HomeMy WebLinkAbout205 S Lincoln St - Engineering
CITY OF PORT ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
. . . . . . . . . . . INSPECTION REPORT. . . . . . . . . . .
REQUEST:
Date q - <;3 ~o 5 Time 7 /I Pt1. Received by f/a.vt ,"S E (phone, person)
Location of Work to be inspected 2o~ ~ - L:vt Co 'V1.
Name of person requesting inspection 0ei1>t/5 E.
Address of person requesting inspection (' -"" ,r.? ~v-JJ ('7<(,-B Phone No. <117- <fR'-I9
1
Type of Inspection (circle appropriate one): Permit No.
Sewer Foundation Framing Chimney Plumbing Final Sewer Excav. Oth~t.J~+;.)
INSPECTION NOTES:
Inspected: Date q - 2? -0 -::; Time I () .4 ~
Remarks: ;(e (c...ce.- brok ho'Le.+-ey sL...ut 0
-f'ro",^- ~vt To vV\..e.+er.
By iJelA"l'S E.
?<,.v\. d. Se.- v' Le {,'
RESTORATION REQUIRED . . . . .. YES X
NO
J , ~
-- Vl~
C- .2-
l\J
<:I
* ......
1
...i. ""-
.~ ~ "!J
, ,~
'-..! '-\'-\
~
J .
.. w ~
,
,
~
SURFACE RESTORATION:
SURFACE TYPE: 0 Unimproved OGravel
5x. ?f(
o Asphalt OPCC OOtherU~re+e
:5i<Qe..w.....
Work Order # 3os~'1-Zoz..Jj. ]<I//~_I
~ COMPLETE 10- :J.;J~ 0,
o INCOMPLETE
o Repaired by City
o Repaired by Permittee
o No Damage Found
,~C J.lted- 9//~~IF
I I
(Continue on reverse side if necessary)
pOR AN¢ L S
WASHINGTON, U.S.A.
January 18, 2001
MEMO
To: Ron Johnson, Engineering Specialist
DEPARTMENT OF From: Lou Haehnlen, Building Official .~\
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT Subject: Carnegie Library Renovation
Brad Collins, "~
Director
The Building Division has reviewed the request by Olympic Design Works, Inc. PS ~"
417-4751
for code interpretations for the above - mentioned projects and has the following
Sue Roberds, conunents:
Planning Specialist
417-4750 · OCCUPANCY CONSIDERATION
Debra Barnes,
Associate Planner The previous editions of the building code did not specifically
417-4752 classify Library's as A-3 occupancies, the current building code
Section 303 does more clearly identify the use ora library as A-3.
Lou Haehnlen As per the design submitted, the continued use should be an A-3,
Building Official and the exceptions in the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Section
417-4816
302.1.2.1,2.2 and 2.3 do allow for there to be no mixed- use
Roger Vess requirements for separations.
Permit Technician
417-4815 · ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS
The present code adopted by the City is the Washington State Energy
Code and the exceptions in Section 101.3.1.3 and Section 101.3.2.3
will be the code sections that will apply to the Carnegie project.
· STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS
While the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Section 3403.3 exception
does allow for certain considerations, the City has adopted the 1997
Uniform Code for Building Conservation and would appreciate the
use of the design criteria of the afore mentioned code as a means to
justify the engineering design.
C:\MyFiles\carniege
OLYMPIC DESIGN INC,
S~UA~ 5. BONNEY~ AIA
9~ HEATHEK P~ ROAD~ PORT ANGEL~ WA ~36~ p~o~e: (36o)~7-z777 ~a~: ~60)417-z8~
Janua~ 14th, 2001
Ci~ of Po~ ~g~les
321 East 5th S~eet
Po~ ~geles, WA 98362
A~: Ron Jonson
Dear Ron,
Following is th~ r~qu~st~d list of issues regarding code compliance for the Po~ ~g~l~s Carnegie
Libra~ project. The t~s in italics are those that require an inte~retation by the Building
Official. Th~ prima~ issues requiring the Building Officials int~retation su~ound the questions
ot occupancy, ~C compliance, and what is considered a "safe" s~cture.
OCCUPANCY CONSIDERATIONS
Section 3405 of the 1997 UBC states:
"No change shall be made in thc character of occupancies or use of any building that
would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancy or in a
different group of occupancy, unless such building is made to comply with the
requirements of this code for such division or group of occupancy,"
A case could be made that the old Carnegie was classified as an A-3 since editions previous to
the 1997 UBC did not specifically classify Library spaces as "B" as the new Code does. If this is
the case, then we do not have a change in occupancy since we would propose an A-3 occupancy
fbr the Carnegie used as a museum exhibition space. Our current design proposal provides for
conformance to occupancy A-3. We would request that this unclassified museum / exhibition use
be designated as an A-3.
Section 302.1 EXCEPTION states:
"2. The following occupancies need not be separated from the uses to which they are
an accessory:
2.1 Assembly rooms having a floor area of not over 750 square feet.
2.2 Administrative and clerical offices and similar rooms that do not exceed
25 percent of the floor area of the major use...
2.3 Gift shops.., not exceeding 10 percent of the floor area of the major use."
We also do not fall into mixed-use classifications since the total of our office and retail shop
spaces do not exceed 25% of the A-3 nor does the retail space exceed 10% of the major use. We
have attached a drawing of the current spatial proposal for your use.
ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS
Section 101.3.1.3 of the WSNREC in its EXCEPTION states:
"The building official may approve designs of alterations or repairs which do not fully
conform with all of the requirements of this Code where in the opinion of the building
official full compliance is physically impossible and/or economically impractical and:
1. The alteration or repair improves the energy efficiency of the building; or
2. The alteration or repair is energy efficient and is necessary for the' health,
safety, and welfare of the general public
Section 101.3.2.3 states:
"The building official may modify the specific requirements of this Code for historic
buildings and require in lieu thereof alternate requirements which result in a reasonable
degree of energy efficiency. This modification may be allowed for those buildings which
have been specifically designated as historically significant by the state or local
governing body, or listed in the National Register of Historic Places or which have been
determined to be eligible for listing."
It appears that the building official is granted greater latitude with structures that conform to the
requirements of the Secretary Standards for Rehabilitation. In our particular case, the envelope
component requiring an exemption from full compliance is the masonry clad shot-crete walls.
Our scheme proposes that these walls remain tree to their historic appearance on the exterior and
interior. The only clue as to the shot-crete solution will be an increase in exterior wall opening
depth of 2"-6". Structural, life-safety requirements force us to apply the shot-crete directly to the
back of existing masonry, thus leaving no space for insulation. This will leave us well short of the
required insulation value for opaque wall components required under the NREC. There is a
possibility that we may be able to provide strict code compliance through a component
performance calculation by increasing the performance of other elements such as high-
performance glazing required by UBC 3403.4 or increased attic insulation values. However, our
experience tells us that this is a remote possibility. We are also proposing the use ora heat pump
system that will require a lower target value. However, our resulting target value will remain an
unknown until well into the design process. With our current process of proceeding into design
without having the commitment to full restoration, we need an interpretation as to which of above
NREC sections will apply to our project at the outset.
STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS
I have taken the time last week to further research the issue of"safe buildings" with Architectural
and Structural engineering colleagues in the Seattle area. The current thinking seems to be that a
building as simple as the Carnegie does not warrant entering into a complex FEMA guidelines
analysis. Rather, what is suggested is a complimentary structural system, such as shot-crete or
braced frames be placed within the existing shell and designed to "safe" levels of current code
compliance. This may not be 100% of current UBC requirements and indeed Section 3403 gives
the ability to provide only an "improved" level of safety with the approval of the building official.
There appears to be considerable room for interpretation by the local building official. As far as
we can find, the term "safe" is not defined in the UBC. The interpretation of this term is the
primary means by which remodeled buildings gain flexibility in design granted by the building
official.
At some point in the process we will need to get a specific definition of safety as it pertains to
actual design loads placed onto the structure.
In its EXCEPTION Section 3403.3 states:
"Alterations of existing structural elements, or additions of new structural elements, ...
initiated for the purpose of increasing the lateral-force-resisting strength or stiffness of
an existing building, need not be designed for forces conforming to the regulations
provided that an engineering analysis is submitted showing that:
1. The capacity of existing structural elements required to resist lateral forces is
not reduced,
2. The lateral loading to required existing structural elements is not increased to
beyond their capacity,
3. New structural elements are detailed and connected to the existing structural
elements as required by these regulations,
4. New or relocated nonstructural elements are detailed and connected to
existing or new structural elements as required by these regulations, and
5. An unsafe condition as defined above is not created.
In our retrofit, we plan to make full use of this five-part exception. We will be relying on an
ICBO resource, the Uniform Code for Building Conservation. Our intention is to use this
document as a guideline to propose actual design forces for the structure that we feel would give
the building the adequate safety conditions referred to in 3403.3's EXCEPTION. If the City is not
already familiar with this document, we would encourage its thorough review.
In our opinion, our current proposed structural solutions bring the building excellent safety
improvements at reasonable costs. The current thinking involves creating an inner shell of
reinforced shot-crete beneath the existing unreinforced masonry. Within the attic above we
propose a horizontal steel truss system anchored to the new reinforced concrete. Existing
masonry wall panels correspond to new concrete shear wall panels. For the long axis of the
building we propose anchoring the truss system to a detached reinforced concrete elevator
structure just to the rear of the existing building. All of these new elements will be designed to
similar levels of stiffness, thus giving us good seismic performance. The floor, roof and
foundation systems will also need to be improved as well as their connections to these new
elements. In this scheme the existing unreinforced masonry walls become a non-load bearing
"anchored cladding" system attached to the inner reinforced concrete building. Anchorage
details will be provided to ensure that this masonry cladding, in it's existing condition, does not
interfere with the safety of building occupants whether inside, outside, or especially exiting the
facility. The number of anchorage points provided will be based on an analysis of this cladding's
ability to absorb forces based on its current mortar strength and overall composition. The need for
this component to be considered a "cladding" is based on our inability to meet the requirements
of Section 1403.3 which refers to the veneer mortar strength requirements of UBC Chapter 21.
In the overview, in our opinion, if granted some of the flexibility allowed for under Section 3403,
we can adequately satisfy the safety requirements and intent of all of the UBC's structural
guidelines.
In order to assist us in the scoping of design fees for this particular project we would respectfully
request an agreement in principal to all of the issues brought forth above. We would like an
assurance from you, as Project Manager, and Lou, as the Building Official that our interpretations
are in line with the flexibilities granted you within your respective authorities. Thank you.
Sincerely~., ~
Olympic Design Wor{ts~ Inc.b'
UBI # 601 925 444
FROM : OLYMPIC DESIGN WORKS, INC. PS FAX NO. ~ Jtn. 16 2001 02:30PM P2
I ~
RETROFIT UPI~ER FLOOR PLAN