City of Washburn Building Assessment

Transcription

1 City of Washburn Building Assessment Structural Assessment Report 204 W. Bayfield St. September 30, 2016 KOA No Prepared For: City of Washburn 119 Washington Ave. Washburn, WI Prepared By: Evan Berglund, PE Krech Ojard & Associates, Inc. Structural Engineering Group 1 P a g e

2 September 30, 2016 Scott Kluver City of Washburn 119 Washington Ave. Washburn, WI Dear Mr. Kluver, We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to provide you with a structural condition assessment of the building located at 204 W. Bayfield St. in downtown Washburn, Wisconsin. At your request, a structural condition assessment and walk-through of the building was performed by Evan Berglund, PE on Monday September, 26 th, The walk-through served to visually observe readily accessible locations. The owner assisted and was present throughout the walk-through and provided some historical and personal information into the reasons behind some of the building conditions. The basement, all floors, and roof were accessed and reviewed. Background The building overall is a stone and brick masonry building. The south building wall is a common wall with the south common building which is primarily stone masonry on the lower portion. The date stone on the front of the south adjacent building says The Amos M. Hansen photo at right is approximately dated to the 1920 s-1930 and shows an almost all-glass storefront for the first two floors. Furniture or woodwork was said to have been produced in the building. The rear basement entrance shows evidence of previous larger door openings from when a funeral service or mortuary business was said to have been conducted in the basement. According to the owner, a theater renovation was conducted in the 1940 s and the concrete ceiling joists and associated concrete columns and slabs still clearly show that renovation work. The theater renovation was wider than the north half of the building. The theater concrete work is in good condition. Floors appear to have been properly shortened and supported. The projection room and the theater floor can still be made out. 2 P a g e

3 Structure Items of Note from Field Observations In a general sense that should not be applied to any particular item or issue at the building, it is my opinion that the building is in overall fair condition considering its age. Structural items that could affect the remaining life and function of the building include: In my opinion, water control and water drainage is the most important item that should be monitored and addressed for the continued and future function of this building. The front wall has had the two corner capitals removed (Photo 4) and the top of the brick wall is exposed. Many other locations along the length of the parapets have no masonry cap (Photo 5) or metal wall cap. The roof edges and roof membrane edge terminations at the parapets are also in need of repair and maintenance along all three parapets. This should be addressed in the next few months to ensure water does not extend into underlying wood structure or excessively infiltrate the brick and cause unnecessary freeze-thaw wall deterioration. Rear gutter and drainage is important to keep water away from the rear brick wall. The rear brick has a noticeable corner crack on the northeast (Photo 1), and a lesser corner crack on the southeast corner. These cracked conditions should be monitored in the future to look for continued deterioration. The east roof gutter is damaged right now and should be maintained to prevent water from saturating the building east wall under the gutter itself and at each downspout. There is evidence of a past roof leak in the rear south end of the building at the wood floor. The tongue-and-groove flooring is buckled in this floor area. The floor joists could not be accessed from below due to their height, but the ceiling has been partially removed due to the past water damage. The floor should be more closely assessed to make certain, but this floor area is likely in good condition based on visual examination from above and below. Older buildings like this should be heated during the winter to help prevent more aggressive frost and freeze-thaw action from deteriorating the masonry walls. The front entry stair has been modified somewhat recently to turn 90 degrees and south rather than be a switchback stair that leads east and back west to the front of the building. The framing is largely hidden but I saw nothing in particular that looked concerning about the framing that was visible. Connections: o The front storefront wall that was originally two stories of mostly glass was changed and infilled with different framing at some point, perhaps during the theater renovation. In one location it was evident that the floor is perhaps not connected (or not connected often at least) to the front wall. To provide a brace point for the front wall, the front-most joist adjacent to the wall should be attached along its length to the front wall, and the floor boards should in-turn be continuously attached to the front joist along its length. This was true on the south half of the building, and the north half of the building may have the same condition. o The front northwest building corner has a connecting cable installed around the the outside corner of the building. o The front center of the building has a connecting cable installed through the front wall back at an angle up to the roof joists (Photo 2). All three of the connection items above suggest the front wall of the building may have shown small evidence of movement or shifting at some point in the past that suggested the installation of these additional connections would halt further movement. The floor connection concept mentioned above would be one additional method to help ensure the front wall is well connected and braced by the second floor. 3 P a g e

4 One of the timber beams near the front center of the building (Photo 3) appears to be undersized and shows evidence of excessive sagging and/or creep. The metal strap at one end of it appears original, but regardless of when this wood beam was installed, a stiffer wood or steel beam would be a reasonable replacement for this sagging beam. Recommendations It is my professional opinion that the building should have a number of more decades of continued function and use provided some key maintenance items are addressed soon. To summarize and reiterate the key recommendations mentioned in more detail above: 1. Water infiltration should be prevented and minimized by repairing the roof, parapets, and wall caps soon. This includes repairing the rear gutter and ensuring the downspouts are functioning. 2. The brick exterior, rear corner crack, and particularly the front wall and front parapet of the building should be monitored periodically (e.g., once or twice per year) consistently with an observation log (by the same person and documented with photos, if possible) that stays with the building to look and document evidence of change. 3. An improvement for the connection for the front wall is to connect the front floor joist to the wall and in turn connect the wood floor boards and flooring to the first joist. 4. An improvement for the sagging wood beam near the center of the building in the front (Photo 3) is to replace it with a stiffer wood, engineered wood, or steel beam. 5. Regardless of the building ownership in the future, the remaining life of the building will be maximized by maintaining winter heat in the building. The opinions and recommendations stated in this report are based on and limited to conditions readily observable at the time of our walk-through. We have endeavored to conduct our services in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession practicing in this locality under similar conditions. No other representation or warranty, either expressed or implied, is included or intended in this document. Should additional information become available through additional documentation, testing, or observations, please let us know right away so we can determine the impact, if any, the new information may have on our opinions and conclusions. If you have any questions, would like more detail about a particular item, or if we can be of further assistance to you regarding this report, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Evan Berglund, P.E. Structural Engineering Group Krech Ojard & Associates 4 P a g e

5 Appendix Photo 1: Rear NE Corner Crack 5 P a g e

6 Photo 2: Front Wall Center Cable Tieback to Roof 6 P a g e

7 Photo 3: Timber Beam with Sag/Long-term Creep 7 P a g e

8 Photo 4: Front SW Building Roof Corner and Parapet 8 P a g e

9 Photo 5: South Parapet Wall, Missing Cap, Roof Needing Repair 9 P a g e