Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLincoln School Museum Structural ReportI MONTE CLARK ENGINEERING -_ STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS November 17, 1993 LINCOLN SCHOOL MUSEUM: STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT We have completed our review of the structural condition of the existing Lincoln School. The recommendations resulting from that review are contained in this report. In addition to information obtained through visual observations and calculations, we have reviewed and e incorporated the information presented in a report by Mahan and DeSalvo Consulting Engineers dated August 31, 1988 entitled "REPORT OF INSPECTION, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPAIR OF LINCOLN SCHOOL AND ADDITIONS". This report will not duplicate the information contained in that document, but will attempt to build on that information to develop specific recommendation for strengthening the structure. This information can then be used to develop an accurate estimate of the costs required for renovation, MAIN BUILDING (Original construction ROOF AND SECOND FLOOR CEILING • Create a diaphragm at the second floor ceiling level- Accomplish this by adding one layer of Plywood to all of the second floor ceiling, either above or below ceiling joists. + Connect four existing fifteen foot long concrete walls, on each side of the second floor cloak rooms, to the ceiling and roof diaphragm above. Accomplish this by constructing a wood stud wall sheathed with 1/2" plywood each side from the top of the concrete was (at second floor ceiling level) to the roof sheathing above. Connections to the new wo shearwalls would be made at the second floor ceiling level and roof level od + Connect two existing concrete walls located between second floor classrooms to the ceiling diaphragm above. Accomplish this•by bolting a steel angle and wood ledger to the top of the wall to provide ceiling diaphragm connections. • Install wall ties with rosettes at the perimeter of the second floor ceiling at 6'-0" spacing. • Install wall ties with rosettes at the perimeter of the roof where roof extends more than 4'-0" above second floor ceiling level. Space at 61-0n o.c. SECOND FLOOR + Connect the second floor concrete joists to the East and West walls for adequate shear transfer. Accomplish this with wall ties with rosettes as noted below. • Install wall ties with rosettes at the perimeter of the second floor. • Brace the second floor balcony parapets. Z16 First Avenue Suoth. Suite ?-Il Tel (21M$4J-.6(.1 • Fax i?tl6)h2.i-l7: i 107 StLdnian. Suite I Keldikin. AlasLi Q9Wjj TO011,71225.yih1 •fen(W71247.73HI FIRST FLOOR • Repair damaged existing concrete slab on grade concrete. • Replace timber subfloor as required for museum functions. WALLS • Tuckpoint exterior walls as required. • Install parapet braces where parapet height exceeds 1.5 times the wall thickness. • Strongback the masonry piers between the large windows on the front and rear elevations with steel beams. (Approximate beam size will be T.S. 6x6x1/2) EAST AND WEST WING ADDITIONS ROOF • Remove existing roofing. • Add 1/2" plywood sheathing to the top of existing roof sheathing to create a diaphragm. • Provide new attachments of the new roof diaphragm sheathing to the perimeter walls. • Install wall ties with rosettes at the perimeter of the roofs. • Connect roof joist to interior bearing walls and trusses with steel strap ties at 4'-0" o.c. FLOOR • Replace East Wing wood floor where rotten or deteriorated. Use either compacted fill and a concrete slab on grade or wood, beam, post and spread footing construction. WALLS • Rebuild portion of southeast brick wall approximately six feet in length that has significantly deteriorated due to roof downspout water washing of the mortar. • -Tuckpoint exterior walls as required. • Install parapet braces where parapet height exceeds 1.5 times the wall thickness. • Install new crawl space vents where crawl space occurs. LIBRARY ADDITION AND EXISTING SERVICE BUILDING GENERAL • Replace roof and second floor framing where rotten or deteriorated. • Install 1/2" plywood sheathing at roof and second floors for a diaphragm. • Install wall ties with rosettes at the perimeter of the roofs and second floor. • Strengthen existing masonry walls used as shear walls. • Rebuild cracked portion of the fan room south wall. • Brace parapets. • Tuckpoint exterior walls as required. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION • The original building second floor concrete joists have been calculated. to have an allowable .superimposed load carrying capacity of approximately 65 psf. Assuming a ceiling load of 10 psf and a new flooring load of 5 psf, the resulting live load carrying capacity is approximately 50 psf. EXPrRES !/2Q/ r � ClaHam County Historical Society Lincoln School Renovation Capital Projects July 2003 thru June 2008 $117,000 Volunteer Labor July 2003 thru June 2008 $ 60,000 Projected Capital Projects July 2008 thru Aug. 2010 $ 81,000 Projected Volunteer Labor July 2008 thru June 2009 $10,000 Special Fund Raising Private Foundation $ 50,000 Special Capital Campaign $ 30,000 Capital Reserves CCHS $ 62,000 Total $4109000 i /'euui T ILJ'• _ Mahan&©eSa1v0 CONSULTING ENGW EERS 1411 Fauritt&enw BId9.. Seattle, IM1Fast�lon 98t01 (2M) 6244150 August 31, 1988 l P Mr. John Pope, Superintendent Port Angeles School District 216 East 4th Port Angeles, Washington 9'83,62 LR D ^CH^OL DISTRICT Na 121 E''ir• Aagplee, WA 98362 Subject: Structural Investigation of Lincoln School Dear Mr. Pope, We have completed our investigation of the structural condition of Lincoln School. Attached is our report which summarizes our findings. The investigation consisted of two parts. First, an inspection of the building was conducted during a site visit on August 3rd. The purpose of the inspection was to determine the condition of the structure and the locations and extent of deterioration. The second part of our investigation consisted of an analysis of the structure to determine its capacity to sustain code -prescribed forces, both gravity and seismic. Regarding physical condition, we found the structural elements to be in fair to good condition through except for the floors of the East Addition and all floors and roofs of the Library/Service Wing. Deterioration (decay) due to moisture exposure is so extensive in these two areas at that their total replacement will be necessary. In general, the vertical loading capacity (gravity loads) of the structure is adequate- at .-or near code --prescribed levels of stress. However, the structure'does not perform as well (on paper) when subjected to seismic forces. The main reason for this apparent deficiency is that the structural elements - roof, floors and walls - are not properly connected to provide a continuous load path for these lateral forces from roof to foundation. Our report recomdhds several modifications to correct this deficiency. Several systems withih'the building are excluded from our investigation since their evaluation is not within our expertise. August 31, 1988 Mr. John Pope .Port. Angeles School Re: Lincoln. School Page Tao District Some of these excluded systems are power, heating, plumbing, lighting, hardware, interior finishes, doors, windows, trim, and furnishings. Basically, our investigation is intended to cover structural systems only. To summarize, our investigation has found the Lincoln School to be, except for the two areas of extensive deterioration noted above, a basically sound structure in need of much maintenance work and several structural alterations to provide a'viable lateral force - resisting system for seismic safety. We estimate the cost of maintenance repairs, of the structure only, and the cost of alterations for seismic safety could range from.$354,000 to $450,000 (24 to 31 dollars per square foot). While we cannot evaluate the usefulness of the building as a school, it is our opinicn that the structure could be repaired at much less cost than new construction. This concludes our investigation of Lincoln School. we hope you find our report useful and we will be happy to answer further questions. It has been a pleasure serving you. Please call if you have any questions. very truly yours, = X-7�:VC lel W. Mahan Principal ., ,,a & DeS&Im fr___ 11��' Mahan& Des aivo ::"L-.{'-04��2. j : r' ."'• �y } .'tit •'r:,:�.:, REPORT OF INSPECTION; ANALYSIS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPAIR OF LINCOLN SCHOOL AND ADDITIONS for Port Angeles School District Port Angeles, Washington August 31; 1988 1. `��'` Mahan&DeSa(vo Main Building Construction: This two story structure is constructed of` exterior unreinforced masonry walls 9" & 13" in thickness and interior reinforced concrete walls, beams and columns. The roof is a system of timber trusses and rafters. The second floor is a reinforced concrete joist system. The first floor is an unreinforced concrete slab on grade with reinforced structural slabs covering duct trenches. Inspection: The site investigation revealed the overall condition of the structure to be fair to good. The roof framing is dry and in good condition though there are a few areas of staining of the roof sheathing. The rocifing and flashing are in fair condition. A few of the asphalt shingles are missing and the flashing requires recaulking. The second floor is in good condition with no apparent sagging or deflection. The concrete stair slabs appear to be sound though they require cosmetic repair. At the first floor the concrete slab on grade is level and appears to be in good condition. The timber subfloor over the concrete slab is in poor condition in some areas and will require patching and/or replacement. The foundation shows no evidence of settlement or cracking. The masonry walls are sound though the mortar will require tuckpointing. There has been minor water damage to the interior finishes in this portion of the structure. This will require some patching and/or replacement. Analysis of Structure: A review of the existing drawings, Sheet 1 to 12, prepared by Harold H. Ginnold, architect, was conducted to determine the structures load carrying capacity for both vertical 'and lateral loading conditions. The roof framing members act together as a system. Though the stress levels of individual members are above allowable levels when subjected to code -prescribed vertical loads, the system acting together shows no evidence of distress after some 75 yearn of use. It is, in our opinion, reasonable to assume that, as long as no new loading (i.e., heavier roofing materials) or modifications are imposed on the system, it will continue to function safely. The second floor system of concrete joists, beams, columns and walls is adequate for the vertical loading, assuming that the allowable compressive stress of the concrete is 2000 lbs. per square inch psi and the reinforcing steel is of the size and spacing shown on the drawings. The drawings do not specify shear reinforcing for any of the concrete joists or beams. The shear stress in these members, when currently prescribed load factors are applied to vertical loads, range from 70 to 130 psi, stress ` Mahan&aeSalvo Page Two levels which today would require shear reinforcement. The soil bearing pressure on the foundation due to vertical loads averages approximately 3000 lbs per square foot and may be as high as 4000 lbs. per square foot in isolated areas. Since we see no evidence of foundation displacement we assume these values are acceptable. Re airs Required for Seismic Safety: The lateral loads for this portion of the building were calculated based on current code requirements for earthquakes. The Uniform Building code (UBC) gives existing straight roof sheathing with roofing an allowable diaphragm shear value of 100 pound per lineal foot (plf). The existing roof diaphragm is within these limits if new collector members approximately 15 feet in length are added at four locations. These collectors will be connected to the existing masonry wall at each end of the 2nd floor balconies. The UBC allows no diaphragm shear values for plaster lath ceilings. Since the diaphragm shear at the ceiling of the second story can be as high as 215 plf, a new diaphragm will be required at this level. In addition to the new roof collectors and ceiling diaphragm the exterior masonry walls must be connected to the roof and ceiling diaphragms with bolts running through the Existing wall. These through -bolts are grouted in place, with a steel bearing plate on the outside of the structure. The new anchors will transfer the diaphragm forces into the walls and will prevent the walls from falling away from the building in an earthquake. The interior concrete walls must also be mechanically attached to the ceiling diaphragm to transfer lateral loads and stabilize the top of the wall against forces acting perpendicular to the wall. In conjunction with anchoring the diaphragms to walls, chord members are required to resist a 770 lbs perimeter force at the roof and a 1250 lbs force at the ceiling of 'the second story. Lastly, this structure has roof parapets which range in height from 18 to 48 inches. The portions of these parapets which are taller than their thickness will require bracing. This bracing may be required all along the parapets or just at the highest ends, depending on their actual height to thickness ratio. The second floor shear walls, of both masonry and concrete, have a maximum shear stress level of 6.1 psi, except for the masonry walls at each end of the second floor balconies. These four walls have a shear stress level of 16.0 lbs per square inch and may require strengthening for both shear and overturning forces. The parapets at the second floor balconies will require bracing. `�flahan&DeSalvo Page three The second.floor consists of a concrete joist and slab system. At shear walls perpendicular to the direction of the joist span, the floor appears to be positively connected to the shear walls. Chord members are provided by concrete beams and walls. The maximum diaphragm force at these locations is 568 plf at concrete walls and 62 plf at masonry walls. At shear walls parallel to the direction of the Joist span the floor may not be positively connected to all shear walls. At concrete walls it is likely there is Positive connection but at masonry walls new connectors will probably be required. These connectors will be similar to the through -bolts described for new roof and ceiling to wall connections. The maximum diaphragm force at these locations is 748 plf at concrete walls and 367 plf at masonry walls. New chord members may also be required at masonry walls and can be added in conjunction with the new through wall anchors. The first floor shear walls are both unreinforced masonry and reinforced concrete. The maximum shear stress in the masonry walls is 13.5 lbs per square inch. The maximum shear stress in the concrete walls is 16.5 lbs per square inch. For walls in this condition these values are acceptable and new shear walls are not required. Mahan&DeSalvo West Addition Construction. - The one story west addition is constructed of exterior unreinforced masonry walls 990 & 13" in thickness. Interior bearing walls are 2x6 studs @ 16" o.c., with wood roof framing. The floor slab and foundations are unreinforced concrete. Inspection: The site investigation revealed the overall condition of the existing construction to be good. The roof framing is dry and in good condition. For comments and observations on the roofing & flashing refer to the discussion of the east addition. The foundation shows no evidence of settlement or cracking. The masonry walls are sound though the mortar will require tuckpointing. Deterioration of mortar is more Pronounced at exterior downspouts. The concrete floor slab is level and appears to be in good condition. The existing wood floor furring will need patching and/or replacement due to minor water damage at a few locations. This damage has also affected some of the interior finishes requiring patching and/or replacement of plaster finishes. Analysis of Structure: A review of the existing drawings, Sheets 1 thru 41 prepared by Harold H. Ginnold, Architect and of our on -site observations was conducted to determine the load carrying capacity of the structure, both for lateral and vertical loading conditions. The structural components of this building addition were found to be adequate for vertical loads, assuming allowable stresses of 1500 psi in bending for wood members, 18,000 psi for steel members, and a soil bearing pressure of approximately 2250 lbs per square foot. These values are within acceptable limits for construction of this time period. Re airs Required for seismic Safety: The lateral loads for this addition were analyzed with regard to the effects of a major earthquake. The roof diaphragm maximum shear force is 185 plf, while the existing roof sheathing has an allowable value of only 100 plf. This indicates that a new layer of plywood will be required on the roof to transfer the diaphragm forces into the walls. In addition, mechanical attachment of the roof sheathing to walls will be required. This is usually accomplished with new bolts running through the existing wall, grouted in place, with a steel bearing plate on the outside of the structure. These new anchors will also prevent the walls from falling away from the roof in an earthquake. This portion of the building has cantilevered parapets of T Mahan&DeSalvo Page two unreinforced brick which"extend above the roof 16 to 30 inches. These parapets must be braced to prevent them from falling off during an earthquake. Lastly with regard to the roof, chord members will be required to resist a 2200 lb. force. These members can be added in conjunction with the new through -wall anchors. The masonry walls for this area have a maximum shear stress of 7.7 lbs per square inch when analyzed for earthquake forces. These walls are in good condition, therefore this stress level is acceptable and new shear walls will not be required. Mahan&QeSalvo East Addition Construction:. The one story east addition is constructed in much the same manner as the west addition. The differences consist of a timber floor system with joists supported by beams and posts. A lattice -work truss supports the roof framing at the building center line. The truss is not visible so its construction has not been verified. However, we are assuming that the construction is as shown on the existing drawings. Inspection: The site investigation revealed the overall condition of- the existing construction to be good to poor. The foundation and walls show evidence of settlement. It is our opinion that the settlement took place shortly after or during construction and that patching of existing cracks in the masonry will be sufficient. Beyond the cracking due to settlement, the masonry walls are sound except for the brick arch over the east exit. Mortar is missing from several brick joints requiring some repair and rebuilding. As with the west addition the masonry will need to be tuckpointed. General Repairs Required: The east addition has sustained a large amount of water damage. This water is coming from the roof in the area of the roof drains and scuppers. These drains and scuppers are clogged allowing water to back up on the roof and leak down into the building. This leakage has caused heavy damage to the interior ceiling finishes but the timber roof members appear to be sound. The timber floor system has been heavily damaged due to decay and will require total replacement. This replacement will include the interior concrete foundation pads. New crawl space vents will need to be cut into the existing masonry to prevent this condition from recurring. The water damage has also affected much of the interior finish, requiring patching and/or replacement. The roof of the east addition was inspected during our site visit. The roofing is in fair condition as is the parapet cap flashing. The parapet skirt flashing and the flashing at the reglet at the main building intersection are in poor condition. They will likely require replacement. Re- attachment and caulking of roof flashing will be necessary at many locations. These observations also apply to the west addition. The vertical load carrying capacity is similar to the west addition. If the lattice work truss was used, its connection to the wall should be examined. It should be w ��1 Mahan&DeSalvo •1 J Page- Two'. noted that all other vertical loid'carrying systems have •been •shown to be adequate and we'believe it is probable that the truss connection is also appropriate. The maximum soil bearing pressure for the east addition is slightly higher than for the west addition. It is approximately 2750 lbs per square foot. Repairs Required for Seismic Safet This portion of the building will also require strengthening to resist lateral forces. The comments made for the west addition apply to this east addition as well. C :tA, I I Mahan&DeSalvo Library Addition & Existing Service Building Construction: This two story addition was constructed above and. adjacent to the one story service building using timber roof and floor framing, a few exterior stud walls on the second floor and unreinforced masonry walls. Inspection & General Re_pai rs : The site investigation showed the condition of this portion of the structure to be fair to very poor. There is a large hole in the second story roof and the openings in the low roofs for skylites have not been sealed. These areas have allowed a large amount of water to damage the structure. This damage is so severe that the timber framing throughout this area will require replacement. The replacement of this framing will allow the roof and floor diaphragms to be rebuilt for the lateral earthquake forces required by the code. The installation of through -wall anchors will also be required to transfer the lateral forces from the new diaphragms into the existing walls. The condition of the existing masonry walls is good except for the south wall of the fan room. This wall has a large crack and wall displacement has occurred over the existing door. It may be necessary to rebuild a portion of this wall. The structural slab and the concrete beam appear to be in good condition and are structurally adequate. However, since this concrete beam directly supports the cracked masonry wall, further investigation of the beam and its foundation support will be required in the future. Lastly the existing covered shelter at the west side of service building appears to be in good condition and will require only minor repairs. The covered shelter on the east side has been damaged by fire and will likely require total replacement. Re airs Required for Seismic Safety: The lateral loads for this portion of the structure were calculated for a major earthquake. As discussed above the replacement of the roof and floor framing will include Provisions for the lateral earthquake forces. The existing unreinforced masonry walls serve as shear walls. Our analysis has shown some of these walls to be highly stressed, as much as 22.5 lbs per, square inch. This is due in part to the forces from the cantilevered masonry stack. Removal of the stack will help but it is still likely that a few of the shorter masonry walls will require strengthening for both shear and overturning forces. If the masonry stack is not removed it must be strengthened. Finally all parapets which are more than 12" tall will require bracing. 1 1 Mahan&aeSatvo =n~• ::'j ,. Y.S 1" ..�: "Jl'• GENERAL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC 18970 Third Avenue NE P. a Box 1586 Poulsbo, Washington 98370 (360) 779-9196 Toll Free (888) 898-8378 Fax (360) 779-4320 May 4, 2000 Clallam County Historical Society 926 W 8 h Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Attn: June Robertson Re: Masonry Testing on Museum General Testing Project No. B9224 Dear Ms. Robertson: General Testing was asked to perform In -Place Masonry Shear tests in different locations (see ATR Engineering Layouts) on the future Museum in Port Angeles. This required carefully removing the head joint without disturbing adjoining bed joints in testing areas. Steel loading blocks were then fabricated to fit the size of the end of the brick to be tested, and calibration of the hydraulic ram to be used was then done (see calibration sheets). This was all performed on May 2, 2000. On May 3, 2000, actual testing took place and all test results are included. We understand that a minimum of 30 PSI was required, and all tests exceeded the minimum. If we can be of any more help on this project or if you have any questions please do not hesitate to give us a call. Sincerely, WobArno�ld Technical Director Cc: Art Rack ATR Engineers/Charlie Smith Lindburg Smith Architects Quality Assurance for Northwest Constnection GENERAL TESTING LABGRA TGRIES, INC 18970 Third Avenue NE P.O. Box 1586 Poulsbo, Washington 98370 (360) 779-9196 Toll Free (888) 898-8378 Fax (360) 779-4320 IN -PLACE MASONRY SHEAR TEST UBC STAND 21-6 Client: Clallam County Historical Society Date: May 3, 2000 Project: Clallam County Museum Project No.: B 9224 Inspectors: Stephen Blaney, Jim Comnick Gauge Readin Test No. Location** Heise Marshall Hydraulic Pounds Force Mortar Area (sq. in.) P S I 1 #1 2700 -- 2480 64 39 2 #2-Below slate board -- 10,000 9574 64 150* 3 #2-Above slate board -- 5400 5144 64 80 4 #3 -- 7800 7455 80 93 5 #4 -- 6200 5915 64 92 6 #5 -- 6500 6012 80 75 7 46 -- 9300 8900 80 111 8 #7 2600 -- 2384 64 37 9 #8 3000 -- 2769 64 43 10 #9-Above slate board -- 5300 5048 80 63 11 #9-Below slate board -- 6400 6107 80 76 12 #10 -- 5100 4855 80 61 *No Failure **See locations as per ATR Engineering drawingaq Field Supervisor , Z�2� Quality Assurance for Northwest Construction 0 1 m w 0 a a �L_= � s S w fu= 1WA L LAYOUT 7vr�c. �V►'' �s-c-r�.►'� ou�.s.a dk. powr (2oor- ZF2 F'LOOR Z 111WAf L LAANY A T N� Nonn-4 A' CALIBRATION OF HEISE GAUGE ON THE HYDRAULIC PISTON INSTRUMENT PANEL FOR SPX 5 TON NO. C51C MODEL B RAM Heise Gauge Pounds Force 100 86 200 178 300 270 400 362 500 453 600 545 700 637 800 729 900 821 1000 912 1100 1004 1200 1096 1300 1188 1400 1279 1500 1371 1600 1423 1700 1520 1800 1616 1900 1711 2000 1808 2100 1904 2200 2000 2300 2097 2400 2193 2500 2288 2600 2384 2700 2480 Heise Gauge Pounds Force 2800 2576 2900 2672 3000 2769 3100 2865 3200 2961 3300 3057 3400 3154 3500 3250 3600 3347 3700 3443 3800 3539 3900 3635 4000 3731 4100 3827 4200 3923 4300 4020 4400 4116 4500 4212 4600 4308 4700 4404 4800 4501 4900 4596 5000 4693 CALIBRATION OF THE MARSH HYDRAULIC GAUGE ON THE HYDRAULIC PISTON INSTRUMENT PANEL FOR SPX 5 TON NO. C51C MODEL B RAM Marsh Hydraulic Gauge Reading Pounds Force 200 137 400 330 600 523 800 715 1000 908 1200 1100 1400 1292 1600 1485 1800 1678 2000 1870 2200 2063 2400 2256 2600 2448 2806 2641 3000 2833 3200 3026 3400 3219 3600 3411 3800 3603 4000 3796 4200 3989 4400 4182 4600 4374 4800 4566 5000 4759 5200 4951 5400 5144 Marsh Hydraulic Gauge Reading Pounds Force 5600 5337 5800 5530 6000 5722 6200 5915 6400 6107 6600 6300 6800 6493 7000 6685 7206 6878 7400 7070 7600 7263 7800 7455 8000 7648 8200 7841 8400 8033 8600 8226 8800 8418 9000 8611 9200 8803 9400 8996 9600 9189 9800 9381 10,000 9574 MUSEUM CONCEPTS \0 RT HK"ES T Architecture • Planning • Procrramming 330 NW 53rd St., Seattle, w-a- Sri. ] J7 206-784-1164 • 206-329-7012 DRAFT CLALLAM COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY Jan 14, 1993 Proposed Program Area Requirements Category Description Existing Proposed i are =o Tare Gross Sq.Ft. VISITOR SERVICES 1.01 Main Lobby 0 375 0% 0 375 1.02 Reception Area 80 85 04s 0 85 1.03 Toilet Rooms 120 560 01�-' 0 560 1.04 Meeting Room 1456 1500 10% 150 1650 Museum Store 1.05 Sales 360 400 0CI-0 0 400 1.06 Storage Office 0 100 0 0 100 Subtotal 2016 3020 150 3170 EXHIBITS 2.01 Long Term Exhibits 2516 28, 3 0`r 0 2813 2.02 Short Term Exhibits 695 14 g 1 0% 0 1411 Exhibit Work 2.03 Graphic Design 406 410 20c-,.) 82 492 2.04 Workshop & Fabrication 131 91-0 05. 0 970 Subtotal 3748 5604 82 5686 COLLECTIONS 3.01 Artifact Storage 1630 3528 0% 0 3528 Collections Work 3.02 Receiving Workroom 292 400 209% 80 480 3.03 Processing 117 120 20% 24 144 3.04 Prop Storage 92 100 20% 20 120 3.05 Office (Curator) 136 150 20% 30 180 Subtotal 2267 4298 154 4452 • o r H I T E C T S M U S E U M CONCEPTS NOR T Architecture H �'�' E S T • Planning Prugrammiog CLALLAM COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY Proposed Program Area Requirsments Category Description ARCHIVES 4.01 Archival Storage 4.02 Archival Research Area 4.03 Audio Visual Room 4.04 Research Library 4.05 Photo Archives 4.06 Darkroom Subtotal GENEALOGY 4.01 Genealogy Reception 4.02 Genealogy Library 4.03 Genealogy Office Subtotal ADMINISTRATION 5.01 Reception 5.02 Office (Museum Manager) 5.03 Office (Public Relations) 5.04 Office (Curator of Exhibition) 5.05 Office (Curator of Education) 5.06 Storage 5.07 Volunteer Lunchroom Subtotal MECHANICAL 6.01 Elevator (Lincoln) 6.02 Mechanical (Lincoln) 6.03 Mechanical (gymnasium) 6.04 Mechanical (portable) Subtotal Museum Total Existing Proposed DRAFT Jan 14, 1993 Tare Gross Sq.Ft 239 340 20% 68 541 550 20% 110 408 49 120 20% 24 660 1?5 193 20% 39 144 49 80 20% 16 232 0 80 20% 16 96 96 1003 1363 273 1636 72 100 20% 20 244 420 20% 84 120 108 120 20% 24 504 144 424 640 128 768 55 100 30% 30 75 120 30% 36 130 60 120 30% 36 156 0 100 30% 30 156 0 1 30% 30 130 114 120 30% 36 130 0 200 30% 60 156 260 304 860 258 1118 0 220 0% 0 0 950 0% 0 220 0 275 0% 0 950 0 100 0% 0 275 100 0 1545 0 1545 9762 17330 1045 18375 T A' E A M E R I C A N I N S T I T U T E O F A R C H I T E C T S ,i MUSEUM CONCEPTS NORTHWEST Architecture • Planning • Programming CLALLAM COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY DRAFT Proposed Program Area Requirements Jan 14, 1993 Qualifications Lincoln School Total. Gross Sq.Ft. = 18,881 Proposed Usage (Net Assignable) x Tare Factor = Gross Collections Storage and Research Library requirements based on 15 yr projection. Meeting room requirements = 100 person occupancy at 15 sq. ft. / person (movable seating). Total does not include area for exhibit layout and staging. Mechanical proposal based on assumption that 7% of gross will be required for equipment room(s) l I PS I oil S o 3 D P D n n <. n; z n rr s SpS $ �e�a g oil a _ - n = r - i z).< n p o m p 5 F -1 a 0 n z 5 imp ra 0 s s A 3� < n e ARCHITECTURE FACILITY OPERATIONEXPENSE (1994) Energy on Bui1din-p- E1ect.rical . : _. : $119*250 Oi 1 .. 4,300 Janitorial on, Main Buil.din'g': 9,360 Mechanical AElevator Maintenance ... 3,600 Security (Phone Dispatch and Maintenance) 420 Window Washing . . . . 2,700 Grounds -Maintenance on' Approx., 2 Acres 3,900 Water, Sewer, .Trash .. 1,110 Insurance (Li abIty and Property) . . 5,400 Repairs . . . . . . . .: 23--500 Improvement Reserve-s 1,500 Contingencies .- 3,000 TOTAL ------------------- -=----------------- $49,040 Items not included in this estimate: Office administration and supplies, communications, staff and management ,costs, Washington_ State.. sales tax, and escalation beyond 1994. JONATHAN ALAN TUDAN P.O. BOX 1433 ARCHITECT 206/379-9857 PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 FACILITY OPERATION EXPENSE (199.4) Page 2 ELECTRICAL: Current Rates: Basic Rate $69/M, Peak Demand $4/KW, KW Rate $0.03 Average Use Factors: Main Building - 12,555 NSF X 7W/SF/HR = 87,885 W/HR Shop - 1,330 NSF X 3W/SF/HR = 3,990 W/HR Gym - 3,705 NSF X 3W/SF/HR = 11,115 W/HR Total 102,990 WAR = 103 KW/HR Ave. Use Factor Peak Demand @-70%: 103 KW X .70 = 72.1 KW Cost @ Peak Demand: 72.1 X $4/KW = $288.40 (approx. $290.00) Time of Operation: Days: Ave. Use @ 50% Peak Demand = .50 X 103 KW/HR = 51.5 KW/HR 6 Days/WK @ 6 HR/Day 36 HR/WK X 52 WK = 1,872 HR 1,872 HR X 51.5 KW/HR = 96,408 KW 96,408 KW X $0.03/KW = $2,892.24 (approx. $2,900) M 900/12 Months = $242/M Nights: Ave. Use @ 10% Peak Demand = .10 X 103 KW/HR = 10.3 KW/HR 18 HR X 6 Day/WK = 108 HR/WK 108 HR X 52 WK = 5,616 HR 5,616 HR X 10.3 KW/HR = 57,844.8 KW 57,844.8 KW/12 Mo'nths = 4,820.4 KW/M 4,820.4.KW/M X .03/KW = $144.61/M (approx. $145/M) Off -Day Use: Ave.'Use @ 10% Peak Demand = .10 X 103 KW/HR = 10.3 KW 10.3 KW/HR X 24 HR = 247.2 KW 247.2 KW X 52 WK = 12,854.4 KW 12,854.4 KW/Month = 1,071.2 KW/M 1,071.2 KW X .03/KW = $32.14/M (approx. $32/M) Totals: $290 Peak Demand 242 Days 145 Nights 32 Off -Days 709/Month Approx. 25% increase during summer (.25 X 709 = $177) $177 + 709 = $886/M $886 X 3M = $2,658 $709 X 9M = 6,381 12 Months = $9,039 (approx. $9,000) Total Cost Per Year $9,000 + @ 25% Contingency ($2,250) _ $11,250 FACILITY OPERATION EXPENSE (1994) Page 3 JANITORIAL: 2 Days/WK @ 6 HR/Visit 12 HR/WK X $15/HR = $180/WK $180/WK X 52 Wk = $9,360/YR 9,369/12M = $780/Month MECHANICAL AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE: Service Contract (Parts and Labor Inc Vd) $300/M $300 X 12M = $3,600/YR (Fee for service only @ $225/M) SECURITY: Monitoring Service Contract (incl'd service) $35/M $35 X 12M,= $420/YR. WINDOW WASHING: Interior and Exterior 6 Times Per YR @ $450/Visit = $2,700/YR GROUNDS MAINTENANCE: Landscape Service,Contract 5 Man Hours/Visit.@ $20/HR 1 Day/Wk ,@ 26 WK = 26 Visits 1 Day/Bimonthly @ 26 WK = 13 Visits 39 Visits X 5 HR 195 HR; 19.5 HR @ $20/HR = $3,900/YR $3,900/12 Months $325/M WATER, SEWER AND TRASH: Water @ $10.50/M Building $ 5.00/M Site Sewer @ $12/M Trash @ $65/M Total = $92.50/M = $1,110/YR INSURANCE: Property/Fire 1.50/1,000 = 1.5 X 3,000 $4,500 Liability (1 MIL) $940 Total @ $4,500 + $940 = $5,440 (approx. $$5,400/YR) Lincoln School Task Force Report A Brief Analysis of Alternative Strategies for Use of the Lincoln School Asset With Some Suggested Considerations for the Clallam County Historical Society as a whole. - September 1996 - Back round The Lincoln School property is a significant community asset and was purchased by the Clallam County Historical Society in 1993 as a future home for the Museum and society. The property was purchased from the School District with grants and fundraising and is now owned free and clear. To date over $350,000 has been raised of a design and construction budget of $3.5 mullion. Over the last two or three years it has become increasingly clear that full funding of the Lincoln School project will be very difficult. Competition for money either from private or public sources is stiff. The reality is that trying to generate over three million dollars for a sole -purpose project will take a lengthy period of time, and the moneys may simply • not be available in the amounts needed. Added to this challenge is the fact that the Society will be required to move from the County Courthouse, the museum's current location, by the end of 1998. Other facilities need to be found very soon and this move has its own financial burden. The Task Force and It's Purpose Earlier this year the Board of Directors of the Society adopted a mission statement and goals and objectives that, in part, authorized a "fresh look" at the Lincoln School property. Dr. Fred Lighter helped organize a task force with Don Corson to chair its work. Don, Vice President of Planning and Development at "Merrilf & Ring, and a former Board member, assembled a team that included Charles Turner, awnerlbroker of Port Angeles Reality; Steve Zenovic; partner in Polaris engineering and survey, and Tom Sommer, Vice President, US' Sank. The purpose.of the task force initially was to try to determine alternative ways to manage the sdhaol property to meet the mission intent of the Society. While this was the initial purpose, the group quickly realized that the success of any altemative would have to be i rooted in the viability of the society itself. The task force chose to expand its view to z consider alternative ways the society could meet its mission outside of the Lincoln School project and the society's focus on a single large showcase location. Process After a general introduction to the Historical Society and a tour of the Lincoln School, the task force set about reviewing key facts, concerns and alternative futures. The following is a summary of this discussion and concludes with alternatives and some conceptual strategies that it believes warrant further evaluation. L Background Facts • The Museum must be out of the Courthouse by October 1998. • Over-riding financial issues question future health and viability of the society and project. • The Lincoln School facility is owned, but the play area to the east is still owned by the School District. • The Museum has a substantial collection of artifacts that need to be conserved. • Existing membership is 460 and relatively steady while the county as a whole is growing. • Some long term storage is already available at the Lincoln School gym. • Probability of large grants (over $300,000) is modest. The probability of multiple grants over $300,000 is remote for the foreseeable future. 2. Task Force Questions/Comments • Realistically, where is the money coning from? (in the amounts and timing needed) • In order for the Lincoln School project to proceed, there must be a strong and credible association behind it. Is vision, membership, leadership adequate? ■ What are the plans of other non -profits in the community and are there opportunities for cooperation? • What is the plan for the site as a whole and the connections of the School site to other non -owned portions of the site? • Is the school site truly a viable museum location? • Carnegie Library is an excellent opportunity for some aspect of the association's activities given its visibility and accessibility. • Political connections need to be strengthened to n funding Need to gain stronger business community support activties. ofile for success P Ll 3. Blue Sky Ideas (In no order of priority) • Demolition of all or part of Lincoln School. (Keep facade, demolish wings?) • Sell property. • Joint use of property with others. • commercial on the corner governmental • other non-profit groups • school district • library performing arts community • Consider the US Bank location downtown as an interim location • Sell or trade with school district for site at Jefferson School. 4. Most Viable Alternative The task force concluded that despite the nobility of the project, the alternative of staying the current course of remodeling Lincoln School as a full replacement museum seemed impractical. The availability of adequate and timely funds appears to be remote and the burden of simply running the museum too costly. Fundamentally, the task farce concluded that either something radical must happen very soon or the society will functionally cease to exist once the museum is forced to leave the court house. Given the complexity of the association's space and timing requirements it became clear that there was no simple way to make the "Lincoln School" opportunity a reality. What emerged from the task force was a sense that the Historical society needed to "reinvent,, itself not only to address the Lincoln School project but also to survive as a viable organization. The group believed this was both possible and exciting: Central to this restructuring was the consensus of the group that "partnering" was critical to future viability. By this is meant working with other history and heritage conserving organizations on the north peninsula and other non -profits. The following ideas may sound far-fetched, but we believe the concepts are workable and worth reviewing seriously. Elements of this conceptual solution are as follows. 1. Allow the Lincoln School to become a mulduselmultiagency community center. Develop new partnerships with a range of other associations and groups that need . administrative space or a presence in the community and can share funding like: 0 PALOA 4 .4 -� School YMCA Child Care City Parks United Way -� Red Cross Festival of the Arts -0 Genealogy 2. Consider rezoning p.�rt of the property for commercial use or multifamily and selling it to fund remodeling/site development. 3- Create exhibit space eve here possible. ' Downtown space {US bank, Penny's, renovated Lee Hotel, The Landing, city pier, new areas within public improvements now being considered...) 4. Carnegie Library should be made into a jewel, not an "annex". S- Co-op with other like-minded associations in Forks, Sequim to share info and opportunities and collections. 6. Make the gym a permanent storage facility and begin moving materials as soon as space becomes secure. 5. Strategy I - Hire an executive director to provide overall society direction and leadership. The task force recognized that funding is a concern, but it should be a high priority and is critical to the success of any strategy. Without it the volunteer base will continue to burnout and continuity will be lost from year to year. 1.' 2. Re -assess Lincoln School for alternative uses such as administrative office space, meeting rooms, as well as selected exhibit space. 3. Begin to discuss "partnership" ideas with selected associations and non -profits. Determine ability/interest. 4. If 2 and 3 are found not to work, consider selling the Lincoln School property and use proceeds to fund other tasks central to the mission. Begin to explore alternative space venues for exhibits. Go after grants to fund other kinds of public displays 6. Promote the Carnegie Library as a high priority location for key exhibits. 7. Finish storage area in gym, begin moving. 8. Prepare an over all site plan for the property in cooperation with the school district. Consider commercial uses on corner of property and pursue a rezone if appropriate. 6. Conclusion The task force came away from its brief analysis with the conclusion that the future of the Society and the Lincoln School project is viable, but only if it takes a new direction. The Historical Society is at a crossroads. The mission is still achievable but perhaps not following the current path. The task force challenges the Society to reconsider its direction. Instead of pursuing anew centralized museum facility at Lincoln School, consider a decentralized set of venues in high visibility public places. Instead of trying to move ahead alone, consider partnering with other like-minded organizations to share assets and energy. Instead of trying to preserve Lincoln School exclusively for a museum, share the asset, if possible, with other non -profits in the community for much needed administrative and meeting space. Assets won't be given up, just shared, and the Society's mission will be met. These are times when partnering seems to work. The Society is not alone in finding it� difficult to fund the future it thought it had. Virtually every non-profit organization is in the same boat and should be receptive to a future where some things could be shared. 4 P g Serious decisions by the Board need to be made soon and we hope the work of the task force will be helpful and accepted in the constructive spirit in which the work was done. • r� u ARCHITECTURE THE LINCOLN SCHOOL RESTORATION THE MUSEUM OF THE CLALLUM COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Lincoln School will be modified to create an historical, cultural and educational center for the North Olympic Peninsula. A major goal for this project is to establish and preserve the Lincoln School as an historically -significant building. This facility will become the permanent home of the Museum of the Clallum County Historical Society. The project consists of three buildings: The Main Building, a two-story brick masonry structure constructed in 1917 with a major ground floor addition at the east and west wings completed in 1922, containing 8,776 SF on the ground floor and 4,574 SF on the upper level; the Gymnasium Building, a 1939 single -story wood frame structure approximately 3,900 SF; and the Portable Classroom constructed in 1929, a single -story, 1,400 SF wood frame building. The total project area is approximately 18,900 SF. The Main Building was vacated in 1978 and has since suffered maintenance and security neglect, resulting in vandalism and exposure to elements. The Gymnasium has been maintained as a storage/maintenance building for the Port Angeles School District. The Main Building will contain the major public areas of the museum, including exhibits, archives, and administration functions. The Gymnasium's new use will be museum collection storage. The Portable Classroom has recenty been partially rehabilitated by the new owners and will house the museum's workshop. New work will include electrical, mechanical, plumbing and fire protec- tion services, distribution, and fixtures, tailored to meet the new design requirements. Site work includes new areas for automobile parking, site drainage and biofiltration, walkways, lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The project is divided in three phases: Phase I includes the development of a project cost estimate through an analysis of existing conditions and proposed uses; Phase II includes the development of the architectural and engineering documents; and Phase III is the construction of the project. October 19, 1993 JONATHAN ALAN TUDAN P.O. BOX 1433 ARCHITECT 206/379-9857 PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 Phase I: (August 1992 - September 1994) Purchase of Lincoln School site $ 210,000 Develop Building Program 6,800 Develop Building Cost Model 7,409 Fundraising expenses 900 Project management 40,800 TOTAL PHASE I $ 265,909* Phase II: (October 1994 - December 1995) Architectural/engineering design work Schematic Design $ 32,250** Design Development 42,850 Property Survey 2,325*** Develop Construction Documents 87,000 Fundraising expenses 1,200 Project management 11,347 TOTAL PHASE II $ 176,972 Phase III: (January 1996 - December 1998) Contract Bidding/Negotiation 14,200 Construction Administration 46,000 Restoration/rehabilitation costs 1,857,000**** Site preparation and landscaping 327,000 Furniture, fixtures and equipment 131,000 Exhibit construction 211,000 Interior remodel 129,000 Washington State sales tax. 207,000 Contingency (18 month escalation @ 57o) 143,000 Fundraising expenses 1,500 Project management 153,260 TOTAL PHASE III $ 3,219,960 * all funding secured, and Phase I completed ** $10,000 in"funding secured, and $10,000 grant request pending *** funding secured **** a portion of this will be donated labor and donated materials. Furthermore, $3000 has already been secured, and a $26,000 grant request is pending. LINCOLN SCHOOL. PROJECT CLALI.AM COUNTLY HISTORICAL SOCIETY Option One Cost Estimate - — Foundations Continuous footings ` �° 'IX GV 52,750.00 Substructure Fill ;, 49,712.00 Slab on grade 43,1.75.00 Superstructure Floor repair 6,768.00 Floor new 29,475.00 Roof restructure 4,004.00 Roof new 48,675.00 Exterior closure Walls Structural studs @ .16" o.c. 18,627.00 Batt insulation 8,515.20 GWB 12,772.80 Brick. 48,420.00 Windows remove e)dsbng $ replace 104,850.00 Windows new 10;800.00 Doors `�� � 12,300. Roofing Remove & replace roofing 41,440.00 of New rooting o 5,841.00 Gutters 1,744.00 Downspouts 576.00 Interior construction. Partitions, studs, GWB 2 sides �� i�� 100,815.00 Doors _ Interior passage 50,350.00-" Display case-32;4D0.00 Interior finishes Floor finishes I 9,06.00 2 Ceilings 9,706.00 Wall -finishes 1.18,260.00 Conveying systems Elevator a 35,000.00 Plumbing I �,�i 36,000.00 Plumbing HVAC HVAC, microprocessor based controls �016 ►fib 224,325.00 Fin Protection Fire Sprinklers I6t°(� 29,910.00 Electrical Primary Power 21,684.75 Power & Distribution 37,387.50 Basic materials 59,.820.00 General lighting 59,820.00 Devices 22,432.50 HVAC equipment power connection't�- 29,010.00 Telephone/Data 'jam 26,171.25 Fire Alarm/Security systems I Cp 31,405.50 Fumishings. Casework .�59,820.00 Selective building demolition Selective demolition a- 12,504.00 Site work Cuttfill 5,750.00 Pavements A/C pavement - parking 20,405.00 Sidewalks 34,650.00 Curbs 16,600.00 Pavement striping 1,500 Utility connections 16,000 Surface drainage 9,945.00 Storm water detention 25,000 Site lighting 8,000 Landscaping 180,000.00 General conditions General. conditions 265,219.99 iekky'L Contingency Contingency at.15% 323,947. 7 TOTAL $2,483,596.76 The -analysis uses the rates for Carpenters effective 12/0/00 for Clallam Country. Carpenters 33.53 Electricians — Journey level 39.83 Heafing equipment mechanics 18.45 Laborers — Carpenter tender. 28.53 Plumbers & Pipef tter — Journey level 42.71 Roofers Journey level 3.1.03 Painter — Journey level 27,63 Average 27.71 On a typical project Labor represents approximately 50% of the cost of the work. M. MUSEUM CONCEPTS NORTHWEST Architecture • Planning • Programming 330 NW 53rd St., Seattle, Wa. 98107 206-784-1164 • 206-329-7012 DRAFT COPY Clallam County Historical Society Lincoln School Building Areas & Room Dimensions. December 9, 1992 FIRST FLOOR approx. room dimensions Sq Ft. Main Entrance (14 x 16) (8 x 29.5) 460 Stairs/Circulation 16 x 18.5 296 Classroom 1 (orig.bldg. NW) 22 x 32 704 coat closet 4.5 x 17.25 78 Classroom 2 (orig. bldg. NW) 22 x 32 704 coat closet 4.5 x 17.25 78 Classroom 3 (orig. bldg. SW) 22 x 32 704 coat closet 4.5 x 18 81 Classroom 4 (orig. bldg. SE) 22 x 32 704 coat closet 5.75 x 18 104 Classroom 5 (1922 addn. NW) 22 x 32 704 coat closet 4.5 x 11 50 toilet 4.5 x 11 25 Classroom 6 (1922 addn. NE) 22 x 32 704 coat closet 4.5 x 17 77 Classroom 7 (1922 addn. SW) 22 x 32 704 coat closet 4.5 x 10.75 48 toilet 4.5 x 6 27 Classroom 8 (1922 addn. SE) 22 x 32 704 coat closet 4.5 x 19.75 89 Vestibule 17.5 x 31 543 Toilet (west) 14 x 20 280 Storage ? 9.5 x 23 219 Toilet (east) 14 x 20 280 Boiler Room 11 x 39 429 West Entry 9 x 9.5 90 East Entry 9 x 9.5 90 First Floor (excluding stairs & boiler rm.) 8,251 FIRST FLOOR TOTAL 8,976 SECOND FLOOR approx. room dimensions Sq. Ft. Stairwell 16 x 17 272 Corridor 8 x 29 232 Principal's Office 11 x 16 176 closet and elect. 30 Classroom 9 (orig. bldg. NW) 22 x 32 704 cloak room 4 x 13.5+ 68 Classroom 10 (orig. bldg. NE) 22 x 32 704 cloak room 4 x 13.5+ 68 Classroom 11 (orig. bldg. SW) 22 x 32 704 cloak room 4 x 13.5+ 68 Classroom 12 (orig, bldg. SE) 22 x 32 704 cloak room 4 x 13.5+ 68 South Addition (Library) 25 x 31 776 office 8.5 x 8.5 72 toilet 3 x 5 15 entry 7 x 8.5 60 kitchen 8.5 x 9 77 toilet 3 x 5 15 west library 12 x 16 192 east library 16 x 19.25 308 closet 4 x 9.5 38 Second Floor (excluding stairwell) 4,302 SECOND FLOOR TOTAL 4,574 FIRST FLOOR TOTAL 8,976 GYMNASIUM 3,939 entry area 10 x 17 170 storage north 10 x 14 140 storage south 10 x 14 140 main gym area 45 x 65 2925 raised stage area 16 x 35.25 564 PORTABLE CLASSROOM 24 x 58 1,392 LINCOLN SCHOOL PROJECT TOTAL 18,881 Note: All information regarding room sizes was compiled from copies of the original drawings prepared by Harold Ginnold Architect and from floor plans drawn by ADCO Graphics, dated 9/9/92 and 11/16/92. Vl WI) ON ct 00 00 N EO- r-��0000��-vNi M M V N 00 ll* CV QO cNn �O O t� cV o kn N N ^ ^ Vl V1 Os "T 00 00 N •(� l� N M O� [l 00 O O (V LL C, C� �o oo C— v- v'i M M N oo V N C (`7 O, N M M N �o Vl N N ^ ^ O O O O O O O O 0 0 C. 0 Co 0 0 0 O O O Cl O O O O 7 U N O F. O E y y bD y O O c° £� a°'i o 5° o O o N ^ O C O O N U50 om N > > > > M U E E E E E E C 0 Cd �O�cO U N C) O d o, U 0 r Nz* o 0000OOOO CD m- 000�o�oo00 N O, 69