HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Inspection Correspondence 1997-9-30
.
.
MORTIER
ENGINEERING, P.c.
PO, BOX 139 . 1245 PEARL STREET
EUGENE. OREGON 97440
PHONE (541) 484.9080 . FAX (541) 484.6859
STRUCTURAL
BUILDING DESIGN. FIRE PROTECTION
CODE CONSULTANT. PLAN CHECKING
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
September 30, 1997
Harold Hildebrand
2228 'h Everlein
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
RE: 636 Mallard. Springfic!,l OR.- Garaile Ccnver.ioll Insuection - W,Q. #10338-ECM
As you requested, on September 23, 1997 I made an inspection at this residence in order to observe
the conditions related to code compliance of the garage conversion to a family room. You stated that
you previously had a permit for interior finishing in the garage area and that the only further
improvements that you had performed were the raised wood frame floor construction and removing
the garage vehicle door and installing a wall and window. You stated that the previous garage
finishing work had been inspected and approved by the City of Springfield.
With regard to the non-permitted or inspected improvements, I observed the conditions and received
information from you with regard to the construction and make the following report and findings:
1. The garage floor construction is of 2x6 at 16" spacing floor joists supported on
sleepers of treated wood onto the original garage floor slab so that the maximum span
of the floor joist if 4 ft. 2 in. I observed the conditions through the vent openings
where you had removed the vents and verified that this is the actual framing. The
joists are also supported on 2x4 preservative treated wood blocks adjacent to the
exterior wall. The floor decking is approved oriented strand board with pad and
CaJpet over; therefore, [ believe the floor construction complies with minimum code
requirements.
2. The window that is installed at the former garage opening is a single glazed aluminum
slider unit. This would not comply with the current energy code. I advise you to
install a code complying double glazed class 40 window unit. The wall construction
appears to be in accordance with minimum code requirements. It is non-structural
since the header over the opening was not disrupted
3. The personnel door which was between the garage and living area has been removed
and the opening cased without a door. This door then was reinstalled as an exterior
door to the patio from the garage converted to family room.
.
.
2
4. The residence is heated with a gas fueled space heater in the adjacent living area,
which is also intended to heat the family room. You stated that the capacity of this
heater is adequate to heat the entire residence; therefore, no additional heating
equipment was anticipated in the converted family room.
5. Conclusion: Based on my obseIVation of the conditions and the infonnation received,
it is my conclusion that this conversion is in compliance with the minimum
requirements of the current Oregon One and Two Family Dwelling Code except for
the replacement of the window as recommended.
I hope this report is 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.
ECMirc
The attached "Building Analysis Report Statement of Conditions and Limitations" is a part of this
report.
hildcbrand
~er) CM/lrfXT /~70 tiiM-+ere - :J."IOO';"O