Plan Review: 274 Issues Found

Summary: 29 index entries | 26 perfect matches | 0 mismatched | 3 missing Missing (3) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: B: - B15 STRUCTURAL SHEET LIST General: - G7 EXTERIOR MATERIAL SCHEDULE Architectural: - A10 OPENING SCHEDULE

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: 3 missing, 0 mismatched out of 29 sheets

Summary: Drawing 06.png (Detail J13) details a continuous bent "Z BAR" connecting the lower and upper bottom longitudinal reinforcement across a footing step. In a continuous footing, the bottom reinforcement is placed to resist tension forces. At the upper inside re-entrant corner of the step, the tension forces from the horizontal and vertical segments of the Z-bar will create a resultant force that p...

Why it matters: Because a bar bent around an inside corner provides no effective anchorage against tension pull-out, the reinforcement will pull out of the concrete cover when the bottom of the footing is subjected to tension. This leads to a loss of structural continuity, cracking, and potential localized failu...

Suggested next step: Please revise the typical footing step detail (J13). The continuous Z-bar should be replaced with two separate, straight bars. The lower bottom reinforcement should cross the step and extend straight into the upper concrete footing section, and the upper bottom reinforcement s...

RFI draft: Please revise the typical footing step detail (J13). The continuous Z-bar should be replaced with two separate, straight bars. The lower bottom reinforcement should cross the step and extend straight into the upper concrete footing section, and th...

Summary: The framing plan details 2x12 wood joists spaced at 24 inches on center spanning vertically between W16x26 steel beams on grid lines 2B and 2C. The clear span dimension provided for these joists is 32'-0". A 32-foot span for any grade of nominal 2x12 solid sawn lumber far exceeds the maximum allowable span limits for bending strength and deflection under standard roof dead and live loads. This ...

Why it matters: Constructing 2x12 wood joists over a 32-foot clear span is physically impossible and will result in excessive deflection and structural failure. This is a major design error that requires a structural redesign, such as adding an intermediate support beam or changing the joists to engineered open-...

Suggested next step: The 32'-0" span for the 2x12 joists between grids 2B and 2C exceeds allowable span limits. Please provide an intermediate structural support beam or revise the framing members to an engineered product capable of safely spanning this distance.

RFI draft: The 32'-0" span for the 2x12 joists between grids 2B and 2C exceeds allowable span limits. Please provide an intermediate structural support beam or revise the framing members to an engineered product capable of safely spanning this distance.

Summary: Section A14 and the framing plan specify an 'HSS 5X5X3/8 KICKER' that frames into the roof at a 1:1 slope (45 degrees). The drawing notes require a 'PL 1/2" X 6" X 6" AT BASE OF ALL SCREEN WALL TUBES FOR FULL WELDED CONNECTION TO PLATES BELOW'. However, cutting a 5"x5" square tube at a 45-degree angle results in a horizontal footprint of 5" x 7.07". This elongated 7.07" footprint physically exc...

Why it matters: Detailing a structural connection where the structural member's footprint is larger than its supporting base plate violates the design and fabrication requirements of IBC Sections 2204.1 and 2205.1 (which mandate adherence to AISC 360). The joint cannot be fully welded as intended. This constitut...

Suggested next step: Please revise the base plate dimensions for the diagonal HSS 5x5x3/8 kickers (e.g., increase to 1/2" x 8" x 8" or larger) to fully accommodate the 5" x 7.07" horizontal footprint of the 45-degree cut member and provide an adequate ledge for the specified full welded connection.

RFI draft: Please revise the base plate dimensions for the diagonal HSS 5x5x3/8 kickers (e.g., increase to 1/2" x 8" x 8" or larger) to fully accommodate the 5" x 7.07" horizontal footprint of the 45-degree cut member and provide an adequate ledge for the sp...

Summary: The exterior wall sections explicitly detail the assembly layers (brick veneer, rigid insulation, plywood sheathing, wood framing, and gypsum board) but completely omit a continuous water-resistive barrier (WRB) between the sheathing and the exterior veneer. This violates IBC Section 1403.2, which requires at least one layer of an approved water-resistive barrier to be applied over the studs or...

Why it matters: Omitting the WRB in a masonry veneer exterior wall will allow wind-driven rain and moisture to accumulate against the sheathing. This will lead to severe water damage, wood rot, mold growth, and eventual structural degradation of the wood wall framing and plywood sheathing.

Suggested next step: Clarify the specified water-resistive barrier (WRB) for the exterior wall assemblies. If the 2" rigid insulation is intended to act as the WRB, please provide specific detailing and manufacturer instructions for sealing/taping the insulation joints to comply with IBC 1403.2.

RFI draft: Clarify the specified water-resistive barrier (WRB) for the exterior wall assemblies. If the 2" rigid insulation is intended to act as the WRB, please provide specific detailing and manufacturer instructions for sealing/taping the insulation joint...

Summary: The drawings show heavy masonry exterior elements supported by wood-framed structures. Section A9 shows a 4'-8" brick parapet (BR-01) bearing on the cantilevered end of a "ROOF TRUSS FRAMING" assembly adjacent to a "WOOD FRAMED SOFFIT".

Why it matters: IBC Section 2104.1.1 strictly prohibits masonry from being supported on wood girders or other forms of wood construction. Wood framing is subject to cross-grain shrinkage and long-term deflection. Supporting heavy brick parapet masonry directly on cantilevered wood roof trusses creates a severe r...

Suggested next step: Please revise the wall section details to provide an approved independent structural support system (such as structural steel shelf angles, lintels, or a steel frame) to support the parapet masonry in Section A9 without relying on wood framing, in order to comply with IBC Sect...

RFI draft: Please revise the wall section details to provide an approved independent structural support system (such as structural steel shelf angles, lintels, or a steel frame) to support the parapet masonry in Section A9 without relying on wood framing, in...

Summary: Section Details K1 and K7 show the load-bearing '2 X 8 WOOD WALL FRAMING' terminating directly at 'P.T. WOOD BLOCKING' and shims that bear onto the window/storefront frame ('SF-01'). There is no header, double joist, or other approved structural assembly detailed within the wood wall framing above the opening. The storefront frame is improperly depicted as supporting the vertical wall framing.

Why it matters: Failing to provide an adequate header violates IBC Section 2304.3.2. Without a header to transfer loads to adjacent vertical members (jack/trimmer studs), the building's structural loads will bear directly on the non-structural window/storefront framing. This will cause the window frame to deflec...

Suggested next step: Please revise Section Details K1 and K7 to include an appropriately sized structural header (e.g., engineered wood or steel) within the 2x8 wood wall framing above the window/storefront openings. Ensure the detail clearly demonstrates that wall loads are transferred to adjacen...

RFI draft: Please revise Section Details K1 and K7 to include an appropriately sized structural header (e.g., engineered wood or steel) within the 2x8 wood wall framing above the window/storefront openings. Ensure the detail clearly demonstrates that wall lo...

Summary: The Level 01 Enlarged Plan shows Room 121 (IT CLOSET) located within the same enclosure as Room 120 (STAIR). A single door from the 119 ENTRY VESTIBULE leads to an area housing both the stairs and the IT closet, meaning the IT closet opens directly into the interior exit stairway enclosure.

Why it matters: Section 713.7.1 prohibits any openings in a shaft enclosure other than those necessary for the purpose of the shaft. An IT closet is not necessary for the functioning of an exit stairway. Locating the IT closet such that it opens into the stair shaft compromises the fire-resistance-rated enclosur...

Suggested next step: Relocate the door for Room 121 (IT CLOSET) so that it opens directly into the 119 ENTRY VESTIBULE or another adjacent space outside the stair enclosure. Alternatively, relocate the IT closet entirely to ensure no prohibited openings exist within the stair shaft.

RFI draft: Relocate the door for Room 121 (IT CLOSET) so that it opens directly into the 119 ENTRY VESTIBULE or another adjacent space outside the stair enclosure. Alternatively, relocate the IT closet entirely to ensure no prohibited openings exist within t...

Summary: The architectural interior elevations contain a general note explicitly instructing the contractor that "ALL EXPOSED SPRINKLERS... TO RECEIVE PT-02" (a finish/paint coating). Applying a field finish directly to fire sprinkler heads alters their thermal element and deflector operation. This violates the code requirement for an approved and compliant automatic sprinkler system.

Why it matters: If the contractor applies the PT-02 finish to the fire sprinkler heads as instructed by the drawings, the sprinklers will lose their listing and fail to operate correctly in the event of a fire. The building inspector and fire marshal will fail the life-safety inspection, requiring all coated spr...

Suggested next step: Please revise the interior elevation note to clarify that the PT-02 finish applies ONLY to the exposed sprinkler piping, and explicitly state that fire sprinkler heads must not be field-painted or finished under any circumstances.

RFI draft: Please revise the interior elevation note to clarify that the PT-02 finish applies ONLY to the exposed sprinkler piping, and explicitly state that fire sprinkler heads must not be field-painted or finished under any circumstances.

Summary: The architectural interior elevation drawings for FLEX SPACE 115 explicitly direct the contractor to field-paint "ALL EXPOSED SPRINKLERS" to match the PT-02 structural finish. Field painting of fire sprinkler heads alters their thermal sensitivity, fundamentally impedes their operational response, and voids their safety listing, which violates the requirement for an "Approved automatic sprinkle...

Why it matters: If sprinkler heads are painted on-site by a contractor, they will fail fire marshal inspections and lose their UL/FM approvals. Because paint cannot be safely removed from the delicate thermal elements and deflectors without risking permanent damage, all affected sprinkler heads will have to be c...

Suggested next step: Please revise the drawing notes to explicitly state "DO NOT PAINT SPRINKLER HEADS." If a specific color is required to match the PT-02 exposed structure finish, please specify that the sprinkler heads must be factory-painted by the manufacturer or utilize manufacturer-approved...

RFI draft: Please revise the drawing notes to explicitly state "DO NOT PAINT SPRINKLER HEADS." If a specific color is required to match the PT-02 exposed structure finish, please specify that the sprinkler heads must be factory-painted by the manufacturer or...

Summary: The architectural interior elevations explicitly direct the contractor to apply paint (PT-02) to all exposed sprinklers ("ALL EXPOSED SPRINKLERS, PIPES AND PLUMBING TO RECEIVE PT-02"). Applying paint to sprinkler heads post-manufacture is a severe life-safety violation that compromises the automatic sprinkler system (which must comply with IBC Section 903.1). Paint coats the thermal operating e...

Why it matters: If the painting contractor follows this note and paints the exposed sprinkler heads on-site, the installation will immediately fail fire marshal inspection. Painted sprinklers cannot simply be cleaned or remedied; the system must be completely drained and all painted heads must be replaced with n...

Suggested next step: Please revise the drawing note to explicitly state that sprinkler heads must NOT be painted (e.g., "DO NOT PAINT SPRINKLER HEADS. ONLY PIPING MAY BE PAINTED"). If a specific finish color is desired for the sprinkler heads, specify that they must be ordered factory-painted from...

RFI draft: Please revise the drawing note to explicitly state that sprinkler heads must NOT be painted (e.g., "DO NOT PAINT SPRINKLER HEADS. ONLY PIPING MAY BE PAINTED"). If a specific finish color is desired for the sprinkler heads, specify that they must b...

Summary: The architectural general notes dictate that 'ALL EXPOSED SPRINKLERS, PIPES AND PLUMBING TO RECEIVE PT-02'. Applying field paint (PT-02) to fire sprinkler heads violates their UL listing and the referenced NFPA 13 standard, which is required by IBC Chapter 9 for automatic sprinkler systems. Sprinklers must be factory-painted or concealed if a specific color is required.

Why it matters: Field-painted sprinklers are a severe life-safety risk, as the paint can delay or completely prevent the thermal activation of the sprinkler during a fire. The installation will automatically fail fire marshal inspection, and all painted sprinkler heads will require costly replacement at the cont...

Suggested next step: Clarify the general note regarding painting. Field painting of fire sprinkler heads is strictly prohibited by code. Please confirm that only the sprinkler piping will receive PT-02 paint, and specify factory-painted or concealed sprinkler heads if a specific finish is desired....

RFI draft: Clarify the general note regarding painting. Field painting of fire sprinkler heads is strictly prohibited by code. Please confirm that only the sprinkler piping will receive PT-02 paint, and specify factory-painted or concealed sprinkler heads if...

Summary: The interior elevation notes explicitly instruct the contractor that "ALL EXPOSED SPRINKLERS, PIPES AND PLUMBING" are to "RECEIVE PT-02" (paint). Applying field paint to sprinkler heads covers their thermal elements and deflectors, which voids their safety listing, alters their activation temperature, and disrupts their discharge spray pattern. This directly compromises the functionality of the...

Why it matters: A compromised sprinkler system poses a severe life safety risk and will fail fire marshal inspections. If the contractor follows this note and paints the sprinkler heads in the field, every painted head will need to be completely replaced, resulting in significant cost overruns, material waste, a...

Suggested next step: Clarify the note to explicitly state that paint (PT-02) shall only be applied to exposed sprinkler piping, and that the sprinkler heads themselves must NOT be field-painted under any circumstances. If a specific color is required for the sprinkler heads, specify that factory-f...

RFI draft: Clarify the note to explicitly state that paint (PT-02) shall only be applied to exposed sprinkler piping, and that the sprinkler heads themselves must NOT be field-painted under any circumstances. If a specific color is required for the sprinkler...

Summary: The enlarged plan for the Pods (Image 06) shows a total overall length of 25'-8 3/4", with the central pod casework/counter occupying 20'-11 1/4". The remaining spaces on the ends, where doorways with visible swing paths provide access to the pods, are dimensioned at 2'-4 3/4" (28.75 inches). IBC 1010.1.1 requires all means of egress doors to provide a minimum clear opening width of 32 inches. ...

Why it matters: Failing to provide the minimum clear egress width violates fundamental life safety codes, potentially trapping occupants during an emergency evacuation. It also violates accessibility requirements for user passage. If uncorrected, this will cause failed inspections and necessitate costly structur...

Suggested next step: Please revise the pod area layout, casework dimensions, and door rough openings to provide a minimum clear opening width of 32 inches at all egress doorways, as required by IBC Section 1010.1.1.

RFI draft: Please revise the pod area layout, casework dimensions, and door rough openings to provide a minimum clear opening width of 32 inches at all egress doorways, as required by IBC Section 1010.1.1.

Summary: IBC 1613.1 requires that earthquake loads be determined in accordance with ASCE 7. The structural general notes provide a Design Spectral Response Acceleration (Sds) of 0.39. However, the listed Seismic Response Coefficient (Cs) for the Anchor Building steel system (R = 3.00), the Stage Pavilion cantilevered columns (R = 1.25), and the Grab N Go wood walls (R = 6.50) is statically copied as "0....

Why it matters: Using the absolute minimum Cs (0.017) instead of the actual calculated Cs will result in the seismic base shear being severely under-calculated (e.g., by a factor of 18 for the cantilevered columns). Consequently, all lateral force-resisting elements, foundations, and connections will be drastica...

Suggested next step: Please correct the Seismic Response Coefficient (Cs) values and resulting Design Base Shears for the Anchor Building, Stage Pavilion, and Grab N Go wood walls to reflect accurate ASCE 7 calculations using the given Sds and respective R values. Confirm that all lateral elements...

RFI draft: Please correct the Seismic Response Coefficient (Cs) values and resulting Design Base Shears for the Anchor Building, Stage Pavilion, and Grab N Go wood walls to reflect accurate ASCE 7 calculations using the given Sds and respective R values. Con...