Inspection Of Garden Style Two (2) Unit & Four (4) Unit Buildings[Download]

Inspection Of Mid Rise 24 Unit Buildings[Download]

1. Inspection of the rear, second level, cantilevered decks. Cantilevered joists showed evidence of wood rot, with the damage ranging from total decay at the exterior bearing wall, to little or no damage to some of the joists on the same deck platform. Recommended solutions: A) Remove all extended ends of the deck joists, remove original blocking between original joists. Replace blocking with continuous rim joist (under threshold of sliding glass door), provide continuous flashing under threshold of new SGD and over new pressure treated rim joist. Install an engineered, end wall, designed with load bearing capability and finish it with matching stucco. Other possible solutions would be to 1) install a new end header beam; support it with a concrete footing, and pressure treated wood or steel post, then run new joists parallel to the rear, outside wall, from the existing, stucco, demising wall to the new beam, described above. Or 2) install steel fabricated mounting brackets on new end header beam (same as above) and on existing masonry, stucco, demising wall to connect a diagonal post from the outside corner of the new header/beam back to the outside wall of the unit. We view these options as less desirable because the post would land in an awkward position, and both #1 and #2, above are inconsistent with the established architectural flavor of the buildings.
2. Evaluate the various exterior architectural elements of the buildings. A) Wood siding: horizontal, diagonal, or vertical boards. After much discussion, it was decided that, the siding should be installed in a vertical pattern with vertical trim to accent the two windows in each second level section with siding. The siding should be no wider than nominal 1 x 6 (5 ??). (See Further Recommendations, below, for more comments on siding and details.) B) Wing walls and broken roof lines at the eave ends. It was decided that the existing roof lines were good, and added interest to the front elevation. It was also decided that the second level wing walls were an interesting architectural element and should remain. C) The third element in this area of the building was the existing 2 x 2 lattice work that ran full length, in front of the second level window. It was decided that while the lattice detail added interest to the front elevation, it was determined to reduce the height of the decorative lattice by approximately two-thirds. It will now run from the bottom of the wing walls up, to just under the sill height of the window. This will tie the wing walls together, making it a more stable group of elements, while allowing for maximum natural light with no outside obstructions.
3. Further Recommendations: After a more thorough overview of the building fa?ade, with its proposed changes, we would recommend two items that, in our opinion would make the exterior more pleasing and consistent. A) Eliminate the siding on the short extended walls, at the second level. They are currently done in diagonal siding with wide trim accents on each side. We believe that these two small areas should be done in stucco to match the rest of the end wall elevation. Keep the trim boards as they are, and replace the siding with stucco to match. B) Construct the second level wing walls, on each side of the single window, with Stucco and wide trim. We do not recommend using siding for this detail.

Inspection Of Mid Rise ? 24 Unit Buildings

1. Inspection of several instances where the surface of the concrete columns and slabs has fallen away, to reveal in some instances, exposed steel reinforcement. After inspecting several locations where this condition was evident, it was determined from the visual evidence, that the loose concrete should be removed, the area should be cleaned, with special attention paid to the exposed steel reinforcement. The exposed rebars should be thoroughly cleaned with a wire brush (free of any contaminants; grease, oil, etc.). A concrete primer should be applied to all surfaces where original, unstable concrete has been removed. The bases of each column should be modified to add 1 ?? of thickness, from the floor/base up 48? (6? above top of new railings) as protection for the existing steel reinforcement bars. The contractor shall check all existing surfaces for loose or patched concrete. This should be removed in the prescribed manner, above. The contractor shall roughen the existing surface to assure the best possible bond. Replace the damaged concrete with new, expanding, hydraulic cement, and finish with a weathertight exterior finish product, consistent with the existing finish of the rest of the building. Use small aggregate, not to exceed 3/8?, and use ?pencil vibrator? to vibrate vigorously, while making the pour. It appears that the structural integrity of the base structure is in good shape. By taking these measures now, they will help to protect that original structural design.
2. Exterior steel railing and handrails. Note: the existing top grab rail is 2 x 8 wood with the top edge shaped with a bull nose detail. The existing rails are currently in various condition in regard to appearance and stability. The existing railings do not meet current building code requirements in regard to height above the floor/deck surface, open space between the vertical balusters and strength to resist the required horizontal loads. Several locations were observed where the handrails and railings were very loose and/or unstable. Further investigation of the conditions revealed that in many instances the steel support plates have rusted through and can no longer support the steel vertical balusters that are welded to them. In some cases, the connecting hardware used to connect the end of the railing to either a concrete or masonry wall or column, has worked loose and no longer provides the required connection. There are also instances where the end of a particular rail or railing is connected to exterior wood trim details. Several of these railings are loose and in need of repair or replacement. In several locations, it was noted that the wood top rail was soft and spongy; indicating wood rot. It was also observed that where the original steel mounting plates have been removed from the floor slab, there is damage to the front, exposed edge of the floor slab. See item III, below.
3. Exposed edges of existing concrete floor slabs. As mentioned above, these slab corners show several instances where damage is evident or repairs have been made to try to correct the damaged areas. It appears that the floor slabs are in reasonably good condition and with proper attention given to repair and maintenance, they should continue to stay in good, serviceable condition. Our recommendation would be to remove all loose and/or damaged concrete, clean all exposed surfaces, with clean tools and brushes free of all contaminants. Prepare all exposed surfaces with concrete primer, form and pour with expanding, hydraulic cement, and finish with a weather resistant finish material that matches the finish on the adjacent, existing concrete area.
4. Rear, cantilevered balcony decks. Visual inspection of three (of sixteen (16) total) decks revealed that they were probably in good serviceable condition. The reasons preventing a more definite opinion on this item, are as follows: on this inspection tour, we were only able to inspect one (1) deck from the top side, and two (2) other decks from the underside. We recommend that each deck, at the very least, receive a visual inspection by a registered structural engineer. Other factors preventing us from forming more definite opinions on the condition of these decks are the fact that several have installed tile or other finish materials over the deck; thus preventing a look at visual clues as to any deterioration or damage. On the underside, wood facia and short soffit trim boards prevent a good look at possible deterioration or damage. With all of this said, from the limited number of decks actually inspected, they appear to be in stable condition. We would strongly suggest, that in follow up to the recommended inspection, that these steps be taken to protect and/or prevent damage. Clean and vacuum any cracks that are visible to the inspector. Use a good quality expanding, hydraulic cement, to fill the opening(s). Take the same steps as outlined above (items #II and #III), if sections of concrete have fallen away, and exposed steel reinforcement below. If there are any questions in regard to the units that have finished floor surfaces already installed on their deck; further inspection and testing could only be done if the existing finish materials are removed. Once the tile, carpet or other material is removed, it is recommended that concrete strength is tested by standard ?Swiss Hammer? methods.
5. Existing, flat, built-up roof with large aggregate ballast. Because of the age of this roof, many would recommend that you do a complete replacement. Given the history of no apparent serious leak problems and the fact that some regular, scheduled maintenance would probably extend this roof for several years, we would recommend the following: start with a thorough but careful cleaning and removal of all organic debris, especially in collection areas around roof drains and scuppers. Schedule this procedure to be done every three months. While this is being done a licensed roofing (commercial) contractor should make a visual inspection for preventative maintenance and repair. Make the suggested repairs with the idea that it will be the best insurance investment in this roof. If a roof replacement fund has not been started, we would recommend that the owners start that program, as well. Remember the flat roof guarantee, ?they will leak?. The steps outlined above will prevent some of these leaks and reduce the severity of others.
6. Existing, wood shake shingle accent panels. The appearance of these upper level ?shingles? is not good. Upon closer inspection, we were able to determine that they are in better overall condition than what they appear. There are several instances where the exposed corners and/or edges have been damaged or loosened. I believe that the damaged shingle panels can be replaced with matching, panelized shake shingles, and that with these repairs, these shingles will give years of good service. As far as the appearance, I would suggest that the cedar cleaning agents NOT be used. They are too harsh and may well damage the adhesive in this laminated product. Rather, I would suggest that the shingle panels be soft washed with an organic spore killing agent, and then coated with two (2) coats of solid stain in a complimentary color (to the stucco and trim colors). Do NOT power wash these shingles!

Final Recommendations