Plan Review: 56 Issues Found

Summary: 10 index entries | 2 perfect matches | 7 mismatched | 1 missing Mismatched (7): A2: Expected: FOUNDATION, 1ST FLOOR (A2) | Actual: FOUNDATION PLAN MAIN FLOOR PLAN (A2)(p3) A3: Expected: 2ND FLOOR FRAMING, 2ND FLOOR PLAN (A3) | Actual: UPPER FLOOR FRAMING UPPER FLOOR PLAN (A3)(p4) A4: Expected: ROOF PLAN, SECTION (A4) | Actual: ROOF FRAMING PLAN SECTIONS / DETAILS (A4...

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: 1 missing, 7 mismatched out of 10 sheets

Summary: The First Floor Shearwalls plan specifies HDU8 hold-down hardware at every shearwall end/intersection throughout the first floor. However, the advisory note on the same sheet explicitly states that Simpson Strong-Tie no longer fabricates HDU hold-downs, and the available replacement product (HDUE) has different capacity values. This means the structural load path from the roof through the shear...

Why it matters: This issue affects the entire first floor lateral force-resisting system. During construction, the contractor will be unable to procure HDU8 hold-downs and cannot simply substitute HDUE units without confirming that the different rated values still satisfy the design loads. This will require the ...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record to specify the replacement hold-down product (HDUE or equivalent) with confirmed capacity values that meet the design demands at each shearwall location shown on the First Floor Shearwalls plan. The engineer should verify that the repl...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record to specify the replacement hold-down product (HDUE or equivalent) with confirmed capacity values that meet the design demands at each shearwall location shown on the First Floor Shearwalls plan. The engine...

Summary: The retaining wall detail titled '3-8' RETAINING WALL' shows a maximum wall height of 96" (8 feet) retaining compacted fill. Per IRC R404.1.1, concrete foundation walls supporting more than 48 inches of unbalanced backfill that do not have permanent lateral support at the top or bottom shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The wall retains up to 96" of earth, which...

Why it matters: Without an approved engineering analysis for the retaining wall, the building department will not approve construction of the wall, causing project delays. If the wall is built using the prescriptive details shown and engineering analysis subsequently determines different reinforcement, footing s...

Suggested next step: Request that a licensed professional engineer provide a complete structural analysis and design for the retaining wall system covering the 3-8 foot height range. The analysis should include lateral earth pressure calculations, reinforcement design verification, footing adequac...

RFI draft: Request that a licensed professional engineer provide a complete structural analysis and design for the retaining wall system covering the 3-8 foot height range. The analysis should include lateral earth pressure calculations, reinforcement design...

Summary: The project data on sheet A0.6 states the applicable building code is the 2021 International Residential Code and specifies "SPRINKLER MODEL: NFPA 13R PER IBC 903.3.1.1." However, the 2021 IRC Section R313.2.1 requires that automatic sprinkler systems for one- and two-family dwellings be designed and installed in accordance with Section P2904 or NFPA 13D. NFPA 13R is not listed as an acceptable...

Why it matters: NFPA 13R and NFPA 13D have fundamentally different design criteria including coverage areas, water supply requirements, and system configurations. Designing and installing the sprinkler system under the wrong standard would result in plan review rejection or a failed inspection. If construction p...

Suggested next step: Clarify the applicable sprinkler design standard. If the project is governed by the 2021 IRC as stated in the project data, revise the sprinkler specification to comply with IRC Section R313.2.1 (P2904 or NFPA 13D). If the project requires NFPA 13R, confirm whether the applica...

RFI draft: Clarify the applicable sprinkler design standard. If the project is governed by the 2021 IRC as stated in the project data, revise the sprinkler specification to comply with IRC Section R313.2.1 (P2904 or NFPA 13D). If the project requires NFPA 13...

Summary: The North Elevation shows an exterior door on the upper level. The lower level has a height of 9'-1" from the subfloor to the top plate, placing this upper door well over 30 inches above the lower grade. However, the elevation drawing does not depict a guard, balcony railing, or landing for this upper-level door opening. IRC R312.1.1 requires a guard for walking surfaces more than 30 inches abo...

Why it matters: If built as drawn without a guard or landing, the upper-level door will open directly to a drop of over 9 feet, creating a severe fall hazard. This will result in a failed framing and safety inspection, delaying construction and creating a critical life safety risk.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the exterior landing and fall protection intended for the upper-level door on the North Elevation. Provide an updated elevation and details showing a compliant exterior landing and a guard that meets the minimum 36-inch height requirement per IRC R312.1.2.

RFI draft: Please clarify the exterior landing and fall protection intended for the upper-level door on the North Elevation. Provide an updated elevation and details showing a compliant exterior landing and a guard that meets the minimum 36-inch height requi...

Summary: The structural notes specify a soil bearing capacity of 1,500 PSF and a lateral capacity of 250 psf/ft, explicitly stating the design is based on Table 1806.2 of the 2021 IBC without a geotechnical investigation. Per Table 1806.2, a vertical foundation pressure of 1,500 psf corresponds to Class 5 materials (Clay, sandy clay, silty clay, clayey silt, silt and sandy silt), which have a lateral be...

Why it matters: Overestimating lateral soil capacity by a factor of 2.5 directly impacts the design of the foundation system for lateral force resistance. The structural notes indicate lateral load forces are resisted by passive pressure and sliding friction of earth, and the building is in Seismic Design Catego...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to either (1) revise the lateral soil capacity to 100 psf/ft to match Table 1806.2 for Class 5 soils (1,500 psf bearing) and re-evaluate all foundation lateral force resistance calculations, or (2) provide a geotechnical investigation report wit...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to either (1) revise the lateral soil capacity to 100 psf/ft to match Table 1806.2 for Class 5 soils (1,500 psf bearing) and re-evaluate all foundation lateral force resistance calculations, or (2) provide a geotech...

Summary: The First Floor Shearwalls plan specifies HDU8 hold-downs at approximately ten locations along the shear walls. The drawing's own advisory note explicitly states that Simpson Strong-Tie no longer fabricates HDU hold-downs and that the replacement product (HDUE) has different structural values. Hold-downs are critical components of the shear wall overturning restraint system. Because the HDU8 ca...

Why it matters: This will directly cause a construction delay because the hold-down hardware cannot be ordered and installed as specified. If HDUE hold-downs are substituted without re-analysis, the shear wall overturning resistance may not match the required design demand, potentially creating a structural defi...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record to replace the HDU8 hold-down specification with the current Simpson Strong-Tie HDUE (or equivalent approved product), confirm the replacement hold-down's allowable capacity meets or exceeds the design demand at each shear wall locatio...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record to replace the HDU8 hold-down specification with the current Simpson Strong-Tie HDUE (or equivalent approved product), confirm the replacement hold-down's allowable capacity meets or exceeds the design dem...

Summary: The drawing sheet includes a specific review note stating, "Please provide a full analysis for the retaining wall system (IBC 1604.2)." This explicitly confirms that the required structural calculations and design analysis for the 3-8' retaining wall detailed on the sheet have not been provided or verified, which is a direct violation of IBC Section 1604.2 requiring buildings and structures to ...

Why it matters: Proceeding without a complete engineering analysis for an 8-foot tall retaining wall poses a severe risk of structural failure, such as overturning or sliding under lateral soil pressures. This omission compromises life safety and will result in the building permit being withheld or rejected unti...

Suggested next step: Provide the complete structural analysis and calculations for the 3-8' retaining wall system to verify design adequacy and compliance with IBC 1604.2, and update the drawings to resolve and remove the reviewer's note.

RFI draft: Provide the complete structural analysis and calculations for the 3-8' retaining wall system to verify design adequacy and compliance with IBC 1604.2, and update the drawings to resolve and remove the reviewer's note.

Summary: Sheet A2 1st Level Floor Plan Notes specify exterior walls to be 2x6 studs at 24" O.C. However, Detail 2 on Sheet A5 ("1-HOUR FIRE WALL"), which is explicitly referenced on the exterior walls of the 1st Level Floor Plan via callout 2/A5, specifies 2x4 wood studs at 16" O.C. with a wall thickness of 4-3/4". The A2 notes also direct the reader to A5 for rated wall construction. Additionally, the ...

Why it matters: This conflict impacts structural capacity, fire-rated assembly compliance, and energy code compliance. A 2x4 wall cavity is physically too shallow to accommodate R-21 batt insulation required by the energy code (WSEC Table R402.1.2 for Climate Zone 5/Marine 4). Using 2x4 framing instead of 2x6 al...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the exterior wall framing for fire-rated exterior walls. The 1st Level Floor Plan Notes on A2 specify 2x6 studs at 24" O.C. for exterior walls, while Detail 2/A5 (1-Hour Fire Wall) specifies 2x4 studs at 16" O.C. The energy code table on A5 also requires R-21 in...

RFI draft: Please clarify the exterior wall framing for fire-rated exterior walls. The 1st Level Floor Plan Notes on A2 specify 2x6 studs at 24" O.C. for exterior walls, while Detail 2/A5 (1-Hour Fire Wall) specifies 2x4 studs at 16" O.C. The energy code tab...

Summary: Building Section A on sheet A4 calls out the floor assembly with "3/4" T & G PLYWD GLUED & NAILED" and references Detail 1/A5 for the 1-hour floor assembly. The Typical Floor Construction notes on A4 also specify "3/4" T&G PLYWOOD SUBFLOOR (GLUE AND NAIL)". However, Detail 1 on sheet A5 (1-Hour Floor-Ceiling, GA File No. FC 5406) specifies "1/2" PLYWOOD WITH EXTERIOR GLUE" as part of the tested...

Why it matters: This conflict is critical because the 1-hour floor-ceiling assembly is a tested and listed fire-rated assembly. Substituting 3/4" T&G plywood for the specified 1/2" plywood may void the fire rating of the assembly, since tested assemblies must be constructed exactly as listed. Conversely, using 1...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the floor sheathing specification for the 1-hour floor-ceiling assembly. The building section and typical floor notes on A4 specify 3/4" T&G plywood, while the referenced Detail 1/A5 (GA FC 5406) requires 1/2" plywood. Can the fire-rated assembly be maintained w...

RFI draft: Please clarify the floor sheathing specification for the 1-hour floor-ceiling assembly. The building section and typical floor notes on A4 specify 3/4" T&G plywood, while the referenced Detail 1/A5 (GA FC 5406) requires 1/2" plywood. Can the fire-...

Summary: The 1st Level Floor Plan on A2 indicates a stairwell enclosure dimensioned at 12'-0" and calls out 'UP 16R' (16 risers). A flight of 16 risers requires 15 treads. The Interior Stair detail on A5 requires a minimum tread depth of 10". Therefore, 15 treads require a minimum horizontal run of 150 inches (12'-6"), which physically cannot fit within the 12'-0" stairwell dimension shown on the plan.

Why it matters: Because the planned stairwell length is 6 inches shorter than the minimum required horizontal run, the stairs will not fit in the designated framing area without violating the 10-inch minimum tread depth code requirement. This will require extending the stairwell footprint or revising the floor-t...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the stairwell dimensions. The 16-riser stair requires at least 12'-6" of horizontal run to meet the 10" minimum tread depth shown in detail 3 on A5, but the A2 plan only shows a 12'-0" long enclosure. Should the exterior wall be adjusted or the riser count modif...

RFI draft: Please clarify the stairwell dimensions. The 16-riser stair requires at least 12'-6" of horizontal run to meet the 10" minimum tread depth shown in detail 3 on A5, but the A2 plan only shows a 12'-0" long enclosure. Should the exterior wall be adj...

Summary: The Architectural 2nd Level Floor Plan specifies the overall building depth as 20'-6". In direct contradiction, the Structural Foundation Plan specifies the overall building depth as 18'.

Why it matters: A discrepancy of 2'-6" in the building's overall footprint will halt construction, as the structural foundation will be formed too small for the architectural living space above. This critical mismatch affects all subsequent framing layouts, building envelope calculations, and material takeoffs.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct overall depth of the building. Is it 18'-0" or 20'-6"? Update all architectural floor plans, structural framing plans, and foundation layouts to reflect a consistent, coordinated building footprint.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct overall depth of the building. Is it 18'-0" or 20'-6"? Update all architectural floor plans, structural framing plans, and foundation layouts to reflect a consistent, coordinated building footprint.

Summary: General Note ① on the drawing states to 'PROVIDE PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE TO EXTERIOR AND INSTALL APPROVED EPANSION TANK.' This note calls for only a 'PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE' and does not address temperature relief protection. Per IRC Section P2804.1, water heaters shall be protected by either (1) a separate pressure-relief valve AND a separate temperature-relief valve, or (2) a combination pressur...

Why it matters: Temperature relief is a life-safety requirement for water heaters. If the note is followed literally and only a pressure-relief valve is installed without temperature protection, the water heater could overheat beyond safe limits, creating risk of explosion or scalding. A plan reviewer checking a...

Suggested next step: Revise General Note ① to specify either a combination temperature-and-pressure relief valve (T&P valve) per IRC P2804.1(2) or separate pressure and temperature relief valves per P2804.1(1). Ensure the note also addresses P2804.4 requirements for the temperature-sensing element...

RFI draft: Revise General Note ① to specify either a combination temperature-and-pressure relief valve (T&P valve) per IRC P2804.1(2) or separate pressure and temperature relief valves per P2804.1(1). Ensure the note also addresses P2804.4 requirements for t...

Summary: The 2nd Level Floor Framing Plan Notes explicitly state 'PROVIDE I-JOIST LAYOUT AND SPECS ON SITE FOR INSPECTION,' indicating the use of prefabricated wood I-joists for the floor system. However, the framing plan itself labels the floor members as '2 X 12 FLOOR JSTS 16" O.C.' (sawn dimension lumber). If I-joists are the intended floor framing system, they do not qualify for the Exception 4 exem...

Why it matters: If I-joists are installed per the notes and the floor underside is left unprotected, this will be flagged during framing inspection as an R302.13 violation. Retrofitting fire protection (e.g., installing 1/2-inch gypsum board on the 1st floor ceiling) after framing is complete requires significan...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the 2nd level floor framing system uses 2x12 sawn lumber or prefabricated I-joists. If I-joists are used, confirm that R302.13 fire protection (1/2" gypsum wallboard or 5/8" wood structural panel on the underside of the floor assembly) will be provided, and add...

RFI draft: Clarify whether the 2nd level floor framing system uses 2x12 sawn lumber or prefabricated I-joists. If I-joists are used, confirm that R302.13 fire protection (1/2" gypsum wallboard or 5/8" wood structural panel on the underside of the floor assem...

Summary: The building code mandates that the bottom of the clear opening for emergency escape and rescue windows must not be greater than 44 inches above the floor. The architectural notes direct that the "FINISHED SILL HEIGHT SHALL BE MAXIMUM 44\" ABOVE FLOOR." Because the bottom of a window's clear operable opening is always located above the finished sill (due to the thickness of the window frame and...

Why it matters: If the window framing is built to a 44-inch sill height, the actual egress opening will be too high, resulting in a failed framing or final inspection. The contractor would be required to reframe the rough opening lower and potentially replace the window units, causing significant construction de...

Suggested next step: Please revise the egress window note to clarify that the bottom of the clear opening (not the finished sill) shall be a maximum of 44 inches above the finished floor. Provide the correct maximum rough opening sill heights required to accommodate the specified window frames whi...

RFI draft: Please revise the egress window note to clarify that the bottom of the clear opening (not the finished sill) shall be a maximum of 44 inches above the finished floor. Provide the correct maximum rough opening sill heights required to accommodate t...