Both fire service elevators open into a foyer too small for the lobby the code requires.
The code summary promises high-rise fire and life safety features that the floor plans and wall types of this residential tower do not yet show.
High-rise residential tower
An architectural permit set for a residential high-rise over a parking garage: code summary, floor, ceiling and area plans, wall types, sections, details and area schedules.
What the review compared
The review read the architectural permit set for a residential high-rise: the code summary, floor and ceiling plans, area plans and schedules, wall types, sections and details. Code checking was enabled, so the code summary and the plans were read against the codes the review cited, including the city’s own amendments.
Where the set falls short
The code summary cites code editions the city has replaced and a standpipe class its amendments do not allow. Stair and shaft walls carry a lower rating than the code requires, the fire service elevators lack a compliant lobby, no plan shows the fire command center, and the life-safety plans the wall types rely on are missing. Unit doors are too narrow for the accessibility standard, and many walls carry no type.
What to verify next
The architect should update the code basis and resolve the high-rise core, ratings and accessibility items before the permit submittal, then complete the wall types and schedules for pricing. Examples that cite a requirement follow the codes the review cited, and every example is a question for the responsible designers.
8 selected examples from the review
Eight distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Code summary cites replaced editions
The cover sheet bases the permit on code editions that a newer city ordinance replaced.
Why it matters: The code analysis rests on requirements no longer enforced.
What to check: Update the code list and recheck the analysis.
Architectural · GeneralStair and shaft walls rated one hour
Stair, stair passage and elevator shaft wall types are rated one hour; the code requires two.
Why it matters: Walls and doors would be built below the required rating.
What to check: Rate them two hours with tested assemblies.
ArchitecturalFire service elevator lobby is too small
Both fire service elevators open into a foyer below the required lobby size, without stair access.
Why it matters: The core layout would have to change.
What to check: Redesign the lobby with direct access to an exit stair.
ArchitecturalStandpipe class conflicts with a local amendment
The code summary lists Class I standpipes; a city amendment requires Class III with hose cabinets.
Why it matters: No floor plan shows a hose cabinet.
What to check: Change the class and draw the cabinets.
Fire protection · ArchitecturalNo fire command center on any plan
The code summary requires a fire command center; none of the floor plans shows one.
Why it matters: Its location cannot be submitted for approval.
What to check: Locate and size the room on a ground level.
Architectural · Fire protectionUnit doors too narrow for clear width
Most interior unit doors are leaves too narrow to give the accessibility standard’s clear width.
Why it matters: Hundreds of doors and framed openings would change.
What to check: Enlarge the leaves and add a door schedule.
ArchitecturalLife-safety plans are missing
Wall types defer ratings to life-safety plans that the set and its index omit.
Why it matters: Rated walls and occupancy separations cannot be identified.
What to check: Add the plans and state the separation method.
ArchitecturalOver a hundred walls tagged with a question mark
The wall type plans tag more than a hundred walls “?” instead of a defined type.
Why it matters: Their construction and ratings cannot be priced.
What to check: Assign a defined type to every wall.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Fire protection, Structural, Mechanical, and Electrical
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, Medium, and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
Drawing coordination and code checking
Code checking was enabled alongside the review of plans, schedules, details, and notes.
Findings connected to their source context
Groundbook links each finding to the sheets it came from so the responsible designer can confirm or dismiss it.
Potential impacts describe the issue type. They are not verified outcomes from this project.
Follow the information across the complete set
Groundbook reads the documents you upload and reports where they disagree, where a reference does not resolve, and where a required value is absent.
See how a full set is reviewed or how interfaces are coordinated.
- 1Map the complete set
Identify sheets, disciplines, details, schedules, and notes.
- 2Connect repeated information
Follow tags, references, and requirements wherever they reappear.
- 3Check drawings and code references
Read the detected code references alongside the drawing evidence.
- 4Return findings for verification
Organize potential issues by severity, discipline, and supporting context.
Questions for professional verification
The output supports the responsible designers as they review the source documents and decide what needs to change.
What this result means
- Groundbook surfaced potential issues for professional review.
- Severity helps prioritize which questions to investigate.
- The findings describe coordination, completeness, and code-reference questions in the uploaded set.
- Each finding includes source context for verification.
What it does not mean
- Every potential finding is a confirmed error or violation.
- The project was unsafe, unbuildable, or ultimately noncompliant.
- Groundbook replaced the responsible professionals or authority.
- A correction was made, or any cost or delay was avoided.
About this review
Is this a real review?
Based on a Groundbook review completed in November 2026. Findings are summarized.
Are these findings confirmed defects?
No. Each one is a potential issue for the responsible designer to verify against the source documents. Groundbook reports what the documents say and where they disagree. It does not make design decisions, certify compliance, or replace the authority having jurisdiction.
How long did the review take?
Turnaround runs from 20 minutes to 24 hours depending on project size.
Which codes were checked?
Code checking was enabled for this review. Groundbook detects the codes a set references, reads the codes and amendments that governments publish online, and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it.
Can I see a full report?
Yes. The sample plan review report shows all 79 findings from one review of a drawing set and its specifications, with the cited excerpts.
Continue from the case study
Explore the source-linked examples in the sample plan review report, or browse every published case study.
Give the next drawing set a connected first pass
Upload the project, choose the checks that matter, and receive structured potential findings with source context.