1' = 5") extending outward towards the property line for all wall heights.

Why it matters: Installing the structural footing as scheduled with a 5" toe on the exterior face of the wall could cause the concrete foundation to encroach across the property line, which is a major legal and permitting violation. While the structural detail includes a note for the contractor to verify the toe...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the retaining wall should be shifted further inside the property line to accommodate the scheduled 5" structural footing toe (B1), or if the structural engineer will provide a revised L-shaped footing detail with zero toe to maintain the wall entirely within ...

RFI draft: Please confirm if the retaining wall should be shifted further inside the property line to accommodate the scheduled 5" structural footing toe (B1), or if the structural engineer will provide a revised L-shaped footing detail with zero toe to main...

Summary: Detail 10 on sheet S3.2 shows additional L-shaped #4 corner bars at retaining wall corners, with one bar type having a 6'-0" leg in one direction and only an 8" leg in the other direction, spaced at 12" on center. General Structural Note 24 requires corner bars #5 and smaller to be lapped 40 bar diameters or 2'-0" minimum. For a #4 bar, 40 bar diameters equals 20 inches, with the 2'-0" (24") mi...

Why it matters: An inadequate lap length for corner reinforcement at retaining wall corners may result in insufficient development and load transfer of the reinforcing bar, potentially leading to cracking or structural deficiency at these critical locations where soil lateral pressure creates high demands. This ...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the structural engineer on the 8" leg dimension shown for the L-shaped corner bar in Detail 10. Confirm whether this dimension should be increased to at least 2'-0" to meet the minimum corner bar lap length specified in General Structural Note 24, or...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the structural engineer on the 8" leg dimension shown for the L-shaped corner bar in Detail 10. Confirm whether this dimension should be increased to at least 2'-0" to meet the minimum corner bar lap length specified in ...

Summary: Details 6 and 7 show "WOOD DECKING PER ARCH." directly attached to the framing, entirely omitting the structural "SHEATHING PER PLAN" layer. Furthermore, in Detail 6, the boundary nailing callout "10d @ 6"oc" incorrectly points to the architectural wood decking. This contradicts Specification S1.2 Note 43, which mandates 3/4" structural deck sheathing, and Note 48A, which specifies that the 10d...

Why it matters: The omission of the structural sheathing layer at the primary joist bearing connections, combined with specifying the sheathing boundary nailing for the architectural finish decking, compromises the continuous deck diaphragm requirement and will lead to improper installation.

Suggested next step: Please revise Details 6 and 7 to correctly show the "SHEATHING PER PLAN" layer beneath the architectural decking, and clarify that the "10d @ 6"oc" structural boundary nailing applies to the sheathing diaphragm rather than the finish decking.

RFI draft: Please revise Details 6 and 7 to correctly show the "SHEATHING PER PLAN" layer beneath the architectural decking, and clarify that the "10d @ 6"oc" structural boundary nailing applies to the sheathing diaphragm rather than the finish decking.

Summary: The site plan contains explicit, mathematically impossible curve geometry for a property or right-of-way boundary. The arc length (L) of a curve must equal its radius (R) multiplied by its delta angle (Δ) in radians. A curve is labeled 'Δ=8°37'47" L=26.20 R=156.03'. Mathematically, an 8°37'47" angle on a 156.03' radius results in an arc length of 23.50 feet, leaving a discrepancy of 2.70 feet ...

Why it matters: Incorrect boundary and right-of-way geometric definitions invalidate the legal description on the drawings and will typically cause immediate rejection by the permitting authority's civil/survey review department. This must be corrected to ensure setbacks, property lines, and site limits are accu...

Suggested next step: Please verify the curve data with the project surveyor and provide corrected Δ, Length, or Radius values for the site plan boundaries.

RFI draft: Please verify the curve data with the project surveyor and provide corrected Δ, Length, or Radius values for the site plan boundaries.

Summary: The drawing displays a graphic scale and a text label indicating "1 INCH = 10 FT.". However, the bottom of the map is explicitly labeled "CONTROL MAP N.T.S." (Not To Scale). Furthermore, a measured dimension of "1224.45' MEAS." is shown along 14th Ave E, which would require over 10 feet of paper to plot at a 1" = 10' scale, physically proving that the main map is not to scale and the 1"=10' cal...

Why it matters: Contractors, estimators, or engineers attempting to scale undocumented dimensions or distances from this plan will obtain severely inaccurate measurements, potentially leading to boundary encroachments, incorrect site layouts, or estimating errors.

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct scale of the map. If the drawing is intended to be a Control Map that is Not To Scale, remove the "1 INCH = 10 FT." graphic scale and text references to prevent scaling errors.

RFI draft: Clarify the correct scale of the map. If the drawing is intended to be a Control Map that is Not To Scale, remove the "1 INCH = 10 FT." graphic scale and text references to prevent scaling errors.

Summary: Detail 2 (BALUSTRADE DETAIL @ PIER) explicitly shows and calls out a "NEW STEEL BEAM W/ WOOD BLOCKING FOR DECK & CEILING ATTACHMENT" to support the deck and ceiling assembly. However, Detail 1 (BALUSTRADE DETAIL @ SCREEN), which cuts through the same continuous deck and ceiling assembly between the piers, omits this new steel beam and instead indicates that the ceiling is supported only by "WOO...

Why it matters: Since the deck and exterior ceiling are continuous elements running along the balustrade, their primary structural support should be consistent or clearly detailed if a transition occurs. The discrepancy between the two sections creates critical ambiguity about whether the new steel beam is conti...

Suggested next step: Clarify if the "NEW STEEL BEAM" called out in Detail 2 is continuous along the entire deck/balustrade assembly. If it is continuous, please update Detail 1 to reflect this support. If the new beam is discontinuous and only occurs at the piers, please provide framing details sh...

RFI draft: Clarify if the "NEW STEEL BEAM" called out in Detail 2 is continuous along the entire deck/balustrade assembly. If it is continuous, please update Detail 1 to reflect this support. If the new beam is discontinuous and only occurs at the piers, ple...

Summary: Sheet A2.1.1 (Level 1 Porch Reflected Ceiling Plan) labels the new porch ceiling as "INSTALL NEW 1x4 BEAD BOARD CEILING UNDER NEW DECK ABOVE." Sheet A3.1, which is directly referenced from A2.1.1 via elevation/section callouts (1/A3.1, 2/A3.1, 3/A3.1), describes the same ceiling element in Section 1 as "NEW 1x4 WOOD PORCH CEILING, PAINTED, ON 1x4 FURRING." "Bead board" is a specific tongue-and-...

Why it matters: This discrepancy could lead to incorrect material procurement. If the contractor orders generic 1x4 wood boards based on A3.1 rather than bead board as specified on A2.1.1, the finished appearance and detailing would differ. For a historic mansion renovation, the distinction between bead board an...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the porch ceiling material should be 1x4 bead board (as noted on A2.1.1) or 1x4 wood porch ceiling (as noted on A3.1). Please confirm the intended profile and whether the finish is painted as noted on A3.1. Also confirm whether 1x4 furring strips as desc...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the porch ceiling material should be 1x4 bead board (as noted on A2.1.1) or 1x4 wood porch ceiling (as noted on A3.1). Please confirm the intended profile and whether the finish is painted as noted on A3.1. Also confirm whet...

Summary: Elevation 4 on sheet A3.2 ('TYPICAL RUN BETWEEN COLUMNS') contains section callouts '3' and '4' explicitly referencing sheet 'A3.1' for the column and parapet screen assemblies. However, Detail 3 on sheet A3.1 illustrates a 'NEW THRESHOLD & FLASHING' condition at the deck-to-wall connection, not a balustrade component. The correct typical sections for the pier and parapet screen are actually de...

Why it matters: Inaccurate cross-references misdirect contractors, causing confusion and potential delays while attempting to locate the correct fabrication and installation details for the balustrade components.

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the section callouts on Elevation 4/A3.2 should be updated to reference Details 2/A3.2 (for the pier) and 3/A3.2 (for the parapet screen), and update the drawing cross-references accordingly.

RFI draft: Please confirm that the section callouts on Elevation 4/A3.2 should be updated to reference Details 2/A3.2 (for the pier) and 3/A3.2 (for the parapet screen), and update the drawing cross-references accordingly.