Plan Review: 63 Issues Found

Summary: 29 index entries | 7 perfect matches | 8 mismatched | 14 missing Mismatched (8): G1.1: Expected: GENERAL NOTES, ZONING CODE, AND SITE PLAN (G1.1) | Actual: GENERAL INFORMATION AND SITE PLAN (G1.1)(p1) G1.3: Expected: ENERGY CODE SUMMARY & EXCAVATION DIAGRAM (G1.3) | Actual: ENERGY CODE SUMMARY AND EXCAVATION PLAN (G1.3)(p3) A2.0: Expected: FOUNDATION/SLAB PLAN (A2.0) | ...

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: 14 missing, 8 mismatched out of 29 sheets

Summary: The North Fire Diagram explicitly cites "SRC TABLE R302.1" (Seattle Residential Code) to determine the fire-resistant construction requirements, stating that "25% OF WALLS BETWEEN 3'-0" AND 5'-0" FROM THE PROPERTY LINE MAY BE UNPROTECTED OPENINGS". However, this project is governed by the International Building Code (IBC). Under the IBC, exterior walls must comply with IBC Section 705, which ha...

Why it matters: Applying residential code allowances (like 25% unprotected openings at 3 to 5 feet) to an IBC-governed building directly violates IBC Section 705.1. The IBC strictly restricts unprotected openings near property lines. Permitting and building to the incorrect residential standard will result in a ...

Suggested next step: Confirm that the building's exterior walls are governed by the IBC. Revise the North Fire Diagram calculations and notes to comply with IBC Section 705 for exterior wall fire-resistance ratings and maximum allowable area of exterior wall openings.

RFI draft: Confirm that the building's exterior walls are governed by the IBC. Revise the North Fire Diagram calculations and notes to comply with IBC Section 705 for exterior wall fire-resistance ratings and maximum allowable area of exterior wall openings.

Summary: The building sections 'N-S SECTION THRU DINING ROOM AND STAIRS' (Detail 2) and 'N-S SECTION THRU LIVING ROOM' (Detail 1) show stairways ascending from the lower levels passing directly beneath the solid floor assemblies of the rooms above (Laundry 203 and Bedroom 2 202, respectively). In both sections, the upper floor assembly is drawn projecting horizontally over approximately half of the stai...

Why it matters: If constructed as drawn, the stairways will not provide adequate vertical clearance for occupants, creating a severe impact hazard and failing life safety and egress permitting requirements. The floor framing above the stairs, or the stairway layouts themselves, must be redesigned to ensure a con...

Suggested next step: Please revise the floor assemblies above the stairways (beneath Laundry 203 and Bedroom 2 202) to limit any horizontal projection into the stair headroom to a maximum of 4 3/4 inches, ensuring the minimum 80-inch vertical headroom clearance is maintained continuously as requir...

RFI draft: Please revise the floor assemblies above the stairways (beneath Laundry 203 and Bedroom 2 202) to limit any horizontal projection into the stair headroom to a maximum of 4 3/4 inches, ensuring the minimum 80-inch vertical headroom clearance is mai...

Summary: The window layout for the North facade conflicts across three different details. The 3/A3.1 North Fire Diagram calculates unprotected openings for a 564sf main level wall, showing '11x3=33sf' (three identical vertical windows) along with '58sf', '20sf', and '8sf' windows. However, the 2/A3.1 North Elevation shows a completely different window arrangement for this level, instead featuring window...

Why it matters: The Fire Diagram is legally required to prove code compliance for unprotected opening percentages near the property line. Because the windows actually drawn on the North Elevation and the Floor Plan do not match the windows calculated in the Fire Diagram, the project risks failing permitting revi...

Suggested next step: Please reconcile the North facade window layout across the drawing set. Update the A2.1 plan to show the correct window locations, and revise either the 2/A3.1 Elevation or the 3/A3.1 Fire Diagram so that the visual arrangement and unprotected opening calculations match exactly.

RFI draft: Please reconcile the North facade window layout across the drawing set. Update the A2.1 plan to show the correct window locations, and revise either the 2/A3.1 Elevation or the 3/A3.1 Fire Diagram so that the visual arrangement and unprotected ope...

Summary: The typical non-rated wall section specifies 'GWB, PAINT WITH PVA APPROVED PRIMER, GREENBOARD AT ALL WET LOCATIONS.' The typical below-grade wall section specifies '1/2" GWB, PAINT WITH PVA APPROVED PRIMER; GREEN BOARD AT BATHROOMS AND KITCHENS.' The typical 1H exterior wall section specifies '5/8" TYPE 'X' GWB, PAINT WITH PVA APPROVED PRIMER, GREENBOARD AT ALL WET LOCATIONS.' These blanket ins...

Why it matters: If greenboard is installed as the wall substrate in shower and bathtub enclosures as directed by these wall sections, it will fail building inspection. The installed greenboard would need to be demolished and replaced with code-compliant backer board materials from Table 2509.2, resulting in sign...

Suggested next step: Request the architect clarify the GWB specifications for wet locations to explicitly exclude shower and bathtub compartments from the greenboard designation. The wall sections should note that backerboard materials complying with IBC Table 2509.2 (e.g., cement board per ASTM C...

RFI draft: Request the architect clarify the GWB specifications for wet locations to explicitly exclude shower and bathtub compartments from the greenboard designation. The wall sections should note that backerboard materials complying with IBC Table 2509.2 ...

Summary: The reflected ceiling plan shows 'SD' (Smoke Detector) symbols in Bedroom 2 (202) and Bedroom 3 (205). Per the fixture legend on this sheet, 'SD' denotes a 'SMOKE DETECTOR' only, while 'SD C' denotes a 'SMOKE & CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR.' However, Reflected Ceiling Plan Note 5 on the same sheet explicitly states that carbon monoxide alarms will be installed in all sleeping rooms. The Hall (206) ...

Why it matters: If constructed per the RCP symbols as shown, Bedrooms 2 and 3 would be installed with smoke-only detectors and lack the required carbon monoxide detection. This life-safety deficiency would be flagged during final inspection, requiring rework to add or replace detectors with combination smoke/CO ...

Suggested next step: Request the architect update the reflected ceiling plan to show 'SD C' (Smoke & Carbon Monoxide Detector) symbols in Bedroom 2 (202) and Bedroom 3 (205) to be consistent with Note 5 and IBC Section 915.1.1 carbon monoxide detection requirements for sleeping rooms in R occupanc...

RFI draft: Request the architect update the reflected ceiling plan to show 'SD C' (Smoke & Carbon Monoxide Detector) symbols in Bedroom 2 (202) and Bedroom 3 (205) to be consistent with Note 5 and IBC Section 915.1.1 carbon monoxide detection requirements fo...

Summary: The Reflected Ceiling Plan for Primary Bedroom 302 shows only an 'SD' (Smoke Detector) symbol with the note 'MOUNT SMOKE DETECTOR ON WALL, NOT CEILING, IN THIS LOCATION.' Per the fixture legend, 'SD' denotes a Smoke Detector while 'SD C' denotes a Smoke & Carbon Monoxide Detector. IBC Section 915.1.1 requires carbon monoxide detection in R occupancies where triggering conditions exist. The draw...

Why it matters: This omission would result in the electrician installing only a smoke detector in the Primary Bedroom without carbon monoxide detection capability. A plan examiner or fire inspector would flag this discrepancy against IBC Section 915 requirements, potentially causing an inspection failure and con...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the smoke detector shown in Primary Bedroom 302 on the Reflected Ceiling Plan should be revised to a combination Smoke & Carbon Monoxide Detector (SD/C) to comply with IBC Section 915.1.1 and the project's own RCP Note 5, which requires CO alarms in all sle...

RFI draft: Please confirm that the smoke detector shown in Primary Bedroom 302 on the Reflected Ceiling Plan should be revised to a combination Smoke & Carbon Monoxide Detector (SD/C) to comply with IBC Section 915.1.1 and the project's own RCP Note 5, which...

Summary: The drawing indicates that HALL BATH 002 has an interior width of 42 inches, as evidenced by the shower marked '32"x42"' which spans the entire horizontal width of the room. The bathroom also contains a vanity and a toilet. According to IBC Section 2903.1.1, a minimum clearance of 21 inches is required in front of a water closet to any wall or fixture. Subtracting this 21-inch clearance from th...

Why it matters: Failing to provide the minimum required fixture clearances violates building and plumbing codes. If constructed as drawn, the bathroom will fail rough-in and final plumbing inspections, necessitating costly framing and layout modifications to widen the room or completely reconfigure the plumbing ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the floor plan layout for HALL BATH 002 to ensure a minimum 21-inch clearance is provided in front of the water closet per IBC 2903.1.1. Consider expanding the bathroom width into the adjacent Rec Room or reconfiguring the fixture layout.

RFI draft: Please revise the floor plan layout for HALL BATH 002 to ensure a minimum 21-inch clearance is provided in front of the water closet per IBC 2903.1.1. Consider expanding the bathroom width into the adjacent Rec Room or reconfiguring the fixture la...

Summary: The attic venting calculations propose using "FIREBLOCKED EAVE VENTING" to provide 398 sq. in. of low-level intake ventilation. However, IBC Section 718.2 mandates that fireblocking must "cut off concealed draft openings" and "form an effective barrier." Because a fireblocked assembly is required by code to block drafts, it cannot concurrently provide the claimed ventilation area. The roof plan...

Why it matters: If constructed as drawn, the eaves will either be sealed to pass the fireblocking inspection (resulting in a lack of required low-level attic ventilation, which can lead to moisture accumulation and mold) or vented (failing the fireblocking inspection and creating a vertical fire spread hazard). ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the attic venting calculations and eave details. If the eaves require fireblocking, provide an alternative compliant method for low-level attic ventilation. If fireblocking is not required at these eaves, please clarify the eave detail to remove the fireblocking ...

RFI draft: Please revise the attic venting calculations and eave details. If the eaves require fireblocking, provide an alternative compliant method for low-level attic ventilation. If fireblocking is not required at these eaves, please clarify the eave deta...

Summary: IBC Section 1011.3 requires stairways to have a clear headroom of not less than 80 inches (6'-8") measured vertically from the edge of the nosings. The building section dimensions the stair headroom as exactly 6'-8" to the underside of the upper stair structure. If this dimension is taken to the structural rough framing rather than the finished ceiling surface, the addition of any interior fini...

Why it matters: Insufficient stair headroom is a critical egress violation. Discovering this issue during the framing or final inspection will require significant and costly rework, potentially involving altering the stair carriage profile, adjusting structural floor framing, or modifying the overall floor-to-fl...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the 6'-8" headroom dimension shown on the building section is measured to the rough framing or the finished ceiling. If measured to the rough framing, please revise the stair design, carriage framing, or floor-to-floor heights to ensure a minimum of 80 inches...

RFI draft: Please clarify if the 6'-8" headroom dimension shown on the building section is measured to the rough framing or the finished ceiling. If measured to the rough framing, please revise the stair design, carriage framing, or floor-to-floor heights to...

Summary: Detail 1/A4.1 depicts a 'TYPICAL UNVENTED EAVE' and specifies that structural blocking must be 'CONTINUOUS TO UNDERSIDE OF SHEATHING, NO VENTING HOLES ALLOWED'. However, the same detail shows an 'AIR FLOW' arrow within the rafter space and a 'COR-A-VENT INLINE VENT' on the roof, indicating the rafter space is intended to be ventilated. IBC Section 1202.2.1 requires enclosed rafter spaces to hav...

Why it matters: Without an air intake at the eave to supply the inline vents, the rafter space lacks proper cross ventilation. This can cause trapped moisture, condensation, wood rot, and degraded insulation performance.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the roof ventilation strategy. If the rafter space is to be ventilated, revise the eave blocking detail to include venting holes or baffles to allow air intake. If the roof is designed as an unvented assembly per IBC 1202.3, remove the inline roof vents and air ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the roof ventilation strategy. If the rafter space is to be ventilated, revise the eave blocking detail to include venting holes or baffles to allow air intake. If the roof is designed as an unvented assembly per IBC 1202.3, remove ...

Summary: The Foundation Plan on sheet A2.0 contains section cut references indicating that details '1\nA3.4' and '2\nA3.4' should be found on sheet A3.4. However, sheet A3.4 ('EAST-WEST BUILDING SECTIONS') does not contain any sections labeled '1' or '2' for sheet A3.4. Instead, the only building section provided on sheet A3.4 is labeled '2\nA3.3\nE-W SECTION THRU DECK'.

Why it matters: Contractors will be unable to definitively locate the correct section details corresponding to the cuts referenced on the foundation plan. It is unclear if the section shown on sheet A3.4 is mislabeled (and was intended to be 1/A3.4 or 2/A3.4), or if it is actually detail 2/A3.3 that was mistaken...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the 'E-W SECTION THRU DECK' on sheet A3.4 should be labeled as 1/A3.4 or 2/A3.4 to match the foundation plan callouts. If it is correctly labeled as detail 2/A3.3, please provide the missing 1/A3.4 and 2/A3.4 section details on sheet A3.4.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the 'E-W SECTION THRU DECK' on sheet A3.4 should be labeled as 1/A3.4 or 2/A3.4 to match the foundation plan callouts. If it is correctly labeled as detail 2/A3.3, please provide the missing 1/A3.4 and 2/A3.4 section details on s...

Summary: The Third Floor Plan on sheet A2.4 labels the Primary Bedroom deck sliding door as tag 302B with dimensions 12'0x8'0 (12'-0" x 8'-0"). However, the Window Schedule on sheet A2.5 lists 302B as a DBL SLIDER at 12'-0" x 7'-0" with a glazed area of 84.00 sf (which confirms the 7'-0" height: 12 × 7 = 84). This is a 1-foot height discrepancy for the same opening. Additionally, the Door Schedule on A2...

Why it matters: A 1-foot difference in door height significantly affects the structural rough opening size, header sizing, and wall framing above the opening. It also impacts door procurement, energy calculations (total glazed area), and the exterior elevation appearance. The duplicate tag 302A in the Door Sched...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct height for the Primary Bedroom deck sliding door. The Floor Plan (A2.4) shows 302B at 12'-0" x 8'-0", the Window Schedule (A2.5) shows 302B at 12'-0" x 7'-0", and the Door Schedule (A2.5) shows 302A at 12'-0" x 8'-0". Please confirm the correct heigh...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct height for the Primary Bedroom deck sliding door. The Floor Plan (A2.4) shows 302B at 12'-0" x 8'-0", the Window Schedule (A2.5) shows 302B at 12'-0" x 7'-0", and the Door Schedule (A2.5) shows 302A at 12'-0" x 8'-0". Pl...

Summary: The WSU Energy Code Compliance Calculator on G1.3 lists only two exterior doors totaling 41 sf: 'S front do' at 3'-0" x 7'-0" (21 sf) and 'N patio d' at 3'-0" x 6'-8" (20 sf). The Door Schedule on A2.5 shows four exterior doors with different sizes: 001A entry door at 4'-0" x 8'-0", 101A deck slider at 12'-6" x 9'-0", 103A rear door at 3'-0" x 8'-0", and 302A bedroom deck at 12'-0" x 8'-0". The...

Why it matters: The energy code calculation uses only 41 sf of exterior door area while the actual building has four exterior doors, including two large sliding glass doors with significant glazed areas. The Window Schedule on A2.5 lists 248 sf of additional glazing from exterior doors (001A: 32 sf, 101A: 108 sf...

Suggested next step: Please reconcile the exterior door data in the WSU Energy Code Compliance Calculator on G1.3 with the Door and Window Schedules on A2.5. The energy calculation shows only two doors at 3'-0" x 7'-0" and 3'-0" x 6'-8" (41 sf total), while A2.5 shows four exterior doors with larg...

RFI draft: Please reconcile the exterior door data in the WSU Energy Code Compliance Calculator on G1.3 with the Door and Window Schedules on A2.5. The energy calculation shows only two doors at 3'-0" x 7'-0" and 3'-0" x 6'-8" (41 sf total), while A2.5 shows...

Summary: The Attic Venting calculations on sheet A2.5 rely on 398 square inches of "LOW VENTING" from the eaves using a Cor-A-Vent. However, Detail 1 on sheet A4.1 is titled "TYPICAL UNVENTED EAVE SECTION" and explicitly mandates that the eave blocking must be "CONTINUOUS TO UNDERSIDE OF SHEATHING, NO VENTING HOLES ALLOWED". This contradiction is also present on the Roof Plan (A2.5), which calls out bot...

Why it matters: If the structural eave blocking is installed continuously with no venting holes as detailed, air cannot pass from the Cor-A-Vent into the attic space. This renders the attic ventilation calculations invalid, as the 398si of low venting cannot be achieved, potentially leading to moisture buildup, ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the eave is intended to be vented or unvented. If unvented (to maintain fire separation), please update the Attic Venting calculations to provide an alternative method for the required low venting. If vented, please revise Detail 1/A4.1 and the Roof Plan note...

RFI draft: Please clarify if the eave is intended to be vented or unvented. If unvented (to maintain fire separation), please update the Attic Venting calculations to provide an alternative method for the required low venting. If vented, please revise Detail...