Your roof is not an 8:12 and has been framed differently than in the elevation. Look at where the ridge board for the hip roof terminates on the right and left in the elevation, then compare to where the ridge board terminates in the actual framing photo. The ridge board is MUCH shorter in the actual framing than it is the front elevation. (Ridge is supposed to terminate to the left of the single window and near the middle of the single garage door in the elevation drawing. Ridge board terminates just to the left of the front door and doesn't even make it to the single garage door in actuality.) The result: the hip slope on the left and right is much shallower than what was shown on the elevation.

The continuing confusion in this thread is due to the fact that the rise/run is shown on opposite or opposing pitches on an elevation. The architect's notation is correctly shown. It's some of the folks on this thread that are misinterpreting what is shown. Looking at the elevations, the horizontal element is always shown as 12, regardless of the elevation side or direction of pitch. The horizontal element is consistently 12! 12! The vertical dimension is the pitch dimension and in the elevation it is consistently shown as 10! 10! Thus, on each opposing sides of the roof, the roof pitch is 10 in 12, but the geometry of the notation 10/12 has to be reversed to match the change in opposite pitch. Just look at the elevations and the horizontal and vertical notations. Vertical is always 10. Horizontal is always 12. It's that simple! 10/12 is not the same as 12/10! Come on people! I don't know what experience that response comes from. The numerator is always the vertical axis. The denominator is always the horizontal axis. Thus, it's clear that 10/12 is not the same as 12/10! I have never seen a set of construction drawings or known a roofer that measures horizontally in less than 12 inches. Does anyone think a 4 in 12 pitch is the same as a 12 in 4 pitch? Come on! The denominator is always 12 inches. It's the standard of the trade. It's the way a framing square is marked! As for architects being a strange group and not above making things confusing that could be simpler, just go back and re-read this thread, from top to bottom, largely made up of comments from non-architects. Now that's confusing! And inaccurate! Thus endeth the lesson on roof pitch and notation! :-)

Angela, sometimes Life decides things for you. You must be a pretty young retiree if you haven’t experienced that! We were in our early 40’s when the other half was diagnosed with a permanent debilitating disease. It sure changed a lot of plans! He retired disabled, and I became a Certified Aging in Place Specialist to help others who faced trying to live in their existing homes or create accessible new homes. A retirement home should be fully accessible. That starts with the approach and entry into the home being step free. It’s great that you think you won’t move from this home. Given some of the issues with it though, you will be facing some remodeling at some point. Don't you think that it would be better to address some of its issues before it’s built rather than down the road when income and ability may not be as great as it is now? Why design in accessibility problems that you will really regret and will need to change? This forum can really help you with many issues, both functional and aesthetic, if you will allow it to. Defensiveness is only hurting you. Good luck with your project!

Hi, Abhish, Stucco can indeed wick up moisture as Kevin notes above. You should ensure the perimeter of your home is properly graded to ensure rain water is directed away from the foundation. The code in our area requires 6 inches of fall in 10 ft or a 5% grade; yours may be different. Hopefully, that's the only issue and grading fixes the problem. In the event it's not, keep in mind that wicking of moisture is not the only way moisture can get into a wall assembly with stucco cladding and you may need to do something else to mitigate it. Since your home was constructed around 1950 (assuming no remodeling of the exterior stucco) I assume you have a traditional, 3-coat cementitious stucco installed over metal lath installed over asphalt-saturated felt (a.k.a., tar paper.) Best practice is to use two layers of 15 lb. felt to create some drainage channels between the layers, but a single layer of 30 lb. felt was a permitted alternative when I built a home with cementitious stucco 22 years ago. Traditional cementitious stucco is a "reservoir cladding" meaning it has the capacity to store water. Cementitious stucco, once wetted, would dry both to the exterior and to the interior of your home, albeit at different rates depending on interior and exterior conditions and the properties of the felt. Exterior conditions that may increase wetting include orientations more susceptible to wind-driven rains, and walls which dry more slowly due to shading. The condition of the stucco (e.g., cracks) can also contribute to increased wetting. Just like us, (wives aging like fine wines being the notable exception) asphalt-saturated felt deteriorates over time. Homes I've remodeled which were constructed in the 1950s generally have pretty thin felt and it's usually pretty brittle (for the record, 70 years of service life is more than you should expect from many synthetic materials, too.) The deterioration changes the properties of the felt and allows more moisture to move to the interior side. That can increase the relative humidity in the wall cavities and the adjacent living areas since it is drying to the interior. In the event it is, you'll want to get things dried out before mold/mildew becomes an issue. Running a dehumidifier is a good idea. Another way to deal with the deteriorating felt layer is to reduce water absorption by the stucco by painting it. You'll need to use a vapor-permeable paint (permeance greater than 10) which will slow absorption, but still allow drying to the exterior. Best wishes for a successful fix.