1992, 12-22 Plans Examiner Ltr to AttorneyS P O _K A N E
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
December 22, 1992
C O tf N -Jr Y
JAMES L. MANSON, C.B.O., DIRECTOR
Don R. Shaw, Jr.
Van Camp and Bennion
1707 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99201
RE: Winston Smith Residence, 3514 North Edgerton Road
Dear Mr. Shaw:
In response to your letter of December 10, 1992 and regarding our
activities on that date, the following is submitted.
An on -premise inspection of the above named property was conducted
on December 10, 1992. Accompanying me on this inspection was Tom
Davis from the Department of Buildings, Don Shaw, Van Camp &
Bennion, and Winston Smith, property owner.
The purpose of the investigation was to determine if the eastern
most portion of the addition could constitute a dangerous building
as defined by the Spokane County Codes and to appraise its general
code compliance to the Uniform Building Codes. This portion is
further described as that area encroaching into the rear yard
setbacks and not authorized by building permit No. 92-12473. No
effort was made to investigate the acceptability of construction on
other portions of the work which are legitimately covered by the
previously mentioned permit.
The upper level of the addition appears to be being utilized as an
office. The lower, as yet unenclosed, area is being used for
general storage.
No determination was made regarding the exact location of the
property line. By admission of the owner the exterior wall is
built on the line according to his calculations. Adjacent property
owners contend it is built across the line and onto their property.
This matter has been formally presented in an affidavit to the
courts.
COPE aJitRCEM NTDIVLSION
No drawings have ever been developed showing this portion of the
intended addition its use, location, or details of construction.
Much of the new work is covered and cannot be readily inspected.
No attempt was made to expose concealed construction work.
The following observations regarding non compliance to the Uniform
Building Code are submitted:
1) the east exterior wall is not of one hour rated
construction as required by Table 5A of the Uniform
Building Code.
2) Existing openings (windows and open space between
columns) are not allowed in and exterior wall closer than
3 feet to a property line. Table 5A of the Uniform
Building Code.
3) The support columns at the east property line are not
constructed to be one -hour fire resistive as required by
Table 17A note 1.
4) Columns supporting the second level are not approved,
treated wood as required for concrete embedment. Section
2516c and 2505 of the Uniform Building Code.
5) Parapets are not provided at the exterior
required by Section 1710 of the Uniform Building
to building size and proximity to property line.
6) Eave overhangs do not comply with Section 1711
of the Uniform Building Code.
wall as
Code due
and 504b
7) Overhangs encroach across the east property line.
8) Roof drainage is discharged onto adjacent properties to
the east and south.
9) The double 2 x 6 beams supporting the second level floor,
roof and wall are grossly inadequate for the imposed
load. Section 2506 of the Uniform Building Code.
10) Beams are improperly supported at the columns as
required by Section 2516m and 2517c of the Uniform
Building Code.
11) Column footings do not extend below the frost line as
required by Section 2907 of the Uniform Building Code.
12) Improperly sized hangers are used at some joist
locations. Section 2510 of the Uniform Building Code.
13) Improper nailing was observed at exposed joist to plate
locations. Uniform Building Code Table 25Q
14) First level is not properly braced as required by Table
25v, of the Uniform Building Code.
15) Hipped rafters at the second level are inadequately sized
for imposed loads. Uniform Building Code 2504
16) Weather protection and flashing is not provided at roof
to wall intersections as required by Section 1708 and
3208 of the Uniform Building Code.
17) Roof rafters are not blocked for lateral support as
required by Section 2506h of the Uniform Building Code.
18) Upon completion of ceiling finishes, enclosed rafter
spaces will not have proper ventilation. Soffit openings
are not protected from entry of birds or vermin by a
metal mesh. Uniform Building Code Section 3205c.
19) Roof, floor and walls are constructed in violation of the
Washington State Energy Code Table 5-1.
20) Skylight panels do not meet minimum requirements of the
Energy Code Table 5-1
21) Although not part of the addition located within the rear
yard setback, access to the second level is by means of a
stairway built in violation of Section 3306 of the
Uniform Building Code for headroom clearance.
22) A roof addition north of the encroaching two story -
construction is built over a pre-existing, non -complying
dwelling. This construction is open to the east and
subject to damage by wind -uplift in violation of Section
2317 of the Uniform Building Code.
23) The roof addition rafters exceed maximum allowable spans
as determined by Tables 25A1 and 25UR7 of the Uniform
Building Code.
24) The roof addition rafter loads are not being properly
transferred as required by Chapters 23 & 25 of the
Uniform Building Code. Structural failure of the
pre-existing roof due to concentrated loading appears to
be occuring.
25) A pre-existing chimney is confined below the new roof
addition with a discharge point varying from 2 to 5 feet
from combustible construction in violation of Section
3703 of the Uniform Building Code.
The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings
establishes criteria by which a building may be declared a
dangerous building. The following observations are applicable to
the before described addition relative to Section 301 of the UCADB.
1) A safe and adequate means of exiting in the case of fire
or panic is not provided.
2) Live and dead loads imposed on the existing dwelling roof
structure are likely in excess of 150 percent of
allowable.
3) The added roof structure is not of sufficient strength,
stability or anchorage to resist applicable wind
pressures.
4) The structure due to the use of support columns
susceptible to deterioration and decay is subject to
eventual instability and collapse.
5) As demonstrated by the prior listed code deficiencies the
building was constructed and now exists in violation of
building regulations as adopted by the Spokane County.
6) The building exhibits less than 66 percent of the
strength, fire resistive characteristics, and weather
resisting qualities of its supporting members as is
required by law for newly constructed buildings.
7) The addition because of. a lack of sufficient fire
resistive construction and due to a lack of clearance to -
overhead utility lines constitutes a fire hazard.
By virtue of the above noted conditions the addition would qualify
as a dangerous building under provisions of the UCADB and would be
subject to proceedings to cause its repair, vacation or demolition.
It should be noted that prior to any activity to repair the
building addition, the home owner must first provide the following
actions and documentation to the Department of Buildings for our
review and approval:
1) Documentation of zoning action granting a variance or
other legal authorization which will allow construction
within the rear yard setback.
2) A professional survey showing that the structure is
located within Mr. Smith's legal property boundaries.
(UBC Section 305a.)
3) Accurate plans and engineering calculations detailing the
existing construction and proposed corrections necessary
to bring it into code compliance (UBC Section 302B)
The result of our inspection has made it even more apparent that
corrective action must be initiated on the unauthorized addition
and increases our concern regarding acceptability of the remodeling
work in other portions of the building. Mr. Smith demonstrated an
understanding of many shortcomings during our walk through by
explaining corrective measures he intends to employ. We are
encouraged by this attitude but would caution Mr. Smith to proceed
only after concluding the three steps outlined above.
An alternative solution to the problems surrounding this addition
would be its removal. The remodeling within the balance of the
residence could then be inspected, corrections if necessary
determined, and work resumed.
Thank you for your interest in resolving this matter.
Res
tfully,
ni:/y')
illiam C. Benish
Plans Examiner
WCB:fmh
cc:
Winston Smith
Tom Davis, Code Compliance Coordinator
Stanley Waltz, County ProsecutingAttorney's Office