Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Field Test & Inspection Report 1995-6-23 (. . .' . ( MORTIER ENGINEERING, P.c. ~ .. PO, BOX 139 . 1245 PEARL STREET EUGENE, OREGON 97440 PHONE (503) 484,9080 . FAX (503) 484.6859 STRUCTURAL BUILDING DESIGN. FIRE PROTECTION CODE CONSULTANT. PLAN CHECKING CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION June 23, 1995 Ron Sherman 607 Meadowbrook Rd. Yakima, WA 97404 RE: 602 - 604 Kellv. Sorinafield. OR - Code Comoliance Insoection. \'1.0. #8317-ECM As you requested, I have made inspections of the lower floor of this two family dwelling in order to determine if the conversion of the lower floor area from the original garage construction to finished, living area is in compliance with applicable Oregon state Building Code requirements. I understand that the convel:'sion to living area occurred approximately 10 to 12 years ago by the previous owner and you have owned the property for the past four years. After my inspections I contacted Don Moore" Building Inspector for the City of Springfield, and discussed my findings. with him. ,He indicated that my report should identify the code deficiencies based on .my observations and state my recommendations for the resolution of ,code deficiencies. He then would evaluate my report and recommendations. I had Bob Nolan, Chief Electrical Inspector for our firm, inspect the electrical installations. Based on my observation of the conditions at the lower floor level of this residence exposed to view during my inspection, I make the following report and findings: (The attached "Building Analysis Report Statement of Conditions and Limitations" is a part of this report). 1. Code Compliance criteria: It would appear that the Oregon State Building Code in effect at the time the conversion was done would have been the 1980 Oregon Structural Specialty Code and the corresponding electrical and plumbing specialty codes. The One and Two Family Dwelling Code had not been adopted at that time. I have attempted to evaluate the construction and installations related to the conversion based on the requirements of the codes in effect at that time. I understand that no permits; inspections or approvals were obtained from the City of Springfield at the time of .conversion. My theory is that if proper permits, inspections and.approvals had been obtained, then compliance with codes in effect at that time would have been obtained; therefore if the current evaluation of the construction . ~ P~n(lr . 2 . based on those codes is obtained, then the construction and installations should be approved. 2. Building & Site Descriotion: This is a two story conventional wood frame two family dwelling. Dwelling unit 602 is the south dwelling unit; 604 is the north dwelling unit. The lower level at 602 contains two bedrooms, a living room, a bath and a utility room; 604 contains two bedrooms, a utility and a living area. The 604 unit has the overhead garage door remaining at the east wall where the driveway access is located. The bedrooms are located at the north and south exterior walls. At the 602 unit the original garage door opening has been enclosed with wall construction and a double glazed sliding glass door. The personnel access doors to the lower level spaces are at the east end of the north and south walls. The lower floor's converted living space is used and occupied in conjunction with the upper floor living unit. The building is supported on concrete footings and foundation walls with concrete floor slab on grade at the lower level. It is my understanding that the building was constructed more than 16 years ago. The building appears to be constructed of standard materials and workmanship and in accordance with applicable codes in effect except for the items related to the conversion of the lower level to living space. The utility rooms at the lower level was original construction. It appears that the original garage construction had the interior entirely finished with gypsum board surfaces. The site is located on the north side of the improved street. The ground surface has a steep downward slope off of Kelly Butte from the west. The building is placed on an excavated and graded plateau. To the southwest of the original building there is an accessory structure built at the upper floor or exterior deck level. I am informed that this structure was constructed in accordance with applicable code requirements with proper permits and inspections as required by the Oregon state Building Code. 3. structural: I found no evidence of structural deficiency with regard to the conversion of the lower floor to living space. The original construction apparently is structurally adequate for this occupancy conversion. 4. Room size Ceiling Heiaht Liaht and Ventilation: I found no inadequacies or lack of compliance with these items except that the overhead garage door at the 604 unit should be removed and the opening replaced with standard wood frame wall construction and a window or sliding glass door complying with current energy code requirements. The ~all should have at least R-15 insulation and the window or sliding glass door units should be at least Class 40. The window should be at least one half openable for ventilation purposes. ~#-6 ~ ~~~?K.. /-V E,v~ 1/~711J~ta &. L.~ ;f8!Jt(~ ;t-f .tit t./Al1 r: , . 1 ,4S(-r".-6' N19T .d~ !D!!!-IU1'j . 3 . 5. Enerav Conservation: The code in effect at the time of conversion required for residential buildings that the exterior envelope have a minimum R ratings as follows: ceilings - R-30, walls - R-ll, floors - R-19, window and door openings double glazed or equipped with storm windows. The construction does not involve any ceiling surfaces at the exterior envelope. The ceiling appears to be insulated since the original construction had the garage as unheated space and therefore, the second floor was required to have R-19 insulation. It appears that this was installed. with regard to the exterior walls, I found no indication that the exterior walls are insulated. There is a portion of knocked out wallboard at the east wall of the 602 unit which shows no insulation. I removed the cover plates at electrical outlets in order to observe the exterior wall cavities as much as I could and did not observe insulation at these wall cavities. The only feasible way to correct this condition is to have insulation blown into the wall cavities similar to the retrofit on existing buildings. I could not observe whether there was ~ perimeter insulation at the concrete floor slab. The windows are double glazed. The entry doors to the lower level are not insulated or double glazed. They should be replaced with insulated doors or have storm doors installed. with regard to compliance with the energy code, the code allowed a calculated basis for energy code compliance. This could be an alternate and a recommendation could be to 'have' .theSpringfield utility Board perform an energy conservation audit on the entire building for upgrading based on their program since. the heating is with electrical resistance heaters. I contacted the residential energy conservation office of the Springfield utility Board and they indicated that this was a feasibility and that their energy audit backlog is less than two weeks. I would recommend that you contact them at 746-0963 to arrange for an energy audit. Their program provides for them to absorb part of the cost for the upgrading. 6. Plumbina: Apparently the plumbing alterations amounted to the installation of the bathroom containing the lavatory sink and bathtub at the 602 unit. It appears that the toilet was originally plumbed in in conjunction with the utility room; therefore, the plumbing alteration amounted to extension of the hot and cold water lines and drain line to the lavatory sink and the bathtub from the drain line serving the clothes washer at the adjoining utility room. My observation is that this drain line was extended above the floor in a chase run along the wall and under the bathtub since the bathtub is raised above the original concrete floor. I could not observe the trap at the bathtub. I could observe the trap under the sink cabinet. There is no evidence of a vent; therefore, I expect that " tt- . 4 . 7. this drain line was extended without providing a vent. One solution would be to install air gap vents at these fixtures similar to what is utilized in manufactured housing and was allowed under the previous edition of the One and Two Family Dwelling Code. This would require acceptance of this alternate by the Springfield Building Department. There are water lines extended to a free standing cabinet at the 602 unit, but no drain line. It appears that at one time there was an intention of installing a kitchen at this unit; however, this was not completed and there are no kitchen facilities. It may be advisable to have a licensed plumber observe these plumbing alterations to determine a suitable method of correction with ~er ~~? air gap vent or othor vents on the drain line serving the sink and bathtub. Heating: There is an electric baseboard heater installed in the bath of the 602 unit and an electric resistance heater at the utility rooms which appeared to be original installation. The other electric resistance units appear to have been installed at the time of conversion. Some of the rooms do not have heat which is required; therefore, electric resistance heaters should be installed in these rooms to comply with minimum code requirements for heating of living spaces. The most feasible installation would be the "Cadet" type of wall heaters. This should be done in conjunction with the electrical corrective work indicated. 8. Electrical: The electrical services appear to be adequate to supply the expanded living space even if electrical resistance heat is utilized. Electrical alterations were made in conjunction with the conversion. It appears that these electrical installations were not made by licensed contractors, electricians or qualified persons. The electrical installations were not done in compliance with the Oregon Electrical Specialty Code (OESC) requirements. The following electrical deficiencies were noted: a. Insufficient wall outlets provided in living and sleeping areas, OESC, section 210-52(a). b. Exposed non-metallic cables under bath sink cabinet that are subject to physical damage or contact, OESC 336-10(b).. c. 120 volt single phase outlets installed in the bathroom are required to be GFCI protected, OESC 210-8(a). d. There are no smoke detectors located as required in areas giving access to the sleeping rooms. e. Outlets installed on the counter in the living areas are supplied from 14/3 NM cable that is spliced to a 16/3 cord and plug into the laundry outlet. The capacity of the cord is greatly exceeded. Cord 'is not . 5 . allowed to be used as a wiring method and no other loads are allowed' on the laundry circuit, OESC 210- 19(a), Table 400-5(a), 21-52 and 220-4(c). f. At least one wall switch-controlled lighting outlet or lighting fixture shall be installed in each habitable room, OESC 210-70(a). My recommendation would be to have a qualified, licensed electrical contractor review these electrical installations and make proposals for correction and upgrading to the minimum code requirements. The Oregon Electrical Specialty Code does not allow a property owner to perform electrical installations except in his own occupied dwelling unit. 9. Conclusion: Based on my observation of the conditions related to this conversion to living area, it is my conclusion that if the recommended corrections to comply with the applicable codes in ~ffect at the time of conversion are properly completed, that the converted living area should be approved and required permits and approvals are obtained from the City of Springfield. I hope you find this report adequate for your purposes at this time. Please contact me if you have further questions. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Very truly yours, Emile Mortier, P.E. ECM/rc I. . . MORTIER ENGINEERING, P.c. P,O. BOX 139 . 1245 PEARL STREET EUGENE. OREGON 97440 PHONE (503) 484.9080 . FAX (503) 484.6859 STRUCTURAL BUILDING DESIGN. FIRE PROTECTION CODE CONSULTANT. PLAN CHECKING CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION BUILDING ANALYSIS REPORT Statement of Conditions and Limitations CUENT: Ron Sherman l.O. I 8317-ECH LOCATION or PROPERTY 602-604 Kell v, Springf ield. OR (, Type of Inspeclion .nd ilems inspecled is limiled 10: .. ....!..Jlruclur.1 Condilions b. _ Wealherprooring (exterior surfaces) e, _ Slorm Dr.in.ge (Building. Sile) d, 2.. Sile Condilions (Soils. Geological) e. -1L Plumbing (rixlures, Piping) r. -L He.ling (rurn.ce. He.l Pump. Air Condilioning. rirepl.ce. Sloves. Chimneys) g. ...!... Eleclric.1 (Service. Wiring. Outlets Chimneys) h, -L Other - Energy Conservat ion, ,;Code Criteria The inspeclion is for lhe purpose of .Ierling lhe c1ienllo m.jor deficiencies in lhe condilion of lhe properly described .bove .nd .ccording 10 lhe condilions cont.ined in lhe reporl .nd lhis sl.lemenl. The inspeclion .nd reporl .re performed .nd prep.red for lhe sole. confidenti.l .nd exclusive use .nd possession 01 lhe CUENT, No oblig.lion or responsibility 10 olher p.rlies is .ssumed. This inspeclion is of lhe re.dily .ccessible .re.s of lhe building .nd is Iimiled to visu.1 observ.lions of .pp.renl condilions exisling .t lhe lime 01 lhe inspeelion, Lalenl .nd concealed deleels .nd deficiencies .re excluded from lhe inspection: equipmenl. conslruelion .nd syslems will nol be dismantled. M.inlenance and olher ilems may be discussed, bullhey .re nol . p.rl of our in;peclion. The reporl is nol . compli.nce inspeclion or cerlilicalion for pasl or presenl governmenl codes or regul.lions of .ny kind, The inspeclion .nd reporl do nol .ddress .nd .re nol inlended 10 .ddress lhe possible presence 01 or d.nger lrom .ny polenli.lly h.nnlul subslances and environmenlal hazards iDcluding bul nol limiled 10 radon gas, lead painl. asbeslos. urea lonnaldehyde and loxic or nammable chemicals, Any relerences made 10 lhese substaDces in our reporl is made lor lhe sole purpose of alerling our c1ieDl 10 lhe possibilily 01 lbeir exislence, We are making no positive delerminalions as 10 lheir aelu.1 presence. as we dD Dol do I.boratory lesling, If CUENT wishes any further inlonnalion or recommendalions in regard 10 lhe presence of these substances. we recommend contacting 8 specialized environmental contractor. The reporl describes lhe properly condilion .nd sl.tus on lhe dole of inspeclion, The purpose is 10 alerl c1ienls 10 presenl defects, Sub-surlace soil condilions. inaccessible areas and lea lures, appliances. securily alanns. intercom syslems, solar healing systems or panels. sprinkler syslems. spas. pools. waler sofleners. central vacuum systems. and the presence or absence of rodenls. termites or other insects ere specirically excluded from the scope of ltlis reporl. While every reasonable errori was made to determine the properly condition. no guaranlees are expressed or implied. No responsibilily is assumed for any ilems outside lhe scope 01 lhis inspeclion, nor can we be held responsible lor work perfonned by olhe.., Liabilily for damage arising oul of erro.. or omissions sh.1I be limiled 10 the cosl of lhe scope 01 inspection. No represenl.lions are made concerning lhe archileclural or engineering condilions, Morlier Engincering. its employees and .genls. assume no liability or responsibility for lhe cosl of repairing or replacing any unreporled delecls or deliciencies. eilher currenl or arising in the fulure. or for any properly damages. consequenlial damage or bodily injury of any nalure, The inspeclion and reporl ore nol inlended or 10 be used as . guarantee or warranly, expressed or implied. regarding lhe adequ.cy. performance or condilion of any inspecled slruclure. Hem or syslem. ror MO~IER ,E~GIN~G. P.C. 4..<-~, /U ~Igncd ., f(lresiden'" Title 6!..21/q~ Dole