Loading...
28 GOODHUE STREET - WDDO (3) -Zg �aod l-�u a �r - c� �0 2cx�5 Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978) 745-9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404 WAIVER OF THE DEMOLITION DELAY ORDINANCE It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has waived the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the proposed demolition as described below, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. Address of Property: 28 Goodhue Street Name of Record Owner: North River Canal LLC Description of Demolition Work Proposed: Demolition of remaining structures shown as the shaded area on the building plan, entitled "Scheme 2 (08/04/04), resulting in the demolition ofthe entire structure on the site. Dated: 4/21/2005 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION By: n ra / r THIS IS NOT A DEMOLITION PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. R STUGHIS H 0AN April 18, 2005 CONSt:LTING P:NGINEERS, Historic Salem, Inc. INC. 9 North Street Salem, MA 01970 978-744-4536 Attention: Meg Twohey Reference: 28 Goodhue Street, Structural Condition Dear Meg: On Monday, April 4 we met with the RT Group, Inc. (RTG), Engineers that have been studying the existing foundation conditions below 28 Goodhue Street on behalf of the property owner, North River Canal, LLC (North River). This study was conducted at HSI's suggestion, following North River's withdrawal of a demolition delay ordinance waiver from the Salem Historical Commission, with the intent of adaptively re-using a major portion of the structure in lieu of demolition and replacement. As documented in RTG's very thorough report and as described verbally by RTG, the existing structure rests on groups of timber piles that were driven through unsuitable peat and loose fill layers into an underlying, clay layer in order to carry the building. RTG determined in their investigations that the timber pile penetration into the clay is insufficient to provide proper and unyielding support for the structure, and may be responsible for at least some of the vertical movements that have been noted on site. While in our opinion a limited amount of movement would be acceptable for an exposed-frame, unfinished, low-rent industrial building, such movements would be unacceptable in a renovated structure with well-appointed interior finishes as they would result in extensive damage to those finishes. The foundations would therefore need to be replaced if the building is to be renovated, to avoid such damage. Because of the extreme expense involved in a wide scale foundation replacement (we discussed several replacement and reinforcement options), there might not be sufficient remaining funds to either feasibly complete the project or to complete the project in a manner that would be complimentary to the site and the surrounding environs. P.O. Box 8560 /60 Washington Street, Suite 401 • Salem, Massachusetts 01971 Voice (978) 745-6817 • Fax (978) 745-6067 www.structures-north.coni < Structures North 28 Goodhue Street April 18,2005 Salem,MA Being satisfied that North River has earnestly considered and investigated options other than building demolition at 28 Goodhue Street, and understanding the unfeasibility of the building structure's adaptive re-use due to subsurface conditions as described in RTG's report, we see no technical grounds for opposing North River's move to demolish the remaining portion of the existing structure. Please contact me if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Respec John M. Wathne, PE, President Structures North Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2 08/03/04VuTUE 17: 28 FAX 978n 41 4083 �JJVy n SSD&C LLP � 0003 i ++^: RONTABLE AREA -------- 826TI0N OF BUIL-PINS TO 6E DEMOLISHED NORTH RIVER CANAL r 1 I I I I I 1 I i I I I I I 1 I � � 1 I ,v � I � I I�- .. 600GHUE STREET PARTIAL. 51TE PLAN �aGALL`r rib4'■ir•O N cr YAW Mrim Tme NORTHRIVERCA.NAL POTENTIAL SALVAGABLE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. SCHEME 2 12 &U)MD USE "rt Aug- 4. 2004- me M. 0411 pEVELOPMENI"PRWECT AH�RONIAN aru.,v cr hi acMso Ir MH "r"I N%K pys/R'�VMIRI SRCNITCGTS m,Goodhue achus. SCHEME 2 �NOIN eCRS r Salem, YOSSQCIIVSE}IS • TOTAL P.03 v��co Salem Historical Commission 120 Washington St. .SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745.9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404 APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF THE DEMOLITION DELAY ORDINANCE Pursuant to the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Chapter 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission Ordinance, application is hereby made for issuance of a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for demolition as described below. Building Construction Date, if known: 1900+/- Address of Property: 28 Goodhue Street Name of Record Owner: North River Canal LLC Description of Demolition Work Proposed: Demolition of remaining structure shown as the shaded area on a building plan entitled "Scheme 2 (08/04/04) " , resulting in the demolition of the entire structure on the site. Signature ofOwne'P Nort Luya&�LLU Tel. #: ( 978) 744-0212 Jqrseph/C. or en i, Esquire TS r ini, Sera ini, Darling & Correnti, LLP Mailing address: 6 ederal Street City: Salem State: MA Zip: 01915 PROCEDURES FOR FILING APPLICATIONS A. Be prepared to apply for approvals well in advance of commencing any exterior work. Before making any changes to the exterior of a property in an historic district,the owner should call or visit the Commission representative at the Salem Planning Department to discuss proposed alterations and to determine the category of the application(Appropriateness,Non-Applicability or Hardship). B. The Commission normally meets on the first and third Wednesdays of each month and notices are posted at City Hall. The meetings are held at 120 Washington Street,3rd floor,and begin at 7:30 p.m. All meetings are open to the public and any person is entitled to appear and be heard on any matter before the Commission before it reaches a decision. C. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness or Hardship must be received by 3:00 p.m.on the Monday 16 days before the meeting in order to make the agenda_ An application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability may normally be added to the agenda up to the day of the meeting. In some cases,a Certificate of Non-Applicability may be issued by the Clerk,withou:review by the full Commission,after receiving signatures of approval from an officer and a member o'the Commission. There is no fee for any applications. D. All applications for Certificates of Appropriateness or Hardship require a public hearing. Novice of the hearing must be posted with the City Clerk 14 days before the hearing and abutters must be notified in writing. Commission staff will handle these procedures. A public hearing is not required for a Certificate of Non-Applicability. E. Applications must be submitted by the owner of the property. In case of a tenant,a waiver cf the owner's appearance may be granted at the discretion of the Commission if it is requested by the owner. F. All applications must include three to four 35mm photographs of existing conditions. No certificates can be issued prior to receipt of photographs. G. An application will not be considered complete unless gl;_work items are thoroughly described on scaled drawings and include specifications regarding dimensions, materials, and any other information needed for the Commission to visualize the changes in order to make a determination. Applications for paint colors should ineude a paint chip or chart. The following items should be included in your drawings as applicable: - I. Site plan showing location of improvements; 2. Elevation drawings of the specific improvements: 3. Details/profiles(i.e.moldings,fence caps,cornices,vents,etc.); 4. Materials(i.e.wood,brick,etc.); 5. Dimensions(i.e.size of trim);and 6. Transformers,heat pump and condenser locations,electrical entries and meters,lamp posts,stove pipes. H. At the hearing,the Commission will discuss the application with the applicant or his mpresenta ve,hear the abutters and take a vote. Owner having professional consultants such as architects or contractors are urged to have them be present at the hearing. If the application is approved, a Certificate will be issued,mailed to the applicant and copies will be sent to the City Cleric and Building Inspector. Please note that the application can be continued until the next meeting if th.Commission deems necessary(i.e.for reasons of incomplete drawings,to perform a site visit,etc.). In any case,the Commission must make a determination within 60 days from the date the application is received,unless the applicant waives that requirement in writing. I. A property owner or a contractor cannot receive a building permit unless a Certificate has been issued or the applicant has a letter from the Commission stating that the change involved is not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. Please be sure to obtain appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings prior to commencing work. J. The City of Salem reserves the right to inspect the project to determine compliance with the conditions set forth in the Certificate issued. Violations A person commencing or completing work to the exterior of a buildng in an historic district without the necessary approval of the Commission is subject to fines of up to$500 per day from the date of violation. The Commission is not responsible for an owner's neglect to inquire about necessary City permits and approvals. All records are public and we will confidentially assist you if you are concerned that someone in your neighborhood is it violation. Assistance The Commission's guidelines are available for viewing at the Salem Planning Department and the Salem Public Library. The guidelines provide examples of what is historically appropriate(or inappropriate)for Salem's neighborhoods including trim,siding, doors,fences,gutters,masonry,paint actors, parking solutions, porches, roofing,satellite dishes, secondary egress,skylights, utilities,windows, etc. These guidelines help you understand what changes are likely or unlikely to be approved. The Commission supports your efforts to improve your property and can guide you on historical appropriateness. Further information,in the form of books,articles and pamphlets,City-wide architectu-al inventories,end photographs,are avai able at the Historical Commission's office at 120 Washington Street For more information,contact the Clerk of the Commission,Jane Guy,at the Salem Planning Department, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970,978 745-9595,Ext.311. Rev. 9/01 SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOHN R. SERAFINI. SR. TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI. JR. April 12 , 2005 978-744-0212 JOHN E. DARLING 781-581-2743 JOSEPH C. CORRENTI TELECOPIER VIA HAND DELIVERY 978-741-4683 Jane A. Guy, Clerk Salem Historical Commission 120 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Application for Waiver of Demolition Delay Ordinance North River Canal LLC 28 Goodhue Street Dear Ms. Guy: Enclosed for filing with the Historical Commission, please find an Application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance, together with the following: 1. Ten (10) copies of the Phase II Geotechnical Engineering Services Report dated February 1, 2005, prepared by RT Group, Inc. and Fairbanks Engineering Corporation; Inc. ; and 2 . Ten (10) copies of the Architecture and Physical Condition Report dated April 14, 2004, prepared by Aharonian & Associates, Inc. ; and 3 . Ten (10) copies of the Structural Report dated April 13, 2004 , prepared by C.A. Pretzer Associates, Inc. , including thirty-eight (38) photographs of the premises. Please place this matter on the Commission's agenda for its April 20, 2005 meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter. , Very truly y s �� os ph Corr ti JCC:dl Enclosures cc: North River Canal LLC Aharonian B Associates, Inc. 6 Blackstone Valley Place, Suite 110, Lincoln,RI 02865 PROJECT PROPOSED MiXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT THE NORTH RIVER CANAL Goodhue Street -Salem, Massachusetts AA No 0411 REPORT on the ARCHITECTURE and PHYSICAL CONDITION of the EXISTING BUILDING REPORT DATE: 4/14/04 IN9'CC]I(:)N DAIS WE WI'All1Er: TEMVE17hItIRC 3/24/04 10:00 AM sunny +/-45 degrees F KIFSENTATWE om Graie, PE -C A Prelzer Associates Inc. Mark Humphrys, RA-Aharonian &Associates Inc. Aharonian & Associates Inc. (Architect) and C. A. Prefzer Associates (Structural Engineer) conducted an inspection of the main building to assess Its Architectural value and present structural condition. The subject parcel of land is approximately 1.6 acres in area and has 2 existing structures on It. The main building is a 4 story structure with a footprint of approximately 32,500 square feet and is currently unoccupied. The secondary building is a 1 story structure that had a footprint of approximately 8,200 square feet until a recent fire reduced that area to approximately 5,000 square feet. This building is currently occupied by a small automotive repair shop. The following are our findings from the visual Inspection of the main building. The Structural Report is attached to the end of this report. t 1) The main building is a typical flat roof mill style structure with an 1 "shaped configuration and a 1 story boiler building appendage located at the internal comer of the "L The majority of the building is 4 stories in height but there is also a 2 story and a 1 story section located to the south and a 1 story section located to the northwest. These lower sections appear to have been additions that were made to the main °L 'shaped building over the years. The main building is wood frame construction with metal clapboard siding or transite shingle siding and a punched wood window pattern. The 1 story boiler building is brick construction with large linteled door openings and a few small arched windows. There is a chimney attached, consisting of a brick base and a tall metal stack. The 2 story section is CMU construction with a larger punched steel window pattern that extends from pier to pier. The southern 1 story section is precast concrete construction, also with a larger punched steel window pattern that extends from pier to pier. The 1 story section to the northwest is CMU construction, again, with a larger punched steel window pattern that extends from pier to pier. See Photos 1 -3, 5 -8, 11 & 14. 2) While the basic building design and the subsequent additions are fairly typical of period mill buildings, they unfortunately have none of the wonderful architectural detailing also typical for those buildings of that period. There are no ornamental cornices, detailed window and door trim, water tables, cornerboards or other similar detailing typical of period mill building architecture. The brick boiler building does have stone lintels and brick arches at the door and ` Page 1 of 3 Aharonian 8 Associates. Inc. 6 Blackstone Valley Place, Suite 110, Lincoln, RI 02865 window openings, however, the detailing stops there. There is no differentiation in the brick coursing, quoins, corbelling, cornices or other similar brick detailing of the period. See Photos 1 - 3, 5 -8, 11 & 14, 3) The lack of any historical architectural significance aside, the overall physical condition of this structure is a major concern. The building is racked in several locations and appears to have significant structural and settlement Issues. The exterior envelope of the main building and its additions are dilapidated and beyond repair, The metal siding is severely rusted, the transite shingles are falling off in several locations and the exterior walls are bulging at many locations due to the racking of the building structure. The CMU and precast concrete walls have major structural cracks and the built-up tar and gravel roofs are no longer viable systems. The brickwork is in very poor condition. The mortar joints are severely deteriorated, bricks have been displaced and have fallen out as have the brick arches over the windows, The windows are in poor condition or have failed completely as viable systems.See Photos 1 -10,12, 13,15& 16. 4) The Interior of the building is in a similar state of disrepair. The structure and walls have sagged and settled. The concrete floor slabs and wood floors have heaved and settled. The wood stairways also have the same problems. Because the building envelope has deteriorated, there is a significant amount of water damage to both the building structure and its interior components.See Photos 17 -38. 5) The existing heating, plumbing and electrical systems are outdated or have been cannibalized to the extent that they are no longer vlable systems. The sprinkler main assembly has a few new components that are probably salvageable, such as the backflow, preventors, but the distribution piping and sprinkler heads are old and the pipe sizes and head spacing pattern would not be appropriate for the proposed use. 6) Although a full code review has not been performed, it is readily apparent from this I inspection that the building is also in gross violation of the current State Building, Fire, Ufe Safety and Handicapped Accessibility Codes. Besides the obvious structural deficiencies which are addressed in the Structural section of this report, violations also include Inadequate egress facilities, non-flre rated stairways and egress corridors, no fire separation assemblies between tenants and different use groups, Inadequate finish material classifications for fire resistance requirements, Inaccessible spaces and building systems (ADA) and generally hazardous conditions,just to list a very few. 7) See the attached Structural Report prepared by C. A. Prefzer Associates Inc. for more specific and detailed observations relative to the structural Integrity of this building. CONCLUSIONS. Based on the above observations and those contained in the attached Structural Report, we offer the following recommendations: 1) There is no section or element of the existing building that has any Architectural significance to the project or the community at large that would dictate that the entire building or any portion of the building be salvaged for adaptive reuse. 2) Given the overall deteriorated condition of the building's envelope, structural systems, mechanical and electrical systems, the extensive Code violations and the concern over building settlement issues, salvaging the building or any portion of the building for adaptive reuse would not be feasible nor practicable, either physically or financially. Report on the Architecture and Physical Condition of the Existing Building Page 2 of 3 Aharonian 8 Associates, Inc. 6 Blackstone Valley Place, Suite 110,Lincoln, Rl 02865 3) Since It appears there are significant building settlement issues that need to be addressed, a Geotechnical investigation•should be performed to determine the vlabllity of the i soils relative to bearing capacity, water table elevation and similar related Issues to ensure that that proposed project could be properly constructed on this site. 4) Therefore, we recommend that the entire existing building be demolished down to the existing foundation level and the proposed Mixed Use Development be built on top of the existing foundation footprint, assuming that the foundations and soil characteristics are suitable to accommodate this scope of work. wpoprey: Mark Humphrys, RA � Project Architect Report on the Architecture and Physical Condition of the Existing Building Page 3 of 3 r STAUGUAB U U-R W April 18, 2005 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Historic Salem, Inc. INC. 9 North Street Salem, MA 01970 978-744-4536 Attention: Meg Twohey Reference: 28 Goodhue Street, Structural Condition Dear Meg: On Monday, April 4 we met with the RT Group, Inc. (RTG), Engineers that have been studying the existing foundation conditions below 28 Goodhue Street on behalf of the property owner, North River Canal, LLC (North River). This study was conducted at HSI's suggestion, following North Rivers withdrawal of a demolition delay ordinance waiver from the Salem Historical Commission, with the intent of adaptively re-using a major portion of the structure in lieu of demolition and replacement. As documented in RTG's very thorough report and as described verbally by RTG, the existing structure rests on groups of timber piles that were driven through unsuitable peat and loose fill layers into an underlying, clay layer in order to carry the building. RTG determined in their investigations that the timber pile penetration into the clay is insufficient to provide proper and unyielding support for the structure, and may be responsible for at least some of the vertical movements that have been noted on site. While in our opinion a limited amount of movement would be acceptable for an exposed-frame, unfinished, low-rent industrial building, such movements would be unacceptable in a renovated structure with well-appointed interior finishes as they would result in extensive damage to those finishes. The foundations would therefore need to be replaced if the building is to be renovated, to avoid such damage. Because of the extreme expense involved in a wide scale foundation replacement (we discussed several replacement and reinforcement options), there might not be sufficient remaining funds to either feasibly complete the project or to complete the project in a manner that would be complimentary to the site and the surrounding environs. P.O. Box 8560 /60 Washington Street, Suite 401 • Salem, Massachusetts 01971 Voice (978) 745-6817 • Fax (978) 745-6067 www.structures-north.com r Structures North 28 Goodhue Street April 18,2005 Salem,MA Being satisfied that North River has earnestly considered and investigated options other than building demolition at 28 Goodhue Street, and understanding the unfeasibility of the building structure's adaptive re-use due to subsurface conditions as described in RTG's report, we see no technical grounds for opposing North River's move to demolish the remaining portion of the existing structure. Please contact me if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Respec John M. Wathne, PE, President Structures North Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2 Y f C RT Group, Inc. tngmeered honi!Iw Ground Lle"' February 1, 2005 Mr. Anthony Roberto North River Canal, LLC 282 Bennington Street East Boston, MA 02128 RE: Phase 11 Geotechnical Engineering Services 28 Goodhue Street Building, Salem, MA FEC/RTG Project Nos. 04011.00/04114.01 Dear Anthony: In accordance with our Engineering Services Proposal dated November 30, 2004, we have evaluated the existing building foundation system at 28 Goodhue Street. Our Phase II work included three (3) days of test pit excavations to determine if the existing foundation system is pile supported. We also completed analyses to determine whether or not it will be possible to utilize the existing foundation and/or "underpin" it to g support the proposed building loads. Further, we evaluated a new pile foundation system to support the proposed building loads. Budget-Level construction costID estimates have been prepared for each alternative investigated. Based on the test pits completed, we have determined that the interior columns and o perimeter walls of the subject building are supported on timber piles, and that these " piles range from about 10'-0" to 16'-8" in length. Although the piles are in good condition and no decay or rot was observed, they are considerer too short to support the proposed building based on estimated building loads and the subsurface conditions encountered. A SD S Summarized below is a discussion of the Phase 11 Investigation results, alternatives and estimated construction costs to support the existing/proposed building, and conclusions and recommendations. i 0 N lD Phase II Investigation Results Four (4) Phase 11 test pits (TP-1 through TP-4) were completed between December 13 and 14, 2004 (Figure 1). One (1) additional test pit (TP-5) was completed on December w 22, 2004 (Figure 1). The test pits were completed using a track mounted excavator by g Fred and Barney Demolition of Danvers, MA. When timber piles were encountered, a nylon sling was attached to the butt of a selected pile and the pile was extracted using o the excavator by pulling it out of the ground. The pile diameter and length were w measured following extraction. N A summary of the conditions encountered during test pit excavation is presented in Table 1. A total of three (3) interior and two (2) exterior test pits were completed across the site (Figure 1). It is assumed that the conditions encountered at these locations are representative of the conditions that will be encountered beneath the oa 8 Geotechnical Waterfront Structural Civil Geo-Environmental BE Mr. Anthony Roberto 2 February 1, 2005 proposed building, and schematic figures highlighting the conditions encountered are presented in Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Because a crawl space was encountered during excavation at Test Pit No. 3 no additional exploratory work was completed at this location, and it was not possible to prepare a schematic figure of the conditions encountered at this location. Photographs at Test Pit No. 3, as well as the conditions encountered at the other test pit locations, are provided in Appendix A. Table 1 Test Pit Summary 28 Goodhue Street Building, Salem, MA Test Pit No. Timber Pile Butt Timber Pile Tip Timber Pile Diameter (in) Diameter (in) Length (ft) Comments Interior Column 1 8.5 to 10.0 6.0 12.0 Location, 4 timber piles per Column Exterior 2 8.5 to 10.0 7.5 10.0 Column/Wall, 2 timber piles per Column Exterior Column/Wall, 3 Not Ascertained Not Ascertained Not Ascertained Crawl Space Discovered, Stop Work Groundwater Infiltrated into 4 Not Ascertained Not Ascertained Not Ascertained Test Pit, But Timber Piles Observed Interior Column 5 8.5 to 10.0 6.0 16.67 Location, 4 timber piles per Column Pile Capacity Analyses Static pile capacity analyses were completed to estimate the individual and group capacity of the timber piles at each of the above test pit locations. Based on the preliminary analyses completed (Appendix B), the ultimate capacity of the timber piles at the interior column locations (e.g., TP-1 and TP-5) is estimated to range from about 7 to 8 tons per pile. The ultimate capacity of the timber piles at the exterior column locations (e.g., TP-2 and TP-4) is estimated to be about 6 tons per pile. Mr. Anthony Roberto 3 February 1, 2005 There are a total of four (4) piles at each interior column location and up to two (2) piles spaced about 8 feet on center along the exterior of the existing building. The ultimate group capacity at the interior column locations is estimated to range from about 28 to 32 tons, and the ultimate group capacity at the exterior column locations is estimated to be about 12 tons. Based on the framing plans provided, and what are considered to be reasonable dead and live loads (Table 2), the total estimated load at the interior column locations is about 79 tons, and the total estimated load at the exterior column locations is about 25 tons. Based on this, the estimated Factor of Safety (FOS) of the interior column pile groups is about 0.40. The estimated FOS of the exterior piles is about 0.60. The minimum recommended FOS for pile design is 2.0, and the existing foundation system is not adequate to support the proposed building loads. Table 2 Assumed Dead and Live Loads Acting on Proposed Building 28 Goodhue Street Building, Salem, MA Location Estimated Dead Load (PSF) Estimated Live Load (PSF) 15 Floor 80 100 2nT Floor 20-25 50 Yff Floor 20-25 50 4 Floor 20-25 50 Roof 20-25 30 Down-drag effects were also considered due to the consolidation/settlement of the underlying peat layer (Figures 2 through 5) and the subsequent settlement of the fill layer above it. This settlement has and will continue to occur due to Long-term secondary compression of the peat. Down-drag effects will increase the total load on each pile and reduce its effective capacity. Based on the preliminary analyses completed, the FOS of the interior column pile groups is estimated to be about 0.20 to 0.30. The estimated FOS for the exterior column piles is about 0.30. The minimum FOS with respect to down-drag for design is 1.0 and the existing foundation system is not adequate to support the proposed building loads. Dead and Live Loads provided by C.A. Pretzer Associates and assume first floor commercial loading and residential loading above. Z The estimated Dead Load (DL) does not include the weight from a possible concrete overlay on the 2nd, 3rd and 41" floors, which may be required to level the floors. If this is required, it will increase the DL, which will further reduce the factor of safety (FOS) on the piles. ZE Mr. Anthony Roberto 4 February 1, 2005 Remedial Alternatives The preliminary analyses completed indicate that additional vertical capacity must be provided at the interior column locations to provide a minimum FOS of 2.0 with respect to pile capacity (and a minimum FOS of 1.0 with respect to down-drag). This is also true at the exterior column locations. If the existing foundation system is to be used to support the proposed building, this will require that the interior and exterior columns be underpinned using some type of deep foundation system. Screening of Alternatives A summary of alternatives that were considered to underpin the existing building are presented in Table 3. Of the four (4) alternatives considered, two (2) alternatives were carried forward for a detailed evaluation. These alternatives included (1) Resistance Piers and (2) Drilled Mini-Piles. Table 3 Screening of Alternatives 28 Goodhue Street Building, Salem, MA Remedial Alternative Installation Comments Equipment/Method Low-Clearance Auger Rig, Not Considered Suitable for Auger Cast Concrete Pile Concrete Placed as Augers Site Soils, Vibrations During Withdrawn Installation a Concern Frk-Lift Mounted Impact Multiple Butt Welds Driven H-Pile Hammer, Short Sections of Required (time and H-Pile Driven and Butt money), Vibrations During Welded Together Driving a Concern Commonly Used to Resistance Pier Hydraulically Installed Pipe Underpin Damaged Pile Buildings, Little to No Vibration Low-Clearance Drill Rig, Short Sections of Pipe Pile Commonly Used to Drilled Mini-Pile Screwed Together and Filled Underpin Damaged with Concrete Buildings, Minimal Vibration Each of these alternatives is discussed in more detail below. Resistance Piers Resistance Piers are small diameter steel pipe piles (about 4 inches in diameter) that are "pushed" to the desired bearing depth using hydraulic equipment. A steel support bracket is bolted to the exterior of the building (in this case the interior and/or exterior pile caps) and short sections of pipe pile are inserted at the bracket and hydraulically pushed into the underlying soil. Once the first section of pile has been installed, ME Mr. Anthony Roberto 5 February 1, 2005 another section of pile is attached (by screwing the sections together), and the process is repeated until the desired resistance is attained. To adequately support the proposed building, it is estimated that a total of ten (10) Resistance Piers would need to be installed at each interior column location. A total of four (4) Resistance Pier would need to be installed at each exterior column location. Assuming that about fourteen (14) interior columns would remain, a total of 140 Resistance Piers would be needed to underpin the interior columns. Assuming that about 222 linear feet of building would remain, a total of 264 Resistance Piers would be needed to underpin the exterior of the building (includes the sides and ends of the building). Prior to installing the Resistance Piers, the structural floor slab of the building would be saw-cut into pieces and removed. The asphalt pavement and concrete floor slab on the exterior of the building would also be saw-cut and removed. After the floor slabs/pavement had been removed, a trench would be excavated around the interior columns and around the exterior of the building. The trench would need to be about 4 feet wide and 4 feet deep to provide adequate clearance for installing the Resistance Piers. After the trenches were excavated, steel brackets would be attached to the interior and exterior columns, and the Resistance Piers would be hydraulically installed. Upon completion, the excavated trenches would be backfilled with onsite excavated material and a new structural floor slab poured (new reinforcing steel would need to be drilled and grouted into position at the interior and exterior pile cap locations). Based on the preliminary analyses completed, the Resistance Piers would be about 70- feet-long and would terminate in the Silty/Sand stratum located below the Fill and Peat layers. The final length would be determined during final design, and additional and deeper soil borings could be required to finalize the Resistance Pier lengths. One caveat associated with this system is the potential to encounter obstructions in the Fill layer above the Peat. Obstructions could result in significant cost and schedule impacts. Drilled Mini-Piles The drilled Mini-Piles would be similar to the Resistance Piers, except that they would be drilled into position. The Mini-Piles would consist of small diameter steel pipe piles (about 8 inches in diameter) that would be advanced in short sections (that are screwed together) using a low-clearance drill rig. Reinforcing steel would be inserted into the upper portion of the installed pipe after drilling to the desired bearing depth, and the open pipe pile filled with concrete. The reinforcing steel at the top of the drilled Mini- Pile would be connected to the columns and the entire upper assembly cast into the structural floor slab. To adequately support the proposed building, it is estimated that a total of six (6) Drilled Mini-Piles would need to be installed at each interior column location. A total of two (2) drilled Mini-Pile would need to be installed at each exterior column location. ME Mr. Anthony Roberto 6 February 1, 2005 (Rev 01, 02/21/2005) Assuming that about fourteen (14) interior columns would remain, a total of 84 drilled Mini-Piles would be needed to underpin the interior columns. Assuming that about 222 linear feet of building would remain, a total of 132 drilled Mini-Piles would be needed to underpin the exterior of the building (includes the sides and ends of the building). The drilled Mini-Piles would be about 35- to 45-feet-long and would terminate in the Silty/Sand stratum located below the Fill and Peat layers. The final length would be determined during final design, and additional and deeper soil borings could be required to finalize the Resistance Pier lengths. The Mini-Pile system would not be significantly affected by obstructions in the fill layer above the Peat. Estimated Construction Costs The estimated quantities and unit cost breakdowns for the Resistance Pier and Drilled Mini-Pile Alternatives are provided in Appendix C (Tables C-1 and C-2). For comparison, a quantity and unit cost breakdown was also prepared to install a completely new pile foundation system to support the proposed building, assuming that the existing building and its foundation were demolished and removed (Table C-3). It was assumed that this new foundation system would be supported by 30- to 45-foot-long 12-inch diameter CCA treated timber piles (lengths to be verified during Final Design). A summary of estimated construction costs is presented in Table 4. Table 4 Estimated Construction Costs 28 Goodhue Street Building, Salem, MA Alternative Estimated Construction Cost Underpin Existing Foundation w/ Resistance Piers $1,900,000.00 Underpin Existing Foundation w/ Drilled $1,460,000.00 Mini-Piles Completely New Pile Supported $740,000.00 Foundation System Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the completed analysis, the cost to provide the needed support to the existing piles to carry the proposed building is not reasonable. Supporting and underpinning the existing foundation will cost approximately $700,000.00 to $1,200,000.00 more than building a new foundation, depending upon which remedial alternative is selected. This does not include the remedial costs associated with repairing the existing superstructure. We believe that these latter costs could be significant and should be factored into a cost comparison of repairing the existing superstructure compared to new construction. 3 The estimated Construction Costs do not include design, permitting, or services during construction. ME Mr. Anthony Roberto 7 February 1, 2005 We trust that this evaluation is suitable for your needs at this time and we await direction for final design of the selected alternative. In the meantime, please call us if you have any questions or require additional assistance. Sincerely, RT Group, Inc. Fairbanks Engineering Corporation s� J E3g q o R SS No.43 0 9 1 James B. Russell, P.E. Robert Fairbanks, P.E. Principal / Senior Project Manager President R:\Projects\04114.01 -Phase II Services\CORRES\Phase II Report.doc L7�/ -n C rn NOTE: DRAWING SCANNED FROM A PLAN PROVIDED TO FAIRBANKS ENGINEERING BY AHARONIAN ASSOCIATES, INC. SECTION OF BUILDING DEMOLISHED mTP-5 B-1 73' _I z B-4 F as �B 4A Q^ 9 >w SS-Fp m 7 al "O O O OQPT ZTP•3 O Z � mTP-4 0 SB-3 OLD POWER B-2 PLANT 5z 0 0 TP-1 ONE STORY - (D�LISHED)DITION p H N O I) FOUR STORY BUILDING o (DEMOLISHED) mTP-1 z = 'P o 000 LEGEND SCALE: 1"=60' B-4 SOIL BORING (BY NH BORING FOR FEC, JUNE 28-30, 2004) mTP 4 TEST PIT (BY FRED AND BARNEY DEMOLITION FOR FEC, DECEMBER 2004) 77777 EXISTING BUILDING RT Group, Inc. 28 GOODHUE STREET FIGURE 1 SHEET 1 of 1 mss, m, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DATE: BORING AND TEST PIT DEC 2004 .' �'; " ' °ho°""'°0T1 NORTH RIVER CANAL, LLC LOCATION PLAN PROJ No. �e eiao aoi<,e szn EAST BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS - - x_� <� �^^� 04114.01 FILENAME: 04114.001 DWGS/TEST PIT PLAN.DWG INTERIOR TIMBER GROUND SURFACE COLUMN (EL. 0, ASSUMED—\ \` FLOOR DATUM) SLAB -- 28� VARIES _67 -- . � O Z ::) 13 W w FILL WW W W W W 11 W W .v v W W Y W Y W W W W W W Y .Y W W W / Ll -10 W W W W W W .Y W W •Y W W Y W Y W W Y W Y Y Y W O w W W 2 W v�( Co 1 W W W Z N 3 W W W Y W W W W W W W Y W W Y L Y Y Y W L v W W W Y W W W Y W W Y W W W 1a- YPEAT W 2 W W W W W W Y Y W W Y Y W W Y W LLJ 0 'TIMBER' 13 PILE- -20 13 SILT/SAND .N.. VALUES INTERIOR COLUMN CONFIGURATION AT TEST PIT NO. 1 N.T.S. RT Group, Inc 28 GOODHUE STREET SHEET 1 of 1 FnpnerrN m.�mr c�wva uP _ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS FIGURE 2 DATE Amm..ee.Risimwa,iu NORTH RIVER CANAL, LLC DEC-04 I F 40wl aae sim F ai 43852T, EAST BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS PROD 04114.4. 01 FILENAME: 04114.001 DWGS/SALEM FOUNDATION PROFILES.DWG EXTERIOR BUILDING WALL GROUND SURFACE (EL. 0, ASSUMED — FLOOR DATUM) SLAB o - — — 28 4'-6" �RIES 67 27 �. Z �. 44,. 13 � L~LJ FILL V Lr_ W W • 11 .Y .L W -Y W y W y .L W y y y 3 -10 w J. W -Y W W Y W y y W y y .Y y W •Y y OwvW y 2 Wim( Co LL W W W .y y y y W W W W y W W Nu W y y W y W W W W y W y y Y PEikT W 2 W y y W W y y L2J Q TIMBER 13 PILI= . . -20 13 SILT/SAND „N„ VALUES PERIMETER WALL CONFIGURATION AT TEST PIT NO. 2 N.T.S. REG R7 Group, Inc. 28 GOODHUE STREET SHEET 1 of 1 Tnqi�Imm dw.crwM uo DATE ie/Tau A. .s,me202 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS FIGURE 3 L""'"" m Rhode 11aid O"t4 NORTH RIVER CANAL, LLC DEC-04 T M 43e 3100 I a01 M 5275 EAST BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS PROJ No. ..are.h.cl ww.eMn w,a,,.Y ca u..em�.,,n ✓ 04114.01 FILENAME: 04114.00/DWGS/SALEM FOUNDATION PROFILES.DWG EXTERIOR BUILDING WALL GROUND SURFACE �� FLOOR (EL. 0, ASSUMED \� SLAB \ DATUM) \\ 0 70 FILL 16 PARIES 4' v v J. W W W W f:.• +: W W W W W W W Z O7 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W cl. WW JW W W .4 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 0 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W LL- 3 W -10 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W O1V\ J' W W WON' W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W MW Q W N W W W 1 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W a PEAT W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W o . 14 . TIMBER PILE, 17 SEE NOTE 1 -20 20 SILT/SAND VALUES NOTES: 1. TIMBER PILE NOT EXTRACTED AT THIS LOCATION, PILE LENGTH UNKNOWN PERIMETER WALL CONFIGURATION AT TEST PIT NO. 4 N.T.S. wg RT Group, Inc. 28 GOODHUE STREET SHEET 1 of 1 FngineM1om theGrwnd Up SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS FIGURE 4 DATE "1 rawer,aeM So.W m DEC-04 cern 14M 311 RhtM H 438 5914 NORTH RIVER CANAL, LLC T qDi qSB noD v qot ane sns EAST BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS PROD wntaw twmnmx vuwd <xa ab n,.;,onn..,,..: 04114.4. 01 FILENAME: 04114.DO/DWGS/SALEM FOUNDATION PROFILES.DWG INTERIOR TIMBER GROUND SURFACE 1 COLUMN (EL. 0, ASSUMED -\ DATUM) \\ / FLOOR 0 — — A — /_T SLAB 20 FILL 39" W W 6 W W W W W W W W W W W W W - VAMI y y W y W 12" W W W -z i W W b W W W 5'_D•' y y y W W y W w 'PEAT w W W w W W W � W y W w W W Z 16 w w 10 w -10 O Uj Q 6 m FILL = W W W W W W y W W W y W W y W W L � w 1- LIl W W 5 , W W y W W W W W y W W W W y 0- PEAT,Lli W W W y y W W W W W W W W w W 15 . 20 -20 SAND „N,. TIMBER VALUES PILE INTERIOR COLUMN CONFIGURATION AT TEST PIT NO. 5 N.T.S. RT m�fl Group, Inc. 28 GOODHUE STREET SHEET 1 of 1 Engiixaed �GM,�uP DATE 19,Tamm.mavme.wne mi SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS FIGURE 5 DEC-04 Eas NwlA me,ghode lslaM°s9w NORTH RIVER CANAL, LLC PROJ No. T wt 45fl st°° F 4°14sa s:n EAST BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 04114.01 FILENAME: 04114.00/DWGS/SALEM FOUNDATION PROFILES.DWG 2 D O v � m � z D v_ � X c=n D ` � - Vis. .,ert�•�`. WL s. TOM F9 w � v .F Photo No. 1: Pile Cap Extracted at Test Pit No. 1 (Interior Column). m - L s P k Y A Y r"� ' �•' Vii•:� � � �. .�'. .. q1> Photo No. 2: Pile Cap Extracted at Test Pit No. 1, Note four (4) Timber Pile Locations (Interior Column). D iq Photo No. 3: Timber Pile Extracted at Test Pit No. 1 (Interior Column). Y ( +f Phcto No. 4: Timber Pile (Tip End) Extracted at Test Pit No. 1 (Interior Column). iy Photo No. 5: Timber Pile Being Extracted at Test Pit No. 2 (Perimeter Footing). h AW �•- 1 EY tir v a e Photo No. 6: Timber Pile (Tip Erd) Extracted at Test Pit No. 2 (Perimeter Footing) Photo No. 7: Crawl Space below Interior Floor Slab at Test Pit No. 3 (unable to confi*m timber pile locations). Photo No. 8: Timber Pile at Test Pit No. 4 (Perimeter Footing) �s v m v c � n v o o �* � o in g e t I e t i / APPENDIX B SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS EXISTING TIMBER PILE CAPACITY 0 o � � cA L ° e • � n n , s s Col x A WWLy F ° CI ri CA cod N y g L o r L y m m N P O T p o` (+ J o o — J _ t N • IncPAGE OE RT Group, nPROJECT Z$ 60oitUE ST, PROJECT NO. 04 IF 4.0 � Engineered From the Ground Up SUBJECT TILU CBATAC4 Tf COMPUTATIONS BYI�I�/i•,yC� DATE �� is CHECK BY DATE rzo-Vr Co VT i I I CotiQ��slo�.ls: • E_ `C SfI_7�ti(,-77All ULT C,,jf44C-C"r7' 09C T Ca 73 • 'T-&tE GR c FAQ 09= JkF vF 'r+ R,WdES A40t ggojT Or40 -1-0 • T�>E �sFc-0K .4 a. ' CA4r67Y AL£ in/!l 06N AiE /I�.iO_ "7�y� 'AYCV3pjs LTJ 't3VlLDr�y G. .wr l..C, rV 3� vMO - f�1�N�p a+L s4 tJ;37\� E7 Sv�1�J 27"L�� Fc9C/n/(�iF7"-(s'v .�'VS7LF VC' I • • Inc PAGE RT Group, c. PNOIEC G 6OG1DNl/£ D1. Pe 01ECT NO o-4II Engineered From the Ground Up s US I E C T. T I"C1t-�A, I;u L,e CAIDAC t T/ COM PUTATIO N5 BY TP•"I.'.+ DATE CHECK BY -DATE /-Za- or Op, c_C EST••^-� ✓n/T T' ssfiar NT SES+r,�J Imo. A SSvMa � ->•cr E -- -- `�'/�.E Co,•J F-r�,�y1;-r r,l AT -T'!� I is 'F-,/01 cA'L EXISTT�1 V cGnvoE O 4 — v � + 5 2s =2S_,.__z5 9,f_ �� •8f 0 °t � I S1l.T -7- 20 —� I f -�5 = kS • z� Y +�„ $ kS _ 1• o �°R.. -uk,�� �I�s I S CI�.L - (II '0) ( �$/•13DPcc�a ¢'U3o -6 Z,4PEc �� ('(-E„�1�°� = Z4IZ'ps>- /--?dP °F _ �•a )CC4' t3ancF)+ 4f(t3o -6z.4a°-(3)EF°,^ Ii) � X5'3 nsr o' _ (i, o )(C4/•BuPrF)+ 4f(f3o - G2. 4-Pc'�) + 6 /190 -G2.9P�-F)x•�.11)� t8 j Psf- laoTral aF %4-r � N 9 G C4 t j v' Ul al 1,p a N Wp a im " d f O OD g o o O J V\ N - a RR N ✓ V N N llff r /1 I CD a 0 GIIZ ti ca a o � v U C � 3VI •m � JJ r , ° 11 II C)b C4 _Z — r� oQ //� aCIO tr n 1 0 0 f n a c m w 9 N tA Y l O ` 2 s aCA Q ri Table 1 5�47 . Static Capacity Summary 26 Goodhue Street Building Prepared by RT Group, Inc.,January 10,2005 Pile Penetration in Stratum FT Estimated Friction TIF Estimated Capacity TONS Pile Upper Lower Upper Lower Percent Area Type Fill Peat Silt/Sand Fill Fill Peat SiltlSand Fill Fs Pt(l) Pult Pall 2) Friction TP-1 Timber 4.5 6 1 0 0.24 0.20 0.30 0.24 2.58 4.0 7 3 39 TP-2 Timber 3 6.5 1 0 0.24 0.20 0.30 0.24 2.32 4.0 6 3 37 TP-5 Timber 2 7 5.5 2 0.24 0.20 0.30 0.24 4.01 4.0 8 4 50 (1)See Static Capacity calculations for estimate of point bearing. (2) Pall = Pult1FS,where FS=2.0. 0 �ooF — i Fu- FLoo< FL t Jud 0. . R - / 15 [-r T-. � - ��•Sif'��C ,y�rc��AY � \ �'` � yam; �� - � --'� `� 1 �!� 'a _ .. r �A� _• mow. �_ - � -.iv+ , R -•. wt � -:- !yam. a t - .w _ - T m i C I [n 1 i d . N w o I I \ 1 ® v® v 1 I I 1 � 1 � ' ST9T I I I _ � e - I I o I I e ❑ ❑ 1 1 i e i I i CN Tl � - NCi I i . I I i I 1 - ! ❑ ❑ I — I I I I - j 0 . N 1 eam 41d 1 FKilu-co✓G P LAN I I � I I I I _ I I _ I . ED0 � I I U� � � n FvCAvtiniV ` XAAj I I ' I I _ I I J i I I i I � _ ❑ [] - I � Page 1 of 1 5 b/7- James B. Russell From: Laurie Gibeau [Igibeau@rtg-eng.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 12:40 PM To: 'James B. Russell' Subject: 28 Goodhue Street Hi, Jim- Bob Fairbanks called with these numbers: Exterior wall column spacing: 87 on center Interior column spacing: 16'6"on center(east-west axis), 20'on center(north-south axis) Len th of building they are trying to save: 222'8" Dead loads 2nd aro, 4w floors and roof: 20-25 psf 1'floor: 80 psf Perimeter walls: 20 psf for face, not including pile cap Live loads: Roof: d, psf 2nd 3rd 41h floors: 50 psf(residential) 1st floor: 100 psf(commercial) Laurie Gibeau Project Engineer RT Group, Inc. 197 Taunton Avenue, Suite 202 East Providence, Rhode Island 02914 Phone: 401 438 3100 Fax:410 438 5275 1/10/2005 Z to N iC+ O W j n 3 0 IF P\ Zl" o � IJ 11 it I+ cc c C r n \ V Cd Gu 0 L x K a d In - ' ° y y y LM Wt Cb 0a G 4 � — - --- y C4 �° r o i fJ rl Il 1� L `C c rl q !0 d �n m N CA —_ .. } D o GN ° m O (% o I d C.1 G a o o N r a x C � � N Ro a @ t' jp- o S` p LOfi N o a a O s —_--- — -j-- /� - .— G o I i n Iu11' Table 2 7,4/7- Group FOS Estimate 28 Goodhue Street Building - Prepared by RT Group,Inc.,January 10,2005 Tributary Area Pile Cap Perimeter Wall TributaryArea Total Unfactored No. of Group Group Min Recommended Area Location DL(TONS) DL(TONS) DL(TONS) LL(TONS) DL+ LL(TONS) P„k(1) Piles per Location PA FOS(2) FOS TP-1 Interior Column 29.70 3.45 — 46.20 79.35 7 4.0 28 0.4 2.0 TP-2 Perimeter 8.20 2.20 3.20 11.20 21.60 6 2.0 12 0.6 2.0 TP-5 Interior Column 29.70 3.45 — 46.20 79.35 8 4.0 32 0.4 2.0 Footnotes• (1)See Static Capacity calculations for Ultimate Pile Capacity. 2 Group Ultimate Capacityrrotal Unfactored DL+LL Table 3 Group FOS Estimate w/Downdrag Included 28 Goodhue Street Building - Prepared by RT Group, Inc.,January 10,2005 Total Unfactored Downdrag No. of Total Total Unfactored Group Group Min Recommended Area Location DL+LL(TONS)(1) (TONS)(1) Plies per Location Downdrag(TONS) w/Downdrag(TONS) P„n(2) P„it FOS(3) FOS TP-1 Interior Column 79.35 2.28 4.0 9 88 4.7 18.9 0.2 1 0 TP-2 Perimeter 21.60 2.02 2.0 4 26 4.0 8.0 0.3 1.0 TP-5 Interior Column 79.35 2.36 4.0 9 89 5.6 22.6 0.3 1.0 Footnotes: (1)See Table 2. (2)See Static Capacity calculations for Ultimate Pile Capacity(Downdrag subtracted out). 3 Group Ultimate Capacityrrotal Unfactored w/Downdrag. RESISTANCE PIERS _ ) (Z k q ) — IA . - ® : } \ � / m \ - . � ® (1) & . k ° \ E $ \ E & ; / © A4 ° ° / -b tz \ x a ) t j � } / � - -– --——- - —– -- –— = --- - - } -- Atlas Foundation Systems, Inc. —Page 3-of 5— EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING FOOTING I ATLAS HERS NEW SLAB AT LOWER ELEVATION PLAN VIEW Below is a cross sectional sketch of the Atlas Pier installed to the existing structure and the relationship of the ne original structure. CAnhnuou 1 Concrete Spread Footing iF-IIJ .'. . Attar Rer 1 F-F"Column wth Little or No Lateral Soil Support 07,QQ Sleeve New Rni shed Floor Over V Rer Ta Stiffen Segmentedk Joints _ Load Bearing Strata atS9.3 Feet Below Footing SECTION http://www.atiasfoundations.com/110-12.htm1 1/14/2005 m CZ a --- -- --- - - I m qZ L It Q o 0 N 9 n 2 f s 4 N N D =Z J V rl P r a tit ' 4Z n Cl �} IJ Il r1 if, } T i l CAJ G 1 U RTGroup, Inc PROJECT Vfi �T PROJECT NO. �diIC ,Q Engineered From the Ground Up SUBJECT �P tESt S Tr-)CE �'�t•"< S COMPUTATIONS BY QPqqtyYC/ DATE CHECK BY ([`w• DATE •-�'_I -- I ilitF ? Pi c`tiC a ,p®.T/F?' (it 0 .4 `r/Ifo /,F?)( X 4 Zr 7 21 J i dYl9 z/�T ) (%e = 32 -1T - u . T - PrfFIMGg L/ 7x y 3 Mv'rw,+M _M 4 oz:vGN -- -- - - �C = r/0 .8 M �E sr/-,d�c6 P/e S eK CbLvt4 I ro ( Or9' T/t>:'lD 'T —0If, i Z,6 ? p ,/`) tie'r ( v -7,6"( � _ ,f� i I / / 014 I C / • ,Q PAGE �", OE J _ RTGroup/ Inc PROJECT GOAD {N� ST, PROJECT NO. Engineered From the Ground Up SUBJECT ;$SSI Z—T-&JCF 'Iw_7Z COMPUTATIONS BYDATE CHECK BY DATE //���� O IL lJJ(,C'.�L l-�17 S, � r i , 0g rlr-r) C6 ) (0,0 TlF-r)C9 ) CCA-V. q (o. /S-r C/,3 fi- (0,1 'r/$:-1 x 7 7 I oa (0 /9 -r/G'7 0, 7' lx) = /2 r 4 T / X I'-+�aaac�r ca L,/ guy E SI S-WCC PI&C, - Lfyz C bLv 1� 1�11�^It.S U tt4J T_/F T)_�X )---./o, �'� � - 0 - 0 A/ 7 i (Orf9 'T1,r?) (x 1 = Sr9 T / •, = fir+ C> 9. S3 S / x 55 � 1 I II i � I i � I v F r m v 3 z v F m I i fr3 O/`D7 � e7 _53-7 cl - /niW I I vA/ 9no7 n S � t7 S3� J/ —/rvyPV �1�r �7 ^ � Snl n7o -y ,s�rv� •, � >Sn"IJt`+o•� N 7C�LS'v S -- '�Shci1.V'7f1 I ( yooZ J.�n qty/ �7 Cf . = S:ash-7 b^vV of I • `�1J1/�'g, iC�. S77 ��,�vdy� �'3,d, S ✓��?�L/ 0. 3L� tr o� rw? i 1g'�Z s fJv�r^'j0� 'Yo,743LYdi p'7 -7 7 a- Q, C CcS3 o Slvw177oo .VDix / Iti= r� -7 7 7 CL CM-f ism -- 9h1�S1 � /�, oJ l�ro�ln�y S�iclzrd, �>•r1. �za S aL }-t[. r�-1 .3�1�3,- 11vny css'1 yyQ, cv�� �� 3 lwx3s-�Q ;�Ssdi2f �Q M 31tl0 A9 V33n3 5 , OT-7-31v0 A9 SNOI1tl1nd WO3 1 Q 1)31ens do punm9 ayd wo33 palaaui5u3 �a -tro 'ON 1331O8d .�S �.M1H000� IP7 1331OXd Y ✓ °.7LIJdfP®J°.� l.8 _ dO T39Yd � 1 � r rq i� rn o TQ � Cn N 1 I q co M eta JAm I Cl, 1 I I 11 I N V fl � 0 0 iN -- S. _-�- / i i I I i I j S lha, 9 •(, / - 5 net / • 0/ �' ( X� � dIL 0) 8 hG9/l37 3714 "/n•iw - -- � S� FIs e/9L• o� " , 8 • � , � f_-�—I "1 � tr —I 1 r - i - -- - Snoc g SNy ^moo + ( I C1?/i �/ O ) _ -to ' i tion gn.o.J.w�n��V� SO_Q7�-31tl0 Jry, Afi NJ3H] sxolltlindWO3 s gk'11()— 1 fe)Y- 0.T'll12^Q i J 31 o n s do punoly ayl wo3j padaauj3u3 1]310 da S 3h!-fpC � QZ 133(old 'DUI -dnoi 1� f0 T '39Vd NEW TIMBER PILE FOUNDATION m °y c C 3 Ci m cl L r 1� x - � z m � l\ -4 ri NG A CJ o it b, n n 7 r- --U ( -Y� { ` - - R7 0 0 9 R i - -� - - - -- - Z - - - -- --- --- i �, m G� � ec ` f 9 I ° Iv ` Volo o � \ I a • • - I, I -I . r � I tG � � N i o a a i i e lh e o o� t!1 I RTGroup, Inc. PROJECT ZC� J� 1lr i i� Pe OIECT NO. CD Engineered From the Ground Up S U 6I E C T r✓�"u 71'`'-4"<- ����5 COMPUTATIONS Sy_ y~�� PATE CHECK 6Y- Rcu� OATC -Zoor Q2ALG.ULA-"-Ic)G r ov 7 c IJZ CALcs S• F+L L Z i fL 2, Ll 2 5, 2 '7/ Fr i CCC 2- 17- 3 Z3 /F3 S x1 ,., b• 2 b T I FT i rs _ 90 4 +/r 47 11 pi ) '� 1 src-rr8eu� LL � Z � f Z Zrk r� $o'Tta,4 oc ?,oCc.J6 42 @ �.7 F^2 = 4G 144" = 23 T �q oo r � = b a I I r i N d rl VA LA I -p m r -� K 1 1 ,p W N -p 'H _ _ o 1' C • PAGE S OI - R/ Group, Inc PROJECT �' � PR OI ECT N0. (2-4f 4 ,D Engineered From the Ground Up SUBJECT -"S C O M P T A T l 0 N5 BY DATE CHECK BY DATE- CIALCuca i,C E> 4L 6r731 = (0+,2$ 2 TI(T� l. ) i �O•Z6 -1/r- 9 t) Q r<1;�i?rtgo-t Cow•-,.� .r�.4(, •r/F7) !!Or) fi(o•Se /r?�0< III -- - — -rZZ T = Z4.% j TI(--T-) (` ,) Z-1 .8 — 45 e I it I I I I I j n O LA W D n D C rn � Z vv_ � X D n Table C-1 Budget-Level Construction Cost Estimate Installation of Resistance Piers Unit of Estimated Unit Extended Item Description Payment Quantity Price Total Comments 1 General Requirements Misc.Contractor Submittals IS 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Estimators Judgment Record Drawings LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Estimators Judgment $4,000.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cost LS 1 $4,000.00 2 Mobilization Mobilize Men,Equipment,and Materials LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Estimators Judgement and Includes partial payment on materials $25,000.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cost IS 1 $25,000.00 3 Demolition and Removal for Pier Installation Saw Cut Floor Slab @ Interior Columns LF 56D $3.00 $1,680.00 Assumes 10'x 10area cut around each column Saw Cut Floor Stab @ Interior Watts LF 530 $3.00 $1,590.00 Assumes a 222'x 45'interior footprint Saw Cut Floor Stab/Asphalt Pave @ Exterior Columns LF 530 $3.00 $1,590.00 Assumes 222'long cut on each side and 45'long cut on ends Excavate and Remove Interior Floor Slab/Pavement CY 340 $50.00 $17,000.00 Estimators Judgment,Assumes exlensive hand-work Excavate Fitt for Resistance Pier Installation CY 650 $20.00 $13,000.00 Estimators Judgement Transportation B Disposal of Demolition Debris TON 650 $60.00 $39,000.00 Assumes Nan-Contaminated Demolition Debris $73,860.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cost LS 1 $73,860.00 4 Resistance Pier Installation Furnish and Install Plans @ Interior Columns EA 140 $3,500.00 $490,000.00 Assumes 14 interior Columns x 10 Piers/Column(1010=14)' Furnish and Install Piers @ Exterior Columns EA 264 $3,000.00 $792,000.00 Assumes 66 Exterior Columns x 4 Piers/Column(66x4-264)' Backfill R Compact Around Piers w/Excavated Fitt CY 650 $10.00 $6,500.00 Estimators Judgment 51,288,500.00 Calculate gid Unit Cost LS 1 $1,288,500.00 5 Furnish and Install New Structural Floor Slab Will and Grout Reinforcing at Columns EA 80 $500.00 $4,000.00 Estimators Judgement Furnish and Install New Structural Floor Stab CY 370 $500.00 $185,000.00 Estimators Judgement 5225,000.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cost LS 1 $225,000.00 6 Demobilization and Clean-up Demobilization and Clean-up LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Estimators Judgement $10,000.00 Calculate gid Unit Cost LS 1 $10,000.00 SUBTOTAL $1,626,360.00 Sum of Bid Item Nos.1-6 SCOPE AND BUDGET CONTINGENCIES @ 20% $325,272.00 Contingencies' TOTAL ESTIMATE $1,960,000.00 Rounded Up to the Nearest$10,000. Actual costs may vary. Footnote: 'Resistance Pier costs are based on a recent project completed by New England Foundation and Stabilization Co.for the Narragansett Bay Commission where 70 foot-long Resistance Piers were installed for about$5,000.00/EA. A cost of about$3,D00.00 to$3,500.00/EA has been assumed for this project based on economy scale and the actual distribution of costs assumed. 'The Contingencies estimate Does Not include dewatering that may be required to install the proposed altematWe or the passible need to handle contaminated groundwater as a result of dewatering activities. Page 1 of i 2/12005 Table C-2 Budget-Level Construction Cost Estimate Installation of Drilled Mind-Piles Unit of Estimated Unit Extended Item Descrtption Payment Quantity Price Total Comments 1 General Requirements MIK.Contractor Submittals LS 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Estimator's Judgment Record Drawings LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Estimators Judgment $4,000.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cost LS 1 $4,000.00 2 Mobilization Mobilize Men,Equipment,and Materials LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Estimators Judgement and Includes partial payment on materials $25,000.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cast LS 1 $25,000.00 3 Demalftion and Removal for Pile Installation Saw Cut Floor Stab @ Interior Columns LF 560 $3.00 $1,680.00 Assumes 10'x 1 Dares cut around each column Saw Cut Floor Stab @ Interior Watts LF 530 $3.00 $1,590.00 Assumes a 222'x 45'fnterior footprint Saw Cut Floor Slab/Asphalt Pave @ Exterior Columns LF 530 $3.00 $1,590.00 Assumes 222long cut on each side and 45'long cut an ends Excavate and Remove Interior Floor Slab/Pavement CY 340 $50.00 $17,000.00 Estimators Judgment Excavate Fill for Mini-Pile Installation CY 650 $20.00 $13,000.00 Estimators Judgement Transportation&Disposal of DemoUtion Debris TON 650 $60.00 $39,000.00 Assumes Non-Contaminated Demolition Debris $73,860.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cost LS 1 $73,860.00 4 Drilled Mini-Pile Installation Furnish and Install Mini-Piles @ Interior Columns EA 84 $4,700.00 $394,800.00 Assumes 14 Interior Columns x6 Mim-Piles/Column Furnish and Install Mini-Piles @ Exterior Columns EA 132 $3,600.00 $475,200.00 Assumes 66 Exterior Columns x 2 Mini-Piles/Column Backfill&Compact Around Piles w/Excavated Fill CY 650 $10.00 $6,500.00 Estimator's Judgment $876,500.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cost LS 1 $876,500.00 5 Furnish and Install New Structural Floor Slab Drill and Grout Reinforcing at Columns EA 80 $500.00 $40,000.00 Estimators Judgment Furnish and Install New Structural Floor Slab CY 370 $500.00 $185,000.00 Estimators Judgment $225,000.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cost LS 1 $225,000.00 6 Demobilization and Clean-up Demobilization and Clean-up LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,OOD.00 Estimators Judgement $10,000.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cost LS 1 $10,000.00 SUBTOTAL $1,214,360.00 Sum of Bid Item Nos.1-6 SCOPE AND BUDGET CONTINGENCIES T 20% $242,872.00 Contingencies' TOTAL ESTIMATE $1,460,000.00 Rounded Up to the Nearest$10,000. Actual costs may vary. Footnote 'Drilled Mfnf-Pile costs are based on a recent project compteted by G.Donaldson Construction Co.,Inc.,for the Pastore Federal Building In Providence,Rl. The Drilled Mini-Piles were about 50-feet-long on this project and cost about$5,300.00/EA. A cost of$3,600.00 to$4,700.00/EA has been assumed for this project based on the estimated lengths and actual distribution of costs assumed. 'The Contingencies estimate Does Not Include dewatering that may be required to install the proposed a temative or the possible need to handle contaminated groundwater as a result of dewatering activities. wmrw sams.n, Page 1 of 1 2/18005 Table C-3 Budget-Level Construction Cost Estimate New Timber Pile Foundation Unit of Estimated Unit Extended Item Description Payment Quantity Price Total Comments 1 General Requirements Misc.Contractor Submittals LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Estimators Judgment Record Drawings LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Estimator's Judgment $6,500.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cost LS 1 $6,500.00 2 Mobilization Mobilize Men, Equipment,and Materials LS 1 $35,000.00 535,000.00 Estimator's Judgement and Includes partial Payment on materials $35,000.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cost LS 1 $35,000.00 3 Demolition and Removal of Building/Foundation Demolish Building and Foundation,Complete LS 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 To be Verfied by Owner $75,000.00 Calculate Total of Bid Items LS 1 $75,000.00 4 Furnish and Install CCA Treated Timber Piles Furnish and Install Timber Piles @ Interior Columns LF 2,520 $25.00 $63,000.00 Assume 56 Piles total x 45-foot-long piles(56x45=2,520LF) Furnish and Install Timber Piles @ Exterior Columns LF 1,980 $25.00 $49,500.00 Assume 66 piles total x 30-foot-long.piles(66x30=1,9801F) Furnish Pile Top Tension Connector EA 122 $50.00 $6,100.00 Assume all piles fitted with No.8 Bar Tension Connection $118,600.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cost LS 1 $118,600.00 5 Furnish and Install Pile Caps Excavation for Pile Caps LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Allowance Item,Estimator's Judgement Furnish and Install Interior Pile Caps CY 40 $600.00 $24,000.00 Assume a 6'x 6'x 18"THK Cap with a 2'x 2'x 4 Stem Furnish and Install Exterior Pile Caps CY 230 $600.00 $138,000.00 Assume a N wide x 18"THK Cap with a T x 4'Stem $162,000.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cost LS 1 $162,000.00 6 Furnish and Install New Structural Floor Slab Reinforcing @ Columns and Structural Floor Slab EA 80 $500.00 $40,000.00 Estimators Judgement Compact Subgrade and Furnish Imported Fill LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Allowance Item,Estimators Judgement Furnish and Insall New Structural Floor Slab CY 375 $500.00 5187,500.00 Assumes 22T x 45'x 12"THK $207,500.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cort LS 1 5207,500.00 7 Demobilization and Clean-up Demobilization and Clean-up LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Estimator's Judgement $10,000.00 Calculate Bid Unit Cost LS 1 $10,000.00 SUBTOTAL $614,600.00 Sum of Bid Item Nos.1-7 SCOPE AND BUDGET CONTINGENCIES @ 20% $122,920.00 Contingencies TOTAL ESTIMATE $740,000.00 Rounded Up to the Nearest$10,000. Actual costs may vary r w,Rb E.Ym.usb Page 1 of 1 2/1/2005 �NIV, so C. A. PRETZER ASSOCIATES, INC. 50 Freeway Drive,Cranston,RI 02920 a �i STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS C.ANDREW PRETZER, PID., P.E. MICHAEL J.GRAFE,P.E. DESIGN,CONSULTATION,INVESTIGATION THOMAS P.GRAFE,P.E. _ `.� (401)785-2690 FAX(401)461-9360 DAVID GRANDPRE, P.E. FST i9�� email: mail®capretzer.com PETER W.GRAFE North River Canal Mill Building Salem, MA CAPA File No. 204402,20 Structural Report/April 13, 2004 On March 24, 2004, Mr. Mark Humphrys from Aharonian & Associates, Inc., Architects, and I visited the referenced site. The purpose of our visit was to determine the condition of the building structure. This report will summarize our findings, as well as comment on the suitability of the building for reuse. Attachment I contains photos I took during our visit. GENERAL BUILDING DESCRIPTION . The main part of the building is a four-story, wood-framed, "L"-shaped structure. The longer leg of the "L" runs east to west between the street on the west and the canal on the east. The shorter leg runs north, roughly parallel to the street. The columns and floor beams are constructed with heavy timber and the floors with tongue and groove wood plank. The walls are constructed with wood studs and wood sheathing and are generally sided with shingles and strip windows. See photos 1 through 16 for views of the entire building exterior. To the south of the longer leg of the main building is a two-story, steel-framed structure with masonry exterior walls and wood floor joists spanning between steel beams and columns. At the southwest corner of the main building is a one-story, cast-in-place concrete structure. There is another one-story structure with masonry exterior walls that runs along the east side of the shorter leg of the main building. Finally, there is a one-story brick structure with a wood- framed roof that extends out from the north side of the longer leg of the main building. BUILDING CONDITION Main Four-Story Structure The condition of the structure of the main four-story, "L"-shaped section of the building is poor. This is mainly because of problems related to settlement of the underlying soil. The first floor slab has cracked and settled throughout the building, in some places in excess of 1 foot, (see photo 17). Sections of the exterior foundation walls have cracked and settled to a lesser degree, (see photo 4). As a result, the upper floors are uneven and tilted. There are locations, especially on the upper floors, where water infiltration has caused deterioration of some of the structural wood members, (see photos 18 and 19). The entire shorter leg of the main building is racked as much as 1 foot out of plumb at the north • end, again, due to differential settlement of the foundation from one side of the building to the other. The interior main columns are tilted, and the joints between the main framing members have opened up to accommodate the racking, (see photos 21, 22, and 23). The upper floors of the shorter leg are severely out of level, (see photos 24 and 25). Water infiltration has caused a roof beam and section of roof and fourth floor planking to rot and sag, (see photos 26 and 27). C. A. PRETZER ASSOCIATES, INC. North River Canal Mill Building April 13, 2004 Page 2 The first floor of the shorter leg of the main building was covered with steel plates in some areas in an attempt to level the concrete floor. Water from the sprinkler main in the same location has caused the base of some of the wood columns to rot, (see photo 28). Two-Story Steel-Framed Structure The condition of the structure of the two-story section of the building is poor. The first floor slab is cracked and pitched due to settlement of the underlying soil of nearly 2 feet. A section of the fust floor slab was cut away to reveal another slab 14 inches below. The lower slab had been filled over to accommodate settlement, and the newer slab continues to settle, (see photo 29). The tops of the main center steel columns have been shimmed about 10 inches. Even so, they have settled an additional foot, causing the second floor and roof structure to be severely out of level, (see photos 30, 31, and 32). Rusting reinforcing steel has caused all of the exterior concrete lintels to crack, and in some cases, fail, (see photo 9). There are numerous cracks in the • masonry blocks, especially near the roof line, (see photo 33). One-Story Concrete Structure The structure of the one-story, cast-in-place concrete section of the building is in poor condition. There are numerous exposed and rusted reinforcing bars on the exterior where concrete has spalled off, (see photos 11, 12, and 13). Settlement and cracking of the floor make it difficult to walk in the building without tripping. The roof structure along the west side has slid an inch or so to the east and is hardly bearing on the west wall, (see photo 34). One-Story Masonry Structure The exterior walls of the one-story section of the building along the east side of the short leg of the main section have numerous open cracks, (see photo 36). The roof has sagged. I expect the roof was not designed to support snowdrift from the adjacent four-story main building section. One-Story Brick Structure The one-story brick structure is in very poor condition. Mortar joints have deteriorated to the point that bricks have started to fall to the ground, (see photos 15 and 16). The wood roof framing members are severely rotted. The center of the roof has been shored up with steel posts and a beam to prevent it from collapsing, (see photos 37 and 38). • C. A. PRETZER ASSOCIATES, INC. North River Canal Mill Building April 13, 2004 Page 3 SUMMARY All sections of the building structure have been significantly affected by settlement of the underlying soil, and to a lesser degree by wear and tear and water infiltration. Even the best portions of the building are out of plumb and in poor condition. It is my professional opinion that none of the building structure is suitable for rehabilitation and reuse. It would be my recommendation to remove the building super-structure in its entirety. Reuse of the existing foundation or even a new foundation should be considered only after a geotechnical investigation of the underlying soil is performed. C. A. PRETZER ASSOCIATES, INC. jzo . • Thomas P. Grafe, P. . Vice President Enc.(1): Attachment 1 —Photos taken March 24, 2004, by TPG • C. A. PRETZER ASSOCIATES, INC. North River Canal Mill Building April 13, 2004 Attachment 1 —Photos taken March 24,2004, by TPG • • North River Canal Mill Building Salem, MA �f CAPA 204402.20 Photo 1 North elevation of the longer leg of the main building section. Photo 2 • North elevation of the longer leg of the main building section. Nate the"wave" in the exterior wall where the \ i building is racked. d _ ® �r Po— !fie wig ��1 J ` \ Photo 3 inv, — ' South elevation of the longer leg of the main building — section. North River Canal Mill Building Salem,MA CAPA 204402.20 tlbPhoto 4 Open foundation crack at southeast comer of building shown in photo 3. l !j • — c N a Y ' Photo 5 �.. East elevation of the shorter 110 j'-F -- :® leg of the main building UL— section. �.Yl'�; ll North River Canal go Mill Building • ,_ °; Salem, MA r- r ' CAPA 204402.20 Photo 6 �.1F 7 ' I D `j A3 - L�lli � L''k -�" West elevation of the shorter - ( leg of the main building - section. Photo North end of shorter leg of the main building section. Top of building is racked at least 1 foot to the east(left in photo). '-- J i 1 ' Photo 8 Two-story building section FA south of the longer leg of the !o « r main building section. — i North River Canal Mill Building r 3 � i Salem, MA CAPA 204402.20 t.� r , t Photo 9 - Cracked and failed concrete i ` . �: '! •� lintels on exterior of two- story building section. s v. k S • ,�# _ . _ _ � Photo 10 Cracked masonry on exterior of two-story building section. e_ae �ff - K y o 11 One-story cast-in-place concrete building section at southwest comer of main • — - — — --_ building section. �1 r=" North River Canal Mill Building • Salem, MA i CAPA 204402.20 Photo 12 Cracked and spalled concrete on exterior of building + section shown in photo 11. oto 13 IF Open crack and bowed wall i- of building section shown in >. photo 11. Photo 14 One-story brick building. • — r - r r 1 .r, 7 _hti. North River Canal Mill Building Salem, MA CAPA 204402.20 ;r Photo 15 Cracks and missing bricks on exterior of one-story brick building. • - J _ - , Photo 16 y jJJ Cracks and missing bricks on exterior arch of one-story brick building. 1 l t 7 Oto 17 Cracked and severely settled concrete slab on first floor in main section of the building. North River Canal Mill Building Salem, MA CAPA 204402.20 f Photo 18 Rotted wood beam and roof deck in main section of the building. r 2 � 1 a Photo C q k Rotted post on upper floor of main section of the building. r - �s � North River Canal Mill Building • Salem, MA _ CAPA 204402.20 — - Photo 20 Tilted first floor column in shorter leg of main building 4 section, due to racking of the 5 I building. • r w b}, 41 tPhoto 2 t Separation of beam hanger due to racking of shorter leg of main building section. -- ' 4 North River Canal Mill Building • Salem, MA CAPA 204402.20 \ s.: Photo 22 PPP - t Separation of joints in the wood framing due to rack- ing of shorter leg of main ` building section. r A _ i o . r `�. Photo 23 Racking of shorter leg of main building section has nearly pulled the floor beam off the supporting column. � A- i _ North River Cana] Mill Building • Salem, MA CAPA 204402.20 PbQto 24 Sagging second floor in x = 1 shorter leg of main building section. II� si l :' 95 I I oto 25 L' I I __...__._ ti � a d •;�. f Sagging second floor in shorter leg of main building section. I • I r� 9 yi 4": North River Canal Mill Building Salem, MA CAPA 204402.20 Photo t Rotted section of roof beam and plank in shorter leg of ! main building section. u _ i L,1 �• l: i . k Photo 27 I l Close-up view of rotted roof beam and plank shown in photo 26. is �i North River Canal Mill Building Salem, MA • 7 CAPA 204402.20 n` Photo 2 Base of first floor column rotted by water from sprinkler main in shorter leg of main building section. i i :i v Photo 29 • ? Settled slab-on-grade in the two-story building section. Note original slab had settled before it was covered with crushed stone and a second slab placed. Photo 30 __ 9 inches of shims on top of W. the first floor column in the / two-story building section. IL• North River Canal Mill Building • Salem, MA CAPA 204402.20 Photo 31 Sagging roof steel in two- story building section, where the center columns have settled. • IL. 1, 11_ Photo 32 Steel connections have pulled apart at center columns shown in photo 31. gin . `'� �i - . • . • .r North River Canal Mill Building Salem, MA • CAPA 204402.20 Photo_ . .. 33 Large open cracks in the wall of the two-story building. s 14 i Photo 34 Roof slab has nearly pulled off the support column in the p one-story concrete section of the building. i r . North River Canal Mill Building Salem, MA ► CAPA 204402.20 Photo 3 Severely settled slab in the one-story concrete section of the building. l , Y 1 Photo 36 Cracks in the exterior masonry walls of the one- i. story building section on the l east side of the smaller leg of the main building section. ,P. North River Canal M MA mMill Building Salem, CAPA 204402.20 Photo 37 brickSeverely rotted wood roof framing in the one-story f _ Photo •.. roof framing in the one-story brick building section,held up by a steel beam and