Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-15-2016 - 7-b - Chapel Hill Town Hall Study Committee 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 15, 2016 Action Agenda Item No. 7-b SUBJECT: Chapel Hill Town Hall Study Committee DEPARTMENT: County Manager's Office, Asset Management Services, Visitor's Bureau ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1) October 26, 2016 Town Board Travis Myren, 919-245-2308 Resolution Jeff Thompson, 919-245-2658 2) June 27, 2016 Citizen Petition Laurie Paolicelli, 919-245-4320 3) Excerpt of March 26, 2015 Agenda Abstract— Town/County Facilities 4) June 9, 2015 —Town Hall Facility Analysis 5) Visitors Bureau Site Illustrative PURPOSE: To authorize participation in a Town of Chapel Hill Committee to consider the use of the Historic Town Hall facility as a visitor and history center and to appoint a Commissioner representative to the Committee. BACKGROUND: On October 26, 2016, the Chapel Hill Town Council created a committee to explore the use of the Town's former Town Hall building for use as visitor and history center. Although this topic has been discussed in general by the Board of Orange County Commissioners, no formal action has been taken to include the potential relocation of the Visitor's Bureau as part of future planning for the Historic Town Hall facility. This abstract would authorize the inclusion of the Visitor's Bureau in this analysis and appoint a Commissioner representative to the Committee. Attachment 1 is the resolution adopted by the Town Council that establishes the Committee and its composition. Attachment 2 is a citizen petition received by the Town in June of 2016 regarding the potential colocation of the Visitor's Bureau with the Chapel Hill Museum in Historic Town Hall. The Town and County Boards discussed ideas surrounding the future use of Historic Town Hall and other properties during its joint meeting on March 26, 2015. The portion of the agenda abstract dedicated to this discussion is attached as Attachment 3. The abstract discusses the potential options for the disposition of Historic Town Hall and how it could be used as a site for the Visitors Bureau or other community purpose. The abstract also mentions the potential reuse of the current Visitors Bureau building. Following this discussion, County staff engaged an architect and engineer to perform a facility analysis of Historic Town Hall to inform any future discussion. This report is located as Attachment 4, "June 9, 2015 Facility Analysis". 2 Attachment 5, "Visitors Bureau Site Illustrative", depicts summary information on the Visitors Bureau facility located at 501 East Franklin Street in Chapel Hill. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Social Justice Goals are applicable for this agenda item: • GOAL: FOSTER A COMMUNITY CULTURE THAT REJECTS OPPRESSION AND INEQUITY The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race or color; religious or philosophical beliefs; sex, gender or sexual orientation; national origin or ethnic background; age; military service; disability; and familial, residential or economic status. • GOAL: ENSURE ECONIOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their dependents. • GOAL: ENABLE FULL CIVIC PARTICIPATION Ensure that Orange County residents are able to engage government through voting and volunteering by eliminating disparities in participation and barriers to participation. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board of authorize participation in a Town of Chapel Hill committee to consider the use of Historic Town Hall as a visitor and history center and appoint a Commissioner representative to represent the County on this Committee. 3 Attachment 1 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBLE FUTURE USE OF HISTORIC TOWN HALL AS A VISITOR'S AND HISTORY CENTER(2016-10-26/R-9) WHEREAS, the Inter-Faith Council of Social Services is proceeding with plans to relocate its Community Kitchen to a new facility and vacate Historic Town Hall at 100 West Rosemary Street; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2016, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill received a petition regarding combining the Visitor's Center and Chapel Hill Museum at the Historic Town Hall location; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that it desires additional consideration and input from community members and stakeholders regarding the possible future use of the Historic Town Hall facility at 100 West Rosemary Street as a visitor's and history center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that a Council Committee be established as generally described in the Committee Charter attached to this item. This committee is to consider the possible use of the Historic Town Hall facility as a visitor's and history center, culminating with a report and recommendation to the Council anticipated in May 2017. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the committee will be comprised of the following eight members including Council Member Sally Greene appointed as Committee Chair. • Sally Greene - Council of the Town of Chapel Hill • To Be Determined -Board of Orange County Commissioners • Joel Curran -UNC-Chapel Hill • Moses Carey - Community Member • Richard Ellington - Community Member • Josh Gurlitz - Community Member • Alan Rimer- Community Member • Chela Tu - Community Member BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that following the committee's report to the Council in May 2017, the work of the committee will be deemed complete and the committee will be discharged. This the 26th day of October, 2016. Attachment 2 4 Report to Council June 27, 2016 As you know, many citizens of Chapel Hill were disappointed when our Town decided it could no longer afford a museum and were unwilling to support it with any funds. (As a former Chair of the Board, I was particularly disappointed.) We now are pursuing a unique opportunity to open a new museum and relocated Visitor's Center in the old town hall once vacated by the IFC Kitchen.This is a brief summary of the activities that have taken place with regard to the utilization of the old town hall as a relocated Orange County Visitor's Center and Chapel Hill Museum. • Met with the Orange County Visitor's Bureau Board and made a presentation on the proposal. I believe it is safe to that the general concept of combining the Visitors Center with the Chapel Hill Museum was met with enthusiasm. • We have met with the IFC on several occasions to discuss their schedule, look at alternatives for the kitchen and keep lines of communication open. • We are scheduled to talk with Chancellor Folt after the Fourth of July to enlist the University's support for the idea, provide Chancellor Folt with a similar update to this presentation this evening and explore the potential for some economic aid for the effort. • We have reviewed the report provided by the County for the upgrade of the old town hall. While a number of us believe that the estimates are on the high side for the repairs that need to be made we recognize that a variety of different sources of funds will be necessary to not only renovate the building but up-fit the space for both the visitor center and the museum. • We have contacted five old board members of the museum who have expressed an interest in helping in any way to revive the museum. • We anticipate having a reconstituted Chapel Hill Museum Board of Directors this year who can work in concert with the Visitors Bureau Board of Directors,the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Thanks for your enthusiasm and support for this idea. Rev. Robert Seymour Alan E. Rimer 5 Attachment 3 Commissioners by October 6, 2015, if not before. The Board would then consider establishing potential bond categories and amounts and consider staffs initial estimate of the potential tax rate impacts from the debt service of approximately $125 million for the total bond package. Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss issues related to this item as necessary. No Attachments 2. Discussion on Town and County Properties a) Town Hall/Visitors Bureau/Skills Development Center Beginning in 2012, the Town of Chapel Hill began exploring its real property holdings to determine if there were any properties that could be used differently to meet a community need or were potentially disposable. One of the properties identified was the former Town Hall located at 100 W. Rosemary Street. Town staff has explored a variety of options for how the property could be repurposed when its current tenants, the Inter-Faith Council, relocated its shelter and community kitchen. Options included selling the property to a developer, engaging a private sector partner to potentially redevelop the property and surrounding properties for public and/or private use, or repurposing the building to serve other community functions and making the building a "destination point." The Chapel Hill Town Council expressed interest in determining what other potential community purposes the building might serve, specifically discussing the possibility of partnering with Orange County and to use a portion of the building to house the Visitors Bureau. The idea is that a more central downtown location in the historic building might be a more attractive and easy to find destination for visitors to Chapel Hill and Orange County. If the County and Town decide to pursue partnering in this way and the Visitors Bureau relocated, the County and Town would also have an opportunity to rethink how the vacated space at the Skills Development Center could be used. One possibility that has been discussed is using the space to expand LaUNCh, the downtown start-up accelerator. The County's Space Study Work Group is assessing its properties in part to inform the ongoing Capital Investment Planning process, including the Visitor's Bureau and Skills Development properties. It will present its findings and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners in April of this year. Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss issues related to this item as necessary. No Attachments Attachment 4 6 41 1 a4 II Orange County Asset Management Services Jeffrey E. Thompson, Director June 9, 2015 To: Bonnie Hammersley, Orange County Manager From: Jeff Thompson, Director, Asset Management Services Subject: Physical Assessment, Former Chapel Hill Town Hall, 100 West Rosemary Street Summary: This purpose of this study is to review the planning, architectural, and structural issues related to the Old Town Hall in Chapel Hill. A web site at www.OldTownHallNC.Wordpress.com has been created as an extension of this study. On June 2, 2015, Dave Uhland, P.E of LHC Structural Engineers and Statler Gilfillen, an Architect working directly for Orange County, visited the site. Structural findings have been incorporated into this report with his letter attached to this study. Mr. Gilfillen managed the assessment and provided this summary information. The structure is located at the corner of Rosemary Street and Columbia St. at 100 Rosemary Street in Chapel Hill. The Old Town Hall in Chapel Hill was built in 1938, altered in 1963, and renovated into a Men's Shelter in 1989 . A major asbestos remediation occurred prior to this renovation. The building is on .41 acres and has 9,195.27 gross square feet on three levels. The building is on the National Register of Historic Places; however the facility has no historic landmark protection. A recommended process for historic review has been provided. The building is structurally sound and is in reasonably good condition. Additional structural support would be needed on the first and second floors to meet any new use and anticipated occupancy loads for future use. The building envelope is largely intact and watertight; however building eaves in certain areas are damaged and in immediate need of maintenance. The mechanical system was originally installed in 1989 and will need to be replaced in the next 2-4 years. There are other non-critical maintenance issues that need immediate action detailed in this report. The building had accessibility improvements installed standards in 1989 with an elevator and a ramp to the basement. Consideration should be given to making the front entry accessible. Staff is currently evaluating the accessibility of the facility according to the current ADA accessibility code standards. With regard to the current energy code, the building had major energy improvements in 1989 with upgrades including insulation and high efficiency, insulated exterior windows. P.O. Box 8181 * 131 West Margaret Lane-3rd Floor* Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Telephone:Area Code 919 245-2625 Fax:644-3001 E-mail:jethompson @orangecountync.gov 7 Physical Assessment, page 2 General Information Floor Area 1938 building 8,787.07 gross square feet 1963 stair tower at rear 415.20 gross square feet Total gross square footage is 9,195.27 gross square feet. The following are the total gross square feet on each level: Basement: 2,699.01 First Floor: 3,248.13 Second Floor 3,248.13 Notes 1. The basement has 549.12 less square feet, because the 1989 renovations leveled the first floor by approximately 4 feet leaving the 1938 equipment room (fire station) floor with a head height of approximately 4 feet in an inaccessible space. 2. The Town of Chapel Hill lists the building as having 9,255 square feet which is 59.73 more than these calculations. Land PIN(s): 9788371539 and 9783370577 Area: 150' x 114.5' = 17,175 square feet, or .39 acres Assessed Value Based on the Chapel Hill estimated value of $1,700,000, the cost per gross square foot would be $184.87 ($1,700,000 /9,195.27 gross square feet) Floor Heights According to the 1989 Architect's drawings: Basement Front portion: from top of slab to finished first floor is 12'-0" Back portion: from top of slab to finished first floor is 9'-0" First Floor: from finished first floor to finished second floor is 12'-0" Second Floor: from finished second floor to finished ceiling is 12'-0" Additional Structural Support Need To meet any new use and anticipated occupancy loads, approximately 30 percent of the first floor and 90 percent of the second floor will need to be upgraded. The rear and the southeast portions of the first floor that were part of the 1989 renovations can safely support 100 PSF live load. This confirms the design live load indicated on sheet S-2 of the 1989 structural drawings. The original framing in the southwest portion of the first floor can safely only support a live load of 50 PSF. 8 Physical Assessment, page 3 The second floor framing, which consists of original 1938 framing, except for the area adjacent to the elevator that was added in 1989, can safely support a live load of 45 PSF at the area to the rear of the building and a live load of 50 PSF at the southwest and southeast areas. Based on the current North Carolina State Building Code, the areas with live load capacity of 45 PSF would be limited to uses such hotel, multifamily private rooms (Homeless Center) and school classrooms. The areas with at least 50 PSF live load capacities would be limited to the uses such as offices and the uses stated above. The current live load capacities are based on a total dead load of 35 PSF, which includes 25 PSF for the concrete slab and 10 PSF for ceilings, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and partitions. Needing to keep the weight of the partitions within the 10 PSF dead load, will greatly limit flexibility in planning for use of the current space and in any potential modifications. Anticipated uses of the building would likely require a higher live load. To allowing for accommodating maximum use and flexibility of the spaces, the engineer undertook to explore options to increase the design live load capacity of the floors. The engineer's opinion is that the most cost effective and feasible way to increase the capacity of the floors is to remove those portions of the existing floor framing designed for 45 to 50PSF and replace them with new structure designed for 100PSF. This would be similar to what was done on the first floor as part of the 1989 renovations. New framing will consist of open web steel joists, spaced at 2 feet on center, with 2 inch concrete slab on 26 gage metal form deck, reinforced with 6x6 W2.1xW2.1 Welded Wire Fabric. At the southwest corner of the first floor, the new framing could incorporate an anticipated handicap accessible ramp which is discussed below. This would require at least one new column and foundation pad in the basement to support the beam just to the west of the front entrance. The attached structural engineering analysis illustrates the new framing and the approximate location of the new column. The defined areas for the required remedy at approximately 600 square feet on the first floor and 2200 square feet on the second floor. For planning purposes, the engineer estimated that the cost of the construction to remove and replace structural floor framing system to be between $110 and $150 per square foot. The amounts are rough estimates do not include any costs associated with de-construction, removal and replacement of architectural, mechanical, electrical, or plumbing components. Cost for that work is assumed to be part of the overall up fit of the building. Accessibility In 1989, accessibility to the facility was improved with a Dover elevator and a ramp to the basement. The accessible entry into the building is through the basement. Although this may meet the technical requirements of the building code, an analysis of a front door accessible was undertaken. Although there are still some issues to be detailed, it appears that a ramp from the Rosemary Street and Columbia Street can be made to the level of the front door. The front door is 4'- 0". With modification to the current landing and steps access into the building can be made. The platform inside the door is 4'x8' and is 1'-6" below the first floor level. An 18' interior ramp, framed as part of the new floor on the south west corner, can be created to meet the 18 rise necessary. The dimensions of the existing Dover elevator would indicate that it is adequate to meet the accessible standards. It is recommended that the existing elevator be reviewed by experts for maintenance or replacement. 9 Physical Assessment, page 4 Energy Efficiency The 1938 building is of 1'-5" brick construction. Major energy upgrades were done during the 1989 renovations which included high efficiency insulated windows and insulation, particularly in the attic. Even though the attic was insulated in 1989, the cost of adding even more insulation in the attic may be a more cost effective solution than furring out and adding additional insulation on the interior walls. Additionally, any insulation provided against the interior of the brick walls must be carefully evaluated for moisture and vapor barrier issues. Site, Parking Considerations Under the current use guidelines, no additional parking is required. Currently there are 12 to 14 parking spaces on site. Initial review indicates that the existing drive and parking area can be reconfigured to allow for 7 to 10 additional angled parking spaces. To confirm this, a dimensioned survey is necessary. Historic Preservation Topics In 1990 the "Chapel Hill Town Hall" was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. There are only 14 structures or districts in Chapel Hill and the Chapel Hill Vicinity listed on the National Register. The Chapel Hill Town Council is considering granting a preservation easement to provide more protection for the building. Although the exterior of the building retains its historic significance and should be preserved, the 1963 Alterations and 1989 Renovations stripped away the original detailing, except the entry stair to the second level. During any potential de-construction process, additional detailing may be found and this historic detailing may be considered for incorporation into the new interior design. Essentially the interior is a "clean slate" for the designers to meet any future need. North Carolina law (G.S. 121-12a) provides for consideration of National Register properties in undertakings funded or licensed by the state. Where a state undertaking is in conflict with the preservation of a National Register property, the North Carolina Historical Commission is given the opportunity to review the case and make recommendations to the state agency responsible for the undertaking. The commission's recommendations to the state agency are advisory." (http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/whatis.htm) This requirement applies specifically to the State of North Carolina and not to county and local governments. Without a resolution in place protecting the Old Town Hall, it is recommended that a similar review process utilizing the Orange County and Chapel officials and boards so they are "given the opportunity to review the case and make recommendations to the [appropriate] agency responsible for the undertaking." The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation should be followed in all exterior work on the Old Town Hall. Specific reference to their preservation bulletins is made under the maintenance section and on the web site. 10 Physical Assessment, page 5 The historic document file from Preservation Chapel Hill was copied and has been included on the web site. The contact is Cassandra Bennett (919.942.7818; Cassandra @preservationChapelHill.org) Eric Field is the Town of Chapel Hill Community Sustainability Planner II who is responsible for coordination of historic issues (919-969-5077; efeld @townofchapelhill.org). Peter Sandbeck is the Orange County Cultural Resources Supervisor and secretary to the Orange County Historic Board (919-245-2517; psandbeck @orangecountync.gov). Needed Maintenance There are specific maintenance issues that need further study or attention: Moisture Damage. Moisture damage is evident at the roof line. This damage appears more evident at the locations where the gutters and downspouts meet. Determination of the specific cause of this moisture should be undertaken immediately. Once moisture damage is noted, the damage typically increases and an increasing rate. Failure to correct this problem in the very near future could leave the entire structure vulnerable to serious damage and structural damage. Although the slate roof appears to be in excellent condition, failure to repair the moisture problem could lead to a very expensive need to repair and/or replace sections of the slate roof. First the exact cause of the moisture needs to be determined and repaired. Once that is done, the brick mortar and wood trim should be repaired. The 1938 design called for copper lined boxed gutters. Traditionally, even the best designed and constructed boxed gutters, can cause long term maintenance and repair issues. Once they begin to fail they continue to fails at an increasing rate. At several locations, the mortar has deteriorated due to exposure to moisture. The wood fascia and detailing at the eaves shows some substantial ongoing wood rot and damage with holes in the eaves and pieces of the wood trim that have fallen off. On the south east, second floor room, the interior plaster wall shows substantial damage from moisture. Reference is made to the Technical Preservation Briefs, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior Brief no. 2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings by Robert C. Mack, FAIA, and John P. Speweik (http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/2-repoint-mortar-joints.htm); Brief no. 47: Maintaining the Exterior of Small and Medium Size Historic Buildings by Sharon C. Park, FAIA (http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/47-maintaining-exteriors.htm). Cupola. The drawings would indicate that the cupola has been replaced three times since 1938. The architectural drawings call for replacing the cupola in 1963 and again in 1989. The documents show that the cupola was replaced in 1990. 11 Physical Assessment, page 6 Currently, sections of the base flashing are sloped so that the rain water is trapped next to the cupola instead of flushing the water away. Serious deterioration of the wood fascia and moisture damage was noted. Our review would indicate that this should be repaired in the near future. Steel Lintels. Although generally the steel window lintels are in good condition, some rusting was noted. All lintels should be carefully inspected, cleaned and finished. All lintels should be protected before repointing any masonry. Basement Moisture. In the rear of the basement in the mechanical room, moisture and minor damage was noted at the brick along the floor. It was also noted that the AC condensate line going to the floor drain has a consistent flow of water from the pipe to the drain. Along the basement wall at the back of the original equipment room, the paint on the brick wall has bubbled and separated from the masonry. No determination could be made as to how old this damage to the paint is. The bottom of the elevator shaft is the lowest elevation of the building. Visual inspection indicated that there has been some water seepage and damage. Plantings. From the roof, it was noted that the trees on the Rosemary elevation are overgrown and protrude onto the roof. Proper plant trimming and maintenance needs to be done. 12 00111111 4 $ lull 01 LHC S RUC U11 IL... II NUM II 116: June 9, 2015 Orange County Asset Management Services 131 West Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Attn: Mr. Jeff Thompson RE: CHAPEL HILL OLD TOWN HALL - STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT Dear Mr. Thompson: On June 2, 2015, LHC Structural Engineers accompanied Statler Gilfillen, Architect, of your office, to conduct a condition survey of the referenced building located at 100 West Rosemary Street in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The purpose of the survey from our standpoint was to assess the overall structural condition of the building to aid Orange County in their decision of whether or not to purchase the building. After our site visit, we also reviewed construction documents that were provided to us for the original design and two later renovations of the building (described in more detail below), in order to determine the safe live load capacity of the first and second floors. Executive summary: It is our opinion that the overall structural condition of the original1938 building including the renovations made in 1963 and 1989, is very good. We observed very few structural concerns. There was no visible evidence of any foundation settlement, such as cracking of either the load bearing masonry walls or interior partition walls. Based on our review of the available drawings, the southwest quadrant of the first floor and a large portion of the second floor have live load capacities of 50 pounds per square feet or less, limiting the potential use of the building. (See more detailed discussion later in this report.) To allow for greater flexibility in the use of the space, it may be desired to increase the capacity of the floors to a design live load of 100 PSF. One method to accomplish this includes removal and replacement of the affected sections of the floor. We estimate the cost to replace one section of the first floor to be between $110 and $150 per square for the areas replaced. These amounts are rough estimates for planning purposes only and do not include any costs associated with removal and replacement of architectural, mechanical, electrical, or plumbing components. Roh, It II atu r Jr L"I_,. Rob( J "ytei l6of�, 1;4'1 'Sunday 1)r'nic:�,Amin '1 2.1 IC,�IIcI<47i, N( 1/00/ 914 4'f " ,8/off on 919 4 ii 39ON fax Ilh,pnyi col a om 13 Chapel Hill Old Town Hall Structural Assessment Page 2 Background and Description The original building, built in 1938, is a two story building with a basement and consists of exterior multi-wythe load-bearing brick walls. The typical floor framing consists of a two inch thick concrete slab on lathe supported by open web steel joists at 16 inches on center that frame either to masonry walls or steel beams and columns. The roof framing consists of slate shingles on gypsum planks on sloping open web steel joists, supported by steel beams and columns. There is a wood framed cupola near the south end of the roof that is anchored to the steel framing with 3/a inch diameter rods. The original building had a split-level basement and first floor, with the rear of areas approximately four feet lower than the front areas. The second floor was at a consistent elevation. The following is a brief list of some of the significant structural work done in the 1963 renovations: 1. A mezzanine was added between the lower first floor and the second floor. 2. A new stair was also added to the rear of the building. 3. The original cupola was replaced with a similar cupola. The following is a brief list of some of the significant structural work done in the 1989 renovations: 1. The mezzanine that was added in 1963 was removed. 2. New first floor framing was added at the rear of the building to eliminate the split-level floor and create a first floor at a consistent elevation. 3. A portion of the first floor framing at the southeast corner was removed and replaced with new floor slab on metal form deck, steel joists, steel beams, and two columns with footings below the basement slab. (According to the structural drawings, the design live load for in this area is 100 PSF.) Observations: At some locations the mortar has deteriorated due to exposure to moisture. See photos below. ` _t 11WF17, i 'it qii" Ma i• i<E 3so Yrdis , L x#1 X11` 1 ''', eta i` 1 ! k10 ■ Area below catch basin on west side. Deteriorated mortar below area in left photo. �`� LHC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 14 Chapel Hill Old Town Hall Structural Assessment Page 3 We recommend that deteriorated mortar joints be repointed by an experience mason. The cause of the water leaking must be identified and corrected to prevent further damage. Other locations may also require repointing, such as at a steel lintel where the mortar had become loose due to minor rusting of the steel. At that location, the lintel should be cleaned and protected before repointing. We also observed damage to the trim of the cupola caused by exposure to water. From within the cupola, the wood framing shows evidence of exposure to moisture, but we observed no significant structural damage. Once the moisture problems have been corrected, the trim can be replaced. iiiii041000 ,, AININNIMINN ' Water damage to trim of cupola. Evidence of moisture at interior of cupola. Structural damage not yet significant. Below the lower portion of the cupola, some of the anchoring threaded rods were visibly loose. We recommend that these be tightened: y =tearz / tit -- r -'.-'_.j_ rp d A 41 View of loose threaded rod inside the cupola. In summary, it is our opinion that the overall structural condition of the building is very good. Other than the items noted above associated with moisture, we observed no visible evidence of distress to the structure. illI LHC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 15 Chapel Hill Old Town Hall Structural Assessment Page 4 Load capacity review Since the capacity of the floor may affect the potential occupancy or use of the building, we also reviewed the construction documents for the building to determine the uniform live loads that the floor framing can adequately support. From our review, we conclude the following: 1. The rear and the southeast portions of the first floor that were built as part of the 1989 renovations can safely support 100 PSF live load. This confirms the design live load indicated on sheet S-2 of the 1989 structural drawings. The original framing in the southwest portion of the first floor can safely support a live load of 50 PSF. 2. The second floor framing, which consists of original framing except for the area adjacent to the elevator that was added in 1989, can safely support a live load of 45 PSF at the area to the rear of the building and a live load of 50 PSF at the southwest and southeast areas. The attached reduced plans (Figures 1 and 2) from the 1989 structural drawings provide the above information graphically. Based on the current North Carolina State Building Code, the area with live load capacity of 45 PSF would be limited to uses such hotel and multifamily private rooms and school classrooms. The areas with at least 50 PSF live load capacity would be limited to the uses such as offices and the uses stated above. We have based the live load capacities on a total dead load of 35 PSF, which includes 25 PSF for the concrete slab and 10 PSF for ceilings, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and partitions. To keep the weight of the partitions within the 10 PSF dead load will greatly limit flexibility in planning the current space and in any potential modifications to the space. Due to this fact and that the anticipated use of the building would likely require a higher live load, at your request, we have explored options that would increase the design live load capacity of the floors. It is our opinion that the most cost effective and feasible way to increase the capacity of the floors is to remove portions of the existing floor framing and replace it with new structure that has the required capacity. This would be similar to what was done on the first floor as part of the 1989 renovations. We recommend that the design live load for the new framing be 100 PSF, allowing for maximum flexibility in planning the space. Recommendations for new framing and cost estimate: The new framing will consist of open web steel joists spaced at 2 feet on center, with 2 inch concrete slab on 26 gage metal form deck, reinforced with 6x6 W2.1 xW2.1 Welded Wire Fabric. It is our understanding from the architect that, to provide accessibility at the front entrance, a ramp may be required at the southwest corner of the first floor. The new framing could incorporate this ramp by adding at least one new column and footing to support the beam just to the west of the front entrance so that the end can be removed, allowing the framing to be lowered for the ramp. The attached plans (Figures 3 and 4) show the new framing and the approximate location of the new column. For planning purposes, we estimate the construction cost to remove the existing framing and replace it to be between $110 and $150 per square for the areas replaced. The amounts are iliI LHC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 16 Chapel Hill Old Town Hall Structural Assessment Page 5 rough estimates for planning purposes only and do not include any costs associated with removal and replacement of architectural, mechanical, electrical, or plumbing components. Cost for that work is assumed to be part of the overall upfit of the building. Thank you for this opportunity to assist you with this project. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns regarding our evaluation. Sincerely, LHC Structural Engineers, P.C. „C'A ' / / c 020096 a { ;9°e4,GINO-C:ol�<>: ',;,,,a° a \A\, ,9 117 David L. Uhland, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Attachments: Figures 1 through 4 illI LHC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS • I ,i -15 ' 17 1 z 1' 1^ n3 f pJ. -c), 1 2'G e 1 I �IIGY 2.Ae s l.1/(.--(4, 2.I'W2.1 t 4F u. ru 26 GtAGECaI:�!I/4/4f 7 F7M5, SPA NED(f"?7 11111111INI WWI 1111N.11-746:0111,t OttIr 1 7a C�iii� f 1 rwu e.r3,eR4 1.16 -L _ < x 1g'ITri !ii)-1 > 100 PSF , 1 >r I ■� o4, L I:7w -rat BR-w 1 Ivfu! tipw ! s v4r�n 'N' - / wr ta f .,w'- R. , I +i i' il a lsiW"-. c CP • r �- ti, ,;. ¢.. {�N:JV£ Ll45.Y/61..ft4I:M•• t •fr \ �S - - -- Sop. BIJNI ,7 W 1 f r,lp&i, 9 ) y ©l' �k Cr�„If lone,11.111. _' 1°- yHAFT - x , S„ UV- 1 {a.er,ro;-.s la4 v `! ;µ� 1' N 11 .� ` ---v--y-- :S` \'&atvv:aar a. yl .-- _ -_— �. _ _ __ i' 6, ac Elf 51-SSr Fo¢ EXi.`.�,I. ■ N 1�a? t�oardlf or wets _-- _ Pdp VE:_Fy roL-,l�r+.Q JSrS. �(k rlr Posa*1Ql • • AC — -- Z- -r 41" 10.Z, I .32 n 16 t ac. } 1 I I• n al no 5f1J& ?C 115 la - o Q �jf tra-(, —, ! - µi 4'-44 q._ H t , © (Vfs W()�— .� --- ---- C --- r f � Y I11G GIG — , t ,v 1\ 50 PSF Fiq,F,R 0'-0" 1 1-Z I . -- — _ > , 1 • T M 11 25 k it + y as_ E11.57.451 0- N 5 .t O • — 3 - sp I\c n , 'a I w Y • L t k -- I I3 7 7 I `/ I f_ II ; a s.sales,and conditions shown for -- CURRENT LIVE LOAD I. s shown on these drawings are based -- --- - - ,__.____y 1 ti plant supplied by the owner CAPACITY ndtttons may vary from those shown. :amine and field measure witting fabrication of steel and shall be a FIRST FLOOR Ailk....' c qi0IFIGURE 1 d . - 18 ' Ill ___1::4 n l 1 I / C 45 PSF N 1'7 4, S Z•G�"i=.,-!.^7 w/r,..-:... 1.-/ ..r:2.!.t.. :1P7di.IAP Fi.pMl- - h/f ' / (im / r1 V !-7 1 �1 w1Hx.'2 •1r." !1'rnP P T,4s.+1_`-�'Rin _ �1 '4.:3 IAUAT� NF.t1 -4,.3 t-tr,fns, �t -141.•,,;xl%�x*w'0 <I Vs +� 1 100 PSF Ex. r iN.rcru.ti - > hid o,b. la-PIG, „ar ice '`—' ` 4 A �f1 11Yi sf7f5f5 4. IUn 04,THAT t1iVT - __ mar ..,-. 6."' . f 11 �. t3E„ KfAlcivt,v ON f —1— --- V i A ;Ar K. {}} r C.G. g CAT Lore -- E4tIK(141 6011.5) AIM ! I s T.as.*11'-lei" ExisTiklq SJ IG.2 r (VERIFY) s evil . ,to.5.tfl /..,: 50 PSF, .r.. > �� 50 PSF r-K I`,1-1,1N Sv 11.9 191 G4f' iU c—iVFRIFY} -- / __._CVEZIFYIf _ (VE fFY) r *rid. r'- -' + 121_p" I 11 a 1- 5 3 T .D F f "7 7t G V `' V - -- -- , I r 1, v ---r l I r�--- CURRENT LIVE LOAD 0-4 NOTE: Dimensions,sizes,and conditions shown for `SECOND FLOOR CAPACITY exislitig structures shown on these drawings are based 4• AI.E: 1,4'•_ 1,- on various original plans supplied by the owner. FIGURE 2 Actual existing conditions may vary from those shown- , ,+ / -- -- -- - 1-5L v ' 19 t Z 'Z -T- ":-. � 17<— L n pJ. S I I , 2'601Jr_g TE RAE s lJ/(.- le t..12.1‘W2.1 lW e• = 6 uP ru 26 CiAGECat�fl ffFD F7M5, SPA NED(f"?) w -FmTFtR II-I' IIF?IIi!I r>r 1- I � — -. . — _- _- Z [l a..r 2t-t7 (�. _- _ v 6 tr _ L 1 RAI,J ,RJp.,,e-1 I':rq < x Ig"{rrei ,_,, I I ' I_____ Ill L I ■ rat 6RW I lvful Igan ea 1' 0 ' (T':) ►�u4alnll. .cif-� + '7. S i .1.11.1“111111r12.11 vtiP Bari �' I wr, lOef .,p R)`I I 1I 3 Al gal i N, C , , BO1.o* a KaNi W I6L - 74 'I b' t.L. �_ci � �, f SIpE/ ' .? a a Ol' ar Pa-ulF er•K 11.51. ' 1°-.64.613 TO REM OA • Y 1if �- - /'( —�'- 11 ,.r>cRtFY=tan cx �' aF st ssr ro. Ek 5 j.6C I.F ° r�oa1 44 or aca< - — —— _ Fr 1'vearr ,�' �ot.,ts�n+�:rs. Pil -,(1`414/-1 �' „wry-4,4 %-its',_ ' rs7lo.z – r F 2" CONCRETE SLAB ON 26 , v ExiSlP ser., o Q GAGE METAL FORM DECK, ----- to-10 a .. - REINFORCED WITH 6x6 © W2.1xW2.1 WWF ON r_ _ . O n,e '. " i 12K3 JOISTS @ 2'-0" O.C. --- --f . ., —v I ` PO, F'-R 01-0111 -_ 1 -- ! 9 A I r t QY ;4 CL_ 3. N 5 .t O 0 .9. - 3 U P -z -- — - */_A-)---- sp MG �1 Ig �. I U z V1S71 •a \ 1 NI 1, ! L UP -- __._,'..34 . _ a I 3 In 7'� I I _ I v — _ ---r . 1 'it—POTENTIAL RAMP). i 1 �' -s,saes.ana a shown for -- REPLACEMENT a shown on these drawings are based --- - - IN 0l plane supplied by the owner FRAMING FOR 100 ndttiona may vary from those shown. PSF LIVE LOAD :amine and field measure*listing 3 fabriauon of steel and shall be +- Z `) FIRST FLOOR' FIGURE 3 d 20 • n 141—H 1 1 L 41111.111111111"—: \ / 2" CONCRETE SLAB ON 26 Q GAGE METAL FORM DECK, °` t...i REINFORCED WITH 6x6 h W2.1xW2.1 WWF ON s 14K6 JOISTS @2'-0" O.C. - , OD ----_---1 r-1 1 �1 wl -x�� 1i x! r�P` _ r 45.r I. ?'Fr:'r - -r- < —- — — - -- — 1 , -Ti__I ___ .7,4-- .) k _ — IAUAT� NE.r1 1 c'v .1f •1. •lrrmc. ■ 1 Th a%;XT•%!x*w'0 I -° _I _ Ex. RAN.c�lc.hut` !v"o,a. la THE i7A°i� _'`° `4 Fa!I T[1Y� slPfhTS F%u.,T.`.J IQ.Z /o Fes.._-. _. ' 1 rg► lull O.U.THAT tltlhT '. 5F. KFa;avfiv ON T+ --1— --- le h1G or ribl E.+-.�.v � 'i IuG tiJ IO.Z .7.4.j1.5. ' n T r K. ',HAM Q (c1I C.G. 3 (AT torn - 7`-- " EAtiKri,-141 61/11.5) 11. 2 U.5.*11'7Pi° E><15FIfd4 S�1G.2 .--.. -G Ls/ - / 7' 311 41--A-11--=f !a Ioio.r' 1 (VERIFY) S iliii 2 Ai " CONCRETE SLAB ON 26 rt cos.+2°' CONCRETE SLAB ON.1. 6 GAGE METAL FORM DECK, s •• z >n, —� GAGE METAL FORM DECK, REINFORCED WITH 6x6 1- _:7- ;REINFORCED WITH 6x6 W2.1xW2.1 WWF ON s �'�• 12K3 JOISTS @ 2'-0" O.C. ki eb� W2.1xW2.1 WWF ON 12K3 JOISTS @ 2'-0" O.C. F)4m1.11, giv11.5 19-G," a'-iv" I -(d__ —C RiFY} / lVERIFv I -- (yE lf"1) r �r„]. r�oN, t121_pu I 4 I 5 3 T .D F f 7 7t G 1 - ,I I 11 ---r l ' L -- — REPLACEMENT FRAMING FOR 100 PSF NOTE: Dimensions,sizes.and conditions shown for xi C--, I `SECOND FLOOR eslidg structures shown on these drawings are based 4• ALE.: 1,4'•_ il- on various original plans supplied by the owner. FIGURE 4 Actual existing conditions may vary from those shown- 501 WEST FRANKLIN Attachment 5 21 501 WEST FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL - ; Ownership: Owned (4 VIII -, Year Built: 1930's ' _ L Year Added: 1997 - $� � _'—". - Property Total (Est.Acres):0.32 a G Gross Square Footage(Est.): 7,408 i'ni 1 3, ,L tan t . i 3 t �� Z :i Building Notes: _ 111111 Building houses seven individual"suites". Three of these combined house the Orange County Visitor's Bureau, one Guardian ad Litem, and two suites are leased to TerraDotta, LLC. A suite located on the second floor is vacant at 05/2013. Custodial service provided byAMS to Guardian ad Litem occupied space only. Property Information: Aerial View of Property and Building Address: _ 501 WEST FRANKLIN STREET *- N . CHAPEL HILL, 27516 - �• 'Ytt =� PIN: �, 9788151996 r >r� _- �0+� ir Zoning District: r, t. OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL 2 i - -t� Insured Value: °' $2,733,100.00(Includes Skills �� f �� � ` Development) E �s A ., - �� `+ `.. - , r e - .3 501 WEST FRANKLIN - ,.' 501 WEST FRANKLIN STREET _ (7408 sqft) • Occupants/Operators: - , — - Visitor's Bureau "'i 1� Guardian ad Litem - y .t :t . TerraDotta, LLC. (tenant) `' '1 _-.4' r i 1 vs 4 $ .\ tf: ir-14\ -:,,. - • .. cif ik! 0.32 Acres , 1, • ,,. w - -$ ., . , . ).\ - ,..,„ ,L-7._ , .. „ C-5 501 WEST FRANKLIN 22 UTILITY COSTS& USAGE Period: 7/1/2013-6/30/2014 Usage: Costs: $/SQ. FT Service Provider Electricity(KWH): 69,708 $9,789.73 $1.32 Duke Energy Water/Sewer(Gallons): 83,000 $1,563.89 $0.21 OWASA TOTAL: $11,353.62 $1.53 MAINTENANCE COSTS Period: 7/1/2013-6/30/2014 LIFE/SAFETY Costs: $/SQ. FT Fire Alarm System No Maintenance&Repair Costs: $10,370.19 $1.40 Intruder Alarm System No SERVICES: Sprinkler System No Daily Cleaning Service:AMS/Contracted Emergency Generator No Building Maintenance :AMS/Contractor FLOOR/AREA:First Floor II 1 1 r. 1 li no, rim_ ii 7. r � 1 Assignable Space N en-assignable Space Visilers Bureau Service areas 2,844 SF ■ 281 SF I. Guardian ad Lilem Circulalion arses 649 SF 1,588 SF ■ Terra SF Dotla Mesh+EledPlumbNuc'Data 41 SF C-6