HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Inspection Field Test & Inspection Report 2005-3-3
/'
,,:,r/' /;
"." /
./
, MORTIER
ENGINEERING, l?C.
, , STRUCTURAL.
BUILDING DESIGN' FIRE PROTECTION
CODE CONSULTANT' PLAN CHECKING
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
1245 PEARL STREET
EUGENE, OREGON 97401
PHONE (541) 484-9080 . FAX (541) 484-6859
TOLL FREE IN OREGON 1-877-661-9959
March 3, 2005
Tom & Mindy Wilson
3332 Main Street .
Springfield, OR
Subject:
3332 Main Street, Springfield,' OR - Building Code Compliance Issues
W.O. # 16648
Brad Myers, P.E. and' Michael Nolte, Building Code Consultant, inspected the above building,
March 1, 2005. The existing building consists of a concrete slab ground floor; concrete masonry
unit (CMU) exterior wall and wood frame interior wall construction, and the second story consists of
light wood frame construction with a gable roof truss construction. The footprint of the building is
approximately 3600 square feet. Under the current code the occupancy group most. nearly
resembles an R-2, apartments on second floor and 15 boarding (sleeping) rooms on the first floor.
. Lodging style restroom and showers are provided on the ground floor for the use of the
boarding/sleeping rooms and the second story consists of standard apartment units assumed to
have full housekeeping facilities. We were not able to inspect the interior of the second story
apartments or the ground floor sleeping rooms. We were retained to inspect and report on any.
observed code deficiencies in the subject building first floor and second floor exiting.
We inspected the portions of the building that were open for observation and took some building
measurements for a preliminary sketch of the building. The owner of the building was not present
although we met assistant manager, Justin, at the site. We observed the following code
compliance issues.
CD
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
The south and north entry door threshold measured approximately 2 }i inches high with
a code maximum of }i inch for ADA entrance/use. The east side entry door will qualify
for ADA entrance if provided with lever hardware.
The existing southwest stairway rise/run were substantially out of compliance with
approximately a 10 }i inch rise from the intermediate landing and a 9 inch rise from the
top step to the concrete walk above. The other risers were 7 inches as per code. The
code allows a maximum::!: variance of 3/8"and maximum T' rise with minimum 11" tread
runs with closed risers.
The stairway did not have a grip rail at each side with top and bottom extensions.
A second exit stairway is required at the dead end exit balcony at the northwest-corner
of the building second floor. There were large openings in the guardrail.
The large window adjacent to each north and south entry door has the proper tempered
glass but both lack an exterior retainer molding.
The rain drain downspout was broken at the base of the southwest corner pipe.
At the interior hot tub, we could not observe a proper water supply drain, or required
backflow preventer at the water supply. There was no visible electrical power
connection or grounding. No public use spa license was posted.
There was no qualified ADA showers at' the existing 3 shower units. It might be
possible to modify two shower units into one to result in enough area to qualify as an
ADA shower. An entry ramp of at least 3 feet wide at 1 to 12 slope would be needed.
The shower room floor is approximately 8 inches above the surrounding .floor level.
9. There is no hot water available at the restroom lavatory sink.
10. We' could not verify the terminus of the clothes dryer exhaust ducts. It appeared that
the vent extended into the upper square louver vent possibly through a wood framed
area between the first and second floor. A metallic vent is necessary, extending all the
way to the exterior of the building.
11. The 1 stfloor gypsum board ceiling thickness could not be verified to determine proper
fire resistance. . .
12. Neither of the two bathrooms at the two spur hallways west end meet the ADA
requirements. One of the units could be modified to be ADA accessible by removal of
some wing wall elements.
13. The front private deck on the south side of the building was not structurally analyzed.
14. We understand that the owner is working with an electrician to report on the status of
the current electrical wiring safety.
15. The plumbing, DWV and supplying piping could not be 'inspected or verified.
16. The rear (north) exit door has a keyed dead bolt lock. It must have a passage latch
. openable from inside without a key.
17. There is no fire resistive occupancy separation between the ground floor sleeping
rooms/hallway and the cooking/laundry/bath areas at north and south end of the
building. ~
18. The ground floor hallway fire resi~tance could, not be verified but is of gypsum board
finish. The sleeping room entry doors' and other doors were not verified for the required
20 minute fire and draft assemblies. '
19. Although we' observed some smoke detectors in the ground floor hall, we could not
verify whether they had the required 110 volt power. We could not verify if the 1st and
2nd floor sleeping rooms had required smoke detectors. There was no manual fire
alarm system visible.
20. Proper fire extinguisher installation was not observed.
This completes our inspection and observation of the current code compliance issues. The
attached "Building Analysis Report and Statement of Conditions and Limitations" is a part of this
report. If you have any questions in the above regard, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very ,truly yours,
I
Bradley R. Myers, P.E.
MJ N/mm