Loading...
Report Page No. 1 LOG NOTES FOR CASE NOS: MST90 -0316 ALLEN C CARDWELL 15045 SW 79TH AVE 09/17/97 By Date Text of log note JT 09/17/97 9/9/97 investigation of electrical work done without a permit by Mike Rudd:;entry closet light fixture too close to shelf. light switch in quest room plate cut and combustable in contact. equipment grounding conductors not terminate or spliced properly. plug required every 12 feet to wall space. no point more than 6 feet from plug. no final inspection (electrical) on house permit #05017821 WACO. no electrical permits or inspections for addition on record. master bath room requires GFCI protection for plugs.;Complete corrections of above defects and call for reinspection. Oreg CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS October 21, 1991 BOARD A Craig Cardwell Diane Cardwell 15045 SW 79th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 -0000 In Reply Refer to Claim No. 45786 -102 A Craig and Diane Cardwell v Bever Construction Inc. We have received your claim and hope to be of service in bringing about a fair resolution of the matter. Claims against registered contractors are processed by the Construction Contractors Board following Oregon law (primarily ORS Chapters 701 and 183) and administrative rule (primarily OAR Chapters 812 and 137). In processing the claim, the agency first determines whether or not the claim appears to meet the minimum criteria set by statute and rule. With homeowner claims and other claims where the quality of the work is at issue, the agency may schedule an investigation at the site of the structure. Since this claim involves the quality of the work, the agency will schedule an investigation at the site of the structure. It is important that both the claimant and the contractor be present at the site investigation so that a complete report of evidence can be established. Both parties will be sent a Notice of Investigation within the next three weeks, scheduling the date and time of the investigation. The investigation date will be set to give you several days advance notice to provide you with time to arrange your schedule to allow time for the meeting. With both parties' cooperation, this claim can be resolved at the on -site investigation. Please bring any information or documentation which could be useful in determining the validity of the claim and be prepared to negotiate a settlement. AS THE CLAIMANT: - You must notify the agency if the matter is resolved prior to the investigation. - You must allow the agency to do a site investigation. - You should be at the investigation. - It is in your best interest to have the claim resolved quickly so that you can get any work needed done and get on with your life. 4770 700 Summer St. NE Salem, OR 97310 -0151 (503) 378 -4621 FAX (503) 373 -2007 Page 2 - You should carefully consider any compromise settlement that might be proposed. The alternative to a settlement may be a lengthy contested case proceeding involving the potential of hearings in Salem, appearance before the five - member Board, and /or filing with the Court of Appeals. - The contractor is given a chance to make corrections, unless the agency determines that to do so would be inappropriate. - You do not have to sign any agreement if you are convinced it is not in your best interest. - You may not get everything you want in the settlement, but compromise may be better than continuing the dispute. - If you agree to a settlement and choose to sign it, you will be expected to live up to the agreement. - If a settlement is signed by both parties, the agency will contact you later to find out if the contractor followed through. - If the contractor breaches the settlement, you will be asked to get estimates for having the work done by someone else. The estimates will be the basis of your claim against the contractor. A FINAL NOTE: If there is not a settlement agreement at the investigation, the investigator will review each claim item and make recommendations for correction or completion of any work that needs to be done. The investigator's recommendation will be mailed to both parties within a few days. Ordinarily, the contractor has the opportunity to make corrections in accordance with ORS 701.145(4). Prior to the agency's final determination, either party may request a hearing on the claim or on any agency decision regarding the claim. For more information about Construction Contractors Board hearings, write for the booklet "Going to a Hearing ? ". MAIL: You may receive mail requiring action by a particular date. If you will be unable to pick up your mail, please arrange for someone else to pick it up. Sincerely, O Lucy M. Ernst Claims Coordinator c: Contractor 63d RECEIVED N0V ` 1 1991 October 29, 1991 COMMUNtT' IaEVELOPMENT City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Attn: Vi Goodwin RE: Temporary Occupancy Permit #MST90 -0316 Site Address: 15045 SW 79th Ave. Subdivision: Durham Acres Owner: Allen Cardwell Ms. Goodwin: • As you have requested, we notifying you of the progress we have made todate in attempting to comply with the above noted occupancy permit. As you know, the funds necessary to complete the paving of our driveway are unavailable to us due to a dispute being handled through the Contractors Construction Board. Since our last conversation with you, we have received two letters from the Contractor's Board, copies of which are attached. As you can see, they are scheduling a visit to our house in order to resolve the dispute. We have not yet been notified as to the date this visit will occur. It is our hope that soon after the visit, our funds will be dispursed to us, so that we may schedule the paving of our driveway. Please be assured that we are pursuing other means of obtaining the funds necessary to complete the paving. The property we live on can be divided, and a lot can be sold if necessary. We are, at this time, preparing the property for sale. We are expecting some time delay in completing the sale, due to the channels we must go through both with the City of Tigard, and also Washington County. Because we are not on city sewer, we understand we must obtain an "Easement Permit" which would allow septic lines from the "lot" to run onto our remaining property. Any help or suggestions you can offer to expedite matters would be greatly appreciated. We will notify you of any further developments with the Contractor's Board. Sincerely ` ,//� 4. CyLag/ (1,,‘rpl A. Craig Cardwell & Diane Cardwell • f Oreg CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS September 24, 1991 BOARD A Craig Cardwell Diane Cardwell 15045 SW 79th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 -0000 In Reply Refer to Claim No. 45786 -102 A Craig and Diane Cardwell v Bever Construction Inc. We have received your claim and we hope to be of service in bringing about a fair resolution of the matter. However, before the Board can continue processing the claim, we will need additional information. Please complete the enclosed sheet entitled "Dear Claimant" giving directions to your jobsite to assist our investigator in easily locating the property when conducting an on -site investigation. We will hold your claim for 14 days to allow you time to provide the needed documentation. Should we not receive the documentation, or hear from you within that time, the claim will be closed without further notice. If you have any questions, please write to me at the address above rather than calling. Due to Construction Contractors Board staffing limitations, and since information relating to this claim must be in writing for the record, we request that you contact this agency ONLY in writing. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, d _,A...--)--zak=== 7— Lucy M. Ernst Claims Coordinator c: Contractor 61 2058C/le o, 700 Summer St. NE Salem, OR 97310 -0151 (503) 378 -4621 FAX (503) 373 -2007 , _ . . • , .. . .. _._ ,f.. , , . , w� Third Party Inspection ((/ ,, Scanlan Residence LP2A Job No. 97610.017 November 25, 199'7 ' Tim Scanlan ' ". ' .15045 SW 79th Ave. - Tigard, OR. 97223 ' Subject: Structural Code Evaluation of Existing Masonry Fireplace - • 15045 SW 79th Ave. ' • Dear Mr. Scanlan, - , At your request; Linhart Petersen Powers`Associates (LP2A) conducted a field " - inspection at the . , above freferenced address on November. 11, 1997. The purpose of this inspection was to , determine the adequacy' of the existing masonry fireplace and its conformance to provisions of the State codes. After reviewing the City of Tigard Building Department records, we have determined it was constructed under the provisions of the State of Oregon 1 & 2 Family - Dwelling Specialty Code, 1990 edition. ' Initial Records Review _ The City of Tigard inspection records indicated the footing /foundation ' inspection was disapproved due to ''substandard soil condition during the initial inspection of the site. The . following day, it, was approved for placement of the concrete._ We assume that the site was ' . • excavated for the main building structure but we have no way of verifying that the fireplace soils ' were dug to native soil. The records' are unclear whether the required fireplace inspections were performed or requested. - , ' Field Observations - • —,- - -- Thy home is-located -on -a - sloped-terrain of approximately 10% grade. The masoiii`y fireplace is ' _ situated such that it is 'constructed upon this slope. It is.a two -story fireplace with a double flue and is of standard brick construction. , -- _ ' There are two major cracks in the foundation at the fireplace, one immediately south of the fireplace and one approximately 4 feet 6 inches further south., These cracks are anywhere from - : 1/4 -inch to 1/2 -inch in width the full height of the foundation wall and are through cracks that can be easily seen, from the crawl space side of the home. •• The foundation supporting the fireplace is not the full 12 inches thick as required by code, varying from about 10 to 12 inches. This was observed after excavation of the soils around the footing. The soil under the footing -was extremely soft and easily hand dug and.did not appear to` - . be native soil. ' 2 LINHART PETERSEN POWERS AS S OCIATES - v" 3855-3 Wolverine Street NE •Salem, OR 97305 (503) 371 -2212 • FAX (503) 371 -3853 • - Visual inspection of the crawl space side of the fireplace revealed the same cracking conditions as the exterior. The soil her was dry but easily hand excavated. The foundation wall immediately south of the fireplace showed settlement of approximately 1/2 -inch to l _inch fall. • The wood framing support for the hearth extension and associated framing for the fireplace opening at the first floor was not constructed properly. The crossbeams- are lacking approved hanger supports and are simply toenailed to the main crossbeams. The hearth extension appears to be supported by wood framing members and not by noncombustible : materials as required by - code. Although the code edition at the time 'did not require seismic straps, they were' installed in the attic but they were not secured to the building,structure. -There is an L- shaped crack in the east wall drywall of the second story adjacent to the downhill slope of the fireplace. -- -- Conclusion — — _ It is our opinion that prior to placing the fireplace foundation concrete, the site was not excavated t� native undisturbed soils. We believe the concrete was placed on either fill or other substandard. soil. The result of poor soils, and the lack of the proper foundation thickness, would be consistent with the type of settlement observed during our inspection. We agree with the January 1, 1997 soils report from Carlson Testing, Inc. that further settlement of this foundation will result in further and more serious damage to the structural components of this home. If you have any question or concerns regarding this inspection or report, please call us at (503) 371- 2212. • Respectfully, w LINHARTPETERSEN POWERS ASSCOCIATES . GaryLampella - Inspector /Plans Examiner -- - - -- -- -- - - - - -! _ State of Oregon Structural Inspector Certification #358CAS ■ Hap Watkins, City of Tigard File l • , „/„,r,„ „, CITY OF TIC® September 8, 1997 ®RECKON Mr. and Mrs. Timothy Scanlan 94 15045 SW 79th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Re: Courtesy Inspection On August 29, 1997 an inspection was performed at the above address. The house was built under the 1990 One and Two Family Dwelling Specialty Code. The following is a list of what I were observed. 1. The unfinished room above the garage was completed without electrical or building permits. 2. The two added bedrooms were not protected by smoke detectors. Section R.215.1. 3. One of the bedrooms does not have an emergency egress. 4. The stairway from the garage to the residence and from the residence to the added bedrooms were not provided with a handrail. Section R.214.1. 5. The residence and garage were not separated by 1/2 inch gypsum on the garage side. Section 209.2. 6. The required landing at the front door is three steps from the top of the threshold of the door. Section R.212. 7. The roof covering on the flat roof above the front section of the garage is not an approved roof covering and does not provide a barrier against the weather. Section R.801.2. 8. The foundation on two sides of the garage approximately three feet high, were not damp proofed. Section R.306.1. 9. The crawl space area is not covered with an approved ground cover in several areas. Section R.309.5. 10. Footing for the chimney is not below the frost line. Section R303 and R.901.1. 11. The foundation on the NE comer has settled and cracked, causing damage to second story sheetrock. Section R.301.2. • 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772 12. Roof does not drain to an approved drainage system. Section R.701.3. 13. Deck at front of house is constructed with a 2 x 6 floor joist spanning 11 feet. Section R.602.2.1. 14. Vent connector and vent not identified as an approved material for its use. Section M1501. 15. Ducts under the floor are not insulated. Section M1603.2. 16. Chimney is not properly flashed. Section R.503.8. 17. The roof over the front of the garage is not properly flashed. Section R.503.8. 18. Drip leg at the furnace is installed in front of the shut off valve. Section M1901. 19. Water pipe installed in unheated areas, underfloor, is not insulated. Section 5308(c). 20. Rain drain is not an approved material as per Section P- 2102.1. Re: Approved materials having a smooth and uniform bore. 21. Duct registers in the addition are not of an approved material. Section M1601.1. 22. Electrical receptacles in the two bathrooms are not GFCI protected. 23. Chimney flue requirements: a. Upstairs 109 sq. in. The flue liner is an 8 x 12 = 96 sq. in. b. Downstairs 126 sq. in. The flue liner is an 8 x 12 = 96 sq. in. Sincerely, i f �Yt e_,�u ���� Ron Church T. Building Inspector November 5, 1997", °��i�� °4Vif Timothy & Pat Scanlon CITY OF TIGARD 15045 SW 79th Avenue OREGON Tigard, OR 97224 Re: Inspection results at 15045 SW 79th Ave As you requested, I have reviewed the records that are available for your home and compared them to the items reported to you by Ron Church, Tigard Building Inspector. Given the sequence of events during construction, at the final inspection and as a result of work without permit after occupancy, some of the points of Ron's letter will be clarified and some will remain somewhat uncertain. I will respond as best I can on each point, using the same numbering on Ron's letter dated 9 -8 -97. 1.) Part of work without permit. Not inspected. 2.) Part of work without permit. Not inspected. 3.) Part of work without permit. Not inspected. 4.) The stairway from the garage to the residence does need a handrail, and if not removed during the non - permitted work, should have been inspected. There was a correction notice to that effect on the final inspection dated 5 -9 -91. 5.) The drywall was inspected and approved 2- 22 -91. • 6.) This is a code requirement and should have been failed upon final inspection. 7.) Part of work without permit. Not inspected. 8.) Not required by code when not enclosing habitable space. 9.) Approved at one time, but has been moved around with use and traffic. 10) Footing inspection failed 9 -24 -90 due to unstable soil. Directed to dig down to stable soil. Approved 9 -25 -90 at reinspection. Depth of backfill was not evident at final inspection. 11) The soil was inspected by appearance and firmness at the footing inspection. There was no formal soils analysis done. 12) In some situations "an approved system" for rain drains is over vegetated soil on the same property in the absence of a storm drainage or ditch system at the street. 13) These joists are overspanned per code. These are often left until very late in the project to build and are not inspected before the surface is installed. 14) This is not a code violation given the age of the high efficiency system. Later the same material was not only approved, but marked as such. 15) If part of the original construction, this is a code violation and should have been so noted at the post/beam mechanical inspection. 16) This could well be a code violation. Inspectors rarely get up on the roof at final inspection to check for these items. 17) This was not inspected and is suspected of having been done after the final inspection. 18) This is not a code violation. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772 19) If part.of the original construction, this is a code violation and should have been so noted at the final inspection. 20) This is a code quote that refers to sanitary drains. The rain drain was approved on 5 -9 -91. 21) Duct registers are not regulated by the code. 22) This is a code requirement. Inspection by State of Oregon, not Tigard. 23) This was not inspected. The only masonry inspection called for was at the same time as the post/beam inspections 1 -28 -91 (first floor joists) Just because I have noted some of the above items as "not inspected ", does not mean that they are not required by code or that the contractor was not responsible for compliance to the code. The same applies to other items not specifically noted as violations. I hope this helps make the 9 -8 -97 letter more specific for your use. If you need further assistance, call me at 639 -4171 ext 416. Si •erely, Ad / 1 0 ? d4.0 Darrel " ' .." Watkins Inspection Supervisor cc: Ron Church, Building Inspector FILE, 15045 SW 79th Ave, Tigard Bldg Dept -> DATE SF APPLICATION DATE ; l - , i 4� I NSPECT I ON C�'- 9J CR #34- ..??. . SITE EVALUATION REPORT WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES -- (not a permit for construction) Map and Tax Lot: Township ;:2,4( Range f f Ii,; Section / �3 T . L..- Z 0. ( ` Road /504 it /J . 79 l- Air , / , A APPLICANT : ! tan 7 � �� r� %�1. r �1 C'. II Parcel Size /Dim .: � R.D ., i ,` 0 �• 3 .6 r;; 6442 Type of D w e l l i n g : , .S / /1c ; '-' = ,-f: %'ii / 1--( / e7-; c`) to Do a ) o ; I / YD Water Supply: u 1� An approved site evaluation indicates the above described property is adequate for the in- ( stallation of one on -site disposal system in accordance with ORS 454.605 through.. the Administrative Rules of the Environmental Quality Commission promulgated thereunder, and Washington County Ordinances 173 and 254. An approved site is given on the basis that the lot or parcel described above will not be further partitioned, divided or altered in any manner as prohibited by the Statutes, and Ordinances listed above. Any such division, partitioning or alteration voids this approval. 4P OVED:This location is acceptable for an on -site disposal system. See below for con - d i t i o n s . - 7717( * / .S' ,- z ro 0 S vs ' - •- - /& a : �� y 7i /7( ,///. 57 c G-,2a / , . 7 / 7 . � . ? ( f / / /,7//4 i t G✓. - , - / . 2 S / 1 1 " d r a , • ? / i o F / . , / , " 6 T S ,7 / C , Condi // tions � of Approval: /417_7:2 ra / �. . / nr� -5� `r`� � �i y/ y / f 'Pen G.- r c f :,-l/C/ ( ?%'; a7 ! ) °' -/ — / -(� .'rrlr c�G O_! �1 e'�fiF- ,...4._ — ,:�i:?/'�c's _..... / .:•aG -1 :°C !c / r/ i j / � �, ,A Olt 4 4 ,- J a' >` (-:% 6-' , S <-,1 a /N Y� 474--„.--19.-i.--- 1 Tli/7//.� .4�., r , /.,)a7`/':i a/ f/ f✓I eJ, / 4-.1,-- , DISAPPROVED: This site is unacceptable as inspected on the above date because of: e • • ( ) Insufficient effective soil depth f ( ) Excessive slopes OAR 340 -71 -220 (2) a OAR 340 -71 -220 (2) d ( ) Permanent water table location ( ) Disturbed soils OAR 340 -71 -220 (2) (b) A OAR 340 - 71 - 220 (2) e . ' ,\zee ( ) Tempoo water table location,. ( ) OAR 340 -7.1 -220 (2) (b) A {r 1 �- � San i tar i an's Signature , ,/, ,, . q e �D Date: -2 —.,.1 /-- - J � ` GERHARD MATHEIS • WCDPH BS -2 Rev. 1 �/8 1r � PLEASE DIAGRAM BELOW, THE LOCATION OF BOTH TEST PITS. THERE LOCATION MUST BE SHOWN IN RESPECT TO TWO ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES: INCLUDE DISTANCES. (PLEASE SUBMIT DUPLICATE COPY OF MAP) ;c i — L "y !/ Gw i • io V s . t • L .... I 1 . AS REQUIRED BY OAR 340 -71 -150 (k), ALL ENCUMBRANCES WHICH EXIST ON THIS TAX LOT MUST BE L1STE BELOW: COMMERCIAL /INDUSTRIAL SITES ONLY: A letter must accompany the application which includes: (a) Potential number of employees (b) Type and number of plumbing fixtures (c) Type of wastes (d) Number of shifts per day and number of employees per shift. f MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: File Respond By FROM: Greg Berry, Utility Engineer For Your Information DATE: 1 -16 -90 _ Sign and Return SUBJECT: 15045 SW 79th Ave WCTM 2S1 -12BD Tax Lot 2000 The City has reviewed the feasibility of an extension of a public sewer northerly along SW 79th Ave, from the manhole at the intersection of SW 79th Ave and SW Gentle Woods Drive, to serve the above property. It appears that the property is lower than the inlet of the manhole, and would require a public pump station. To extend the sewer in that manner would not be in the best interest of the City, and would not be allowed. The nearest accessible public sewer is over 1000 feet from this property, therefore; the above property is not within 300 feet of an accessible public sewer. Should the property meet the criteria for the construction of a private septic system, the City would not object.