Re: 1997 bldg code - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attic Inspection• The follovving observations were made: , • The lateral bra+cing on the�s was undersiz.erl and did not meet code; � • The a#ic hatch was not gasketed consistent with Category I and II consUnaction; � • The so�t chutes were undersized at some locations; � • No soffit chutes were observed at the front lower roof assembly. ; ; i ; � Conctnsion: � � ; The fallowing conclusions are based on the inspections and testing performed to date: ; ; • The methods used to install the weather resistive bazrier at the base of the windows is consistent with other homes tested by FBS where collateral damage to ' ` sheathing and framing has been observed; �� • Stage I fa�ure was observed at the fiberboard sheathing at a114 test cuts.Tlus means the fiberboard sheathing has began to loose its ability to shed water and is in fact holding water at some locations at indicaxed by the change in color from � deep tan to light tan and or white,and moishire readings taken on the day of the ; � forensic testing; � • Sta,ge II�silure was observed at the fiberboazd sheathing at C�t# 1 behind the ` M window flange.This means the material,was friable when touched indicating a ` � loss of dimensional s�tability; � � • The fiberboard sheathing was not in.stalled to code or manufacturer's standards, � which voided the warranty provided by the manufacturer.Fasteners required to be ; ` installed parallel to framing members were installed perpendicular to the framing ; members.In addition,the fastenexs fracd�red the surface of the sheathing and in ; some cases missed contact with solid fi�.ming completely, • The lath was not installed to code or standards.Lath fasteners were over driven at ' contact with firaming members and at over 60'/0 of the areas tested were affi�ced � into only the sheathing; I • ICBO ES Standard AC 59(effective date Febn�ary 1, 1993),for flashing was not � followed; ! t • ICBO ES Standard AC 11,Acoeptance Criteria for Cementitious Exterior�Vall � Coatings(effective date January 1993)Part 6.0 subsections 1,3,5,7 were also not ! followed; ' • Guidelines published by the Minnesota Lat�and Plaster Bureau in January of � , 2000 were not followed. f �, � � The Andersen windows were not installed to man�specifications; ; • The foundation and or slab has shifted at the back elevation; ; • The improper installation of the air excl�anger contributed to the fungal growth on ; the interior of the home; ' • None of the issues listed in this report are self correcting.The damage to this � home is in the early stages and if effective repairs are made now additional more expensive repairs can be avoided in the future. i i i ; � � j ! � I 7 � � i _ � i