Inspection History Details
Inspection Status: Approved
Inspection History: INSP - FOLLOW UP CODE ENFORCE
| Date | Description | Inspector | Results | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/18/2006 | INSP - FOLLOW UP CODE ENFORCE | Approved | UPON VISITING THIS ADDRESS I CHECKED THE CASE FILE TO REVISIT THE CASE AS I HAD REMEMBERED CONDUCTING A FOLLOW UP INSPECTION WITH RICK SALDATE. RICK DETERMENED THE FOLLOW UP INFORMATION AT D.S.D. WAS INCONCLUSIVE, DETERMINING THAT FROM AIRIAL VIEWS IT APPEARED THE ADDITION HAD BEEN THERE FOR SOME TIME AND NO PERMITS COULD BE FOUND DUE TO RECORDS (DSD) NO LONGER HAVING KEPT RECORDS. I HAD ASKED FOR A LETTER FROM AN ENGINEER OK-ING THE FOOTINGS AND THAT WAS ALSO RECEIVED AND PLACED IN PACKET, ABATING THE ONLY TWO ITEMS LEFT UNABATED. OWNER IS IN COMPLIANCE. ONE PICTURE WAS TAKEN OF MY VISIT TO PROPERTY. CLOSE CASE. |
|
| 04/27/2005 | INSP - FOLLOW UP CODE ENFORCE | Approved | 4/27/05 INSP 2 AND C-16 MET WITH PROPERTY MANAGERS,DARBY AND RICHARD LINDHOLM. EXPLAINED THAT BECAUSE OF ALL THE FLOOR SETTLING GOING ON INSIDE THE STRUCTURE, WE WERE CONCERNED WITH THE EXTERIOR FOOTINGS UNDERNEATH THE EXTERIOR WALLS AND HOW THE FLOORS HAD BEEN GIVEN ADDITIONAL SUPPORT, THE FACT THAT THE SUPPORT DID NOT REMEDY THE EXISTING SITUATION. UPON FURTHER REVEIW WE FOUND THAT THE I-BEAM AND THE BLOCK WALL/SUPPORT MAY HAVE BEEN DONE IMPROPERLY AND THAT WAS WHY THE FLOOR HAS CONTINUED TO SETTLE AND EXHIBIT CRACKS IN THE FOOTINGS. THE PROPERTY MANAGER ROBERT LINDHOLM WAS ASKED TO COME DOWN INTO THE ROOT CELLAR SO THAT HE COULD SEE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IT WAS WE WERE LOOKING AT AND TRYING TO DETERMINE. I LOOKED ON TOP OF BOTH THE I-BEAM AND WOOD BEAM AND FOUND THAT THE FLOOR JOISTS IN MOST CASES WERE NOT EVEN RESTING ON THE BEAMS WHICH WAS EVIDENCE TO ME THAT THE BEAMS WERE PLACED UNDER THE FLOOR JOISTS AFTER THE FLOOR HAD BEGAN TO SETTLE. I ALSO EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT I FELT THE CMU BLOCK WALL SHOULD ALSO HAVE A FOOTING AND BE BUILT STRAIT UP AND DOWN AS OPPOSED TO BEING BUILT AS IT IS ON AN ANGLE. I EXPLAINED THAT I THOUGHT THE DIRT PLACED BEHIND THE CMU WALL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO STABALIZE THE FOOTING ANT NOT ALLOW MOVEMENT OF THE FOOTING. THE CRACKS IN THE FOOTING WERE ALSO SHOWN TO MR. LINDHOLM. A DISCUSSION ABOUT BRINGING IN A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WAS BROUGHT UP TO MR LINDHOLM AS WELL AS NOT RE-OCCUPYING THE STRUCTURE UNTIL AN ENGINEER WAS BROUGHT IN TO PERFORM A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ON THE PROPERTY. MR. LINDHOLM WAS VERY UPSET WITH THE DECISION AS THEIR PLANS WERE TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND MR. LINDHOLM FELT THIS WOULD BE A SET BACK TO SELLING THE PROPERTY. INSP. 2 RICK SALDATE HAD TO HAVE MR. LINDOLM EXIT THE ROOT CELLAR AND ACTUALLY TAKE HIM TO THE REAR ROOM TO TRY AND CALM HIM ENOUGH TO TRY AND EXPLAIN THE CITY OF TUCSON'S LIABILITY AND WHY WE WANTED A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO EVALUATE THE PROPERTY. EXPLAINED TO DARBY LINDHOLM THAT ALTHOUGH I HAD NOT YET FOUND PROOF OF THE REAR ADDITION BEING ADDED BUT THAT I SAW FROM HOW IT WAS BUILT AND THE ADDED ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS. BECAUSE DSD ASKED FOR A SITE PLAN ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS YEARS AND YEARS AGO, THE SECOND SITE PLAN I FOUND FOR A PROPERTY CHANGE HAD THE ADDITION DRAWN IN AS IS (INCLUDING THE ADDITION), WERE AS THE INITIAL DRAWING THE HOUSE, CHICKEN COOP, STORAGE WAS INCLUDED, LOOKED NOTHING LIKE WHAT THE HOUSE LOOKS LIKE NOW, AND DID NOT INCLUDE THE ADDITION. NO PERMITS WERE EVER FOUND FOR THE ADDITION. THIS WAS EXPLAINED TO DARBY LINHOLM BUT DID NOT GO OVER WELL EITH DARBY EITHER. NOV TO FOLLOW, WILL FOLLOW UP WITH PERMITS!! INSPECTOR 2 SUGGESTED THAT I FOLLOW UP WITH DAVE MANN, UNDERSTAND HIS PERSPECTIVE AND WHAT THE CITY WILL REQUIRE. |