Loading...
155-158 WASHINGTON STREET - WDDO 1 Ss - i Ss w�sti; M, Fri,\ sr- wl�,pa r9�� ONIVERSAL® UNV-12113 MADE IN USA �SUSTAINABLE MIN.RECYCLED l`�JfORESTRY miF64TIW. o INITIATIVE ourcing POST-CONSUMER C.N'w..ur S..... w¢Iwsb umm.arp SflOiAO a '3 I leilf�c Salem Historical Commission ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX (978)740-0404 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEMOLITION PERMIT RE: 155-189 Washington Street On Wednesday, March 3, 1999, the Salem Historical Commission unanimously voted in opposition to the granting of a permit for the demolition of 3 structures located at 155-189 Washington Street as proposed by Van Ness Development Corporation. As per Part II, Chapter 2, Article XV, Division 2, Section 2-394 (Demolition Delay) of the Code of Ordinances, no permit for demolition shall be issued until a more thorough investigation is undertaken and a final written recommendation regarding the granting of the permit for demolition is provided by the Commission to the Director of Public Property and to the property owner. Such investigation and recommendation shall be completed within 180 days of the original submission to the Historical Commission. I attest that this is an accurate record of the vote taken, not amended or modified in any way to this date. March 5, 1999 Jane . Guy C14 of the Co mission cc: Director of Public Property City Clerk vQ,�CO T n Salem Historical Commission ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)7400404 March 8, 1999 Elsa Fitzgerald Massachusetts Historical Commission 220 Morrissey Blvd. Boston, MA 02125 RE: Salem Evening News building Dear Ms. F' eraId: Enclosed please find a copy of the preliminary recommendation made by the Salem Historical Commission with regard to the application by Van Ness Development for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance. As part of the motion for this preliminary recommendation, the Commission voted to notify Massachusetts Historical Commission of the Salem Historical Commission's action and provide MHC with the opportunity to comment on the application, if desired. Please feel free to contact me if you require additional information. Sincerely, JanA. Guy Clerk of the Commission Son SIMSBURY ASSOCIATES ONE Cheryle Potter Project Manager 41 Warren Avenue Boston,MA 02116 Tel:(617)542-6830 X302 Fax'.(617)338-0782 Email:Simsbury@msn.com RONAN, SEGAL & HARRINGTON � ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET I "''� i JAMES T.RONAN(1971.1987) SALEM.MASSACHUSETTS 01970-3470 JACOB S.SEGAL `.•1# MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON f- GEORGE W.ATKINS.III (978)744-0350 BRIAN P.CASSIDY FAX(978)744.7493 S-1011 FILE NO. OF COUNSEL HEATHER S.RAMSEY February 10, 1999 HAND DELIVERED Salem Historic District Commission One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 ATTN: Jane Guy RE: 155-189 Washington Street Dear Ms . Guy: On behalf of my client, Van Ness Development Corporation, the thirty (30) day time period for a preliminary recommendation of the Historic District Commission with regard to the above-referenced premises, is hereby waived and said determination period is extended through the meeting of the Commi on n March 3 , 1999 . 1R ry trul y o the W. Atkins, III GWA/mtc CC : Cheryle Potter Sinub!try Associates, Inc. January 8, 1999 Ms. Jane Guy (p,, l .19A r Salem Historical Commission One Salem Greene Salem, MA 01970 RE: 155-189 Washington Street. Salem Evening News Bldg Dear Ms. Guy: Enclosed is an Application For Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for hearing by the Salem Historical Commission at its meeting on February 3. 1998. Also enclosed with this application are the following: 1. Certified Plot Plan showing current building locations ?. Site Plan showing location of new structure 3. Rendering of Proposed Structure 4. Four(4) Photos of Existing Conditions 5. Letter to Mayor Usovicz requesting release of Facade Easement Thank you for your attention to this matter. S' cerc'y' Chery Potter Project Manager Enclosures CC: George Atkins, Esq. 1, A,,,IS,&n,.M.41Hiauria..I Comm Lm.l 41 Warren Avenue, Boston, Mass. 02116 (617)542-2711 Fax(617)338.0782 I T�y Salem Historical Commission ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (508) 745-9595 EXT. 311 FAX (508) 740.0404 APPLICATION TION FOR WAIVER OF THE DEMOLITION DELAY ORDINANCE Pursuant to the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Chapter 40C) and the Salem Historical Commissioi Ordinance, application is hereby made for issuance of a Waiver of the Demolitiori Delay Ordinance for demolitiol as described below. Building Construction Date, if known: Address of Property: 155-189 Washington Street Name of Record Owner: Van Ness Develpoment Corporation Description of Demolition Work Proposed: Demolition of a two ( 2) & three (3 ) story wooden structure built in 1874. Demolition of two (2) story brick structure built in 1926. Demolition of a two ( 2) story brick structure built in 1978. Removal of slabs, foundations and footings All applications must includeMthre four 35mm photographs of existing conditions. Signature of Owner: / Rs,-^^"r Tel. #: ( 61 7) 542-6830 Mailing address: 41 Warren Avenue City: Boston StateyA Zip:02116 10/14/1998 13:43 16173380782 SIMSBURY PAGE 16 I. DEVELOPER PROFILE Clifford F. Boyle has developed and managed real estate since graduating from Harvard College in 1982. He founded Simsbury Associates, Inc. in 1985 as his development developed a wide range of housing and retail projects. Simsbury currently has over d has0,000 arm, and has since worth of deals under development, and over 300 units of residential and assisted living housing under management. A. ASSISTED LIVING DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE One of Simsbury's more recent developments is a 10 million dollar Assisted Living project know as Ocean View at Ellis Square, located in Beverly, Massachusetts. Simsbury purchased the Briscoe School buildings from the City of Beverly, secured construction and permanent financing from HUD through their 232 mortgage insurance program, and did a certified historic rehabilitation to create 81 first class Assisted Living units with common dining and common areas overlooking the Ocean. Simsbury currently manages this facility. Simsbury Associates also has an 8 million-dollar, 88 unit assisted living facility under construction in Fall River, Massachusetts. This project involves the renovation of a former Days Inn hotel into moderate priced units including a 50% affordable component. The financing combines tax exempt bonds, low income tax credits, and HUD Home monies to achieve this unique affordability. B. HISTORICAL REHABILITATION PROJECTS The Arch project, located in Boston, was completed in the spring of 1995 and has maintained close to 100% occupancy since opening. Arch involved the acquisition and historic renovation of an entire city block into a mixed retail/residential property combining 6 street level stores with 75 units of low and moderate-income housing. The housing component provides 62 Single Room Occupancy units with comprehensive services for people with AIDS, the mentally ill, and formerly homeless. These services include counseling, meals and home health care. An additional 13 units at Arch provide housing for low and moderate-income families. The project was purchased and developed at a cost of approximately 6 million dollars using a mixture of public and private funds, including Low Income Tax Credits, and HUD McKinney Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation rental subsidies. Under Mr. Boyle's direction, Simsbury has completed 24 other successful rehabilitations in addition to those referenced above, In all, he has formed 12 partnerships, raising nearly $15 million in equity, to leverage over $40 million in debt. To date, every historic rehabilitation has achieved certification from the National Park Service. One particularly distinguished rehabilitation was at Independence Hall, in Chelsea, Massachusetts. Distinguished as the site of an address by Abraham Lincoln, this building was rehabilitated to historic specifications. Mr. Boyle formed a construction company,Titan Building I 10/14/1998 13:43 16173380782 SIMSBURY PAGE 17 Company, so he could personally oversee this work, The crew undertook such exacting details as duplicating the oversized, bow front windows by building them on site, reinstalling the original granite post and lintels, and rebuilding the original curved stairs used by President Lincoln that had been covered by a more conventional straight stairway. Simsbury has developed close to 600 units of housing since its inception in 1985, including 50 units of historic rehabilitation at Van Ness Terrace in Roxbury, Massachusetts at a cost of approximately 6 million dollars funded through a combination of the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency's SHARP program, HUD Housing Development Grant, and Low Income Tax Credits. C. O'T'HER DEVELOPMENT/MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE In addition to these historic renovations, Simsbury has been involved in moderate rehabilitation of apartment buildings, and condominium conversions. The scope of these ranges from luxury condominiums on Beacon Street in Boston's fashionable Back Bay, to both public and privately funded moderately priced apartments available to those earning less than the median income for a Massachusetts family. The Simsbury Management Company is approved by Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, the Resolution Trust Corp., and ReColl. It maintains better than 95% occupancy on several hundred apartments in Boston and the surrounding area. It also has achieved 100% occupancy on nearly 20 retail locations. L2. � Zj I a TOTAL ARE1 s 31,747 SF. Tq S/CPY ILiSCN4�Y BURGY4' � N.Cp• 000 G ' e L — — II(trB IZ5 0/!A4'ESSOR'S Si4iv J4LOIS IIJ. O WAY p S 4y` Owe a�E-stew ils+a x sas-ses _ tC 1�'.ry/QS MO SIOAY u15LWtPv BfMIM. LWE SICM' _ `� ' ZO~t16MKr- 5-54 1 � I NG' JCCY ` ti /MD SIOwYµCM J IHSCHNY traBCY4 - mp a• 1 . 1 WASHINGTON !Public - ueriab/e 69dthJ S7NE' �ilA( 'S To ' Pcor PLAN 'DG-N14,LlS�}�p i uv iS4LEU. MA PREPARm FOR '. t cexrsn lair mE auKLwvcs,wE 10GRD - . 155 WASHINGTON STREET UM/TEO P.4R2NERS8/P 5C4(LE 1' 20' AUG f9, t998 BEwlas I ucvAw,q vcs I o i �Ht SVR=r- we sner�r . 1 0' 10' M•" fip' • .wC M60im .M M slrlu. �\ . , - + ~ . f , >� . *c » - - � § y �<�t�^ � � ` �� � / - / §. « ! � . . . . . a\ � e�y 7 �^�\_ �� ��`�_�� `*�^ / � � �t - » , � . \ <�.� � � � :� . :+ . �w ~ . °a\ 2*. aw\ . i � r II IJ 02. 65.00' 141.06, OF r 1 - 76,06• - q TOTAL AREA J1,747 S.F. TWO STORY M4S0 BUllamc N 7000• — — TH£PROP£RIY SHOWN CONS7S75 OF L075 <1J. 414 k 415 ON ASSESSORS U4P'J4. a L /Ly` OEFD R&ZF ENC£ —.BOOK 11948, PC 585-589 WAY (f'n►'ote' — ONE SmaY 10 TWO STORY AIA.SON4RY BUXONC . . ` �v } ZONING 045MICr- 3-5 - o .o i 6 { .� � Pte. � ' L` ry 1W0 STORY WO00 ,k MASON4/7Y BUNG G - - j - - THREE STORY WOOD BUKOINO .. 1 R 101.7J' I No 155-189 11746' WASHINGTON (Public - Variable Width) STRf£r i - # PLorPLw SALEM,. MA PREPARM FOR 155 WAASHINGTO�N'�STREET ! CS7r7FY nAr 7HE BUl1D1N65 ARE LOGUED 1./M/IC� PAR/[VGRSHIP ON THE CROUNO AS SHOWN FROM AN ACTUAL - �!or I A57RLURENr SURVEY. w �N� - SVLE r' _' 10' A4Va f9, 1998 OFNNIS d AkALWUS, P.LS.. /I - �. LANDMARK j avc�v�Nc &SvRwma Na , t Mft /A4 01904', (617)592-70f6 I 0, 20' 40'.' 60' . •. .- npB 8E1 oAm JCB n0. 91111A u r S � iR►I'M' IzI.JN 0 1. / r � L / � � / � /� � �� � / � - � �� ��•"y^��i H SOF 9w e;LAjWIN6r. v O oP SNOW' ani ■ ■� __ III, �- so - ■ I ' so so O�._ I _ ANSI -i•yam 1���� i� ���I�� � � _ � .� — arar`�ila; — — — �d= a� r. - — _ +a®I l� ■I'' �■: '.lei = � � ItJ �.. /��/, Yyt�I� ' . 1 _ yI 1..r •4�" JIIit"..moi - !� Ab'All ANWAR" c.J�L t � - _ s Ah J�6 �hM- P : . -- -.• .r rr AD r° L ' -4 r II ate. �;r 1 - � .\ Y �s .L� s t= - 1 s• - .r - * . f - ! - e/.� s_P• ria 1 Y i r . Summary of Historical Research & Findings The Arrington Block 155-189 Washington Street/35 Front Street The Salem Evening News Publishing Co. building at 155-189 Washington and 35 Front Streets, historically known as the Arrington Block, was built in 1874 after the southern extension of Washington Street forced the demolition of the first Arrington Block. The architects were Robert P. Bruce and George Copeland of Salem. The block is included in the Downtown Salem National Register District, and as stated in the 1979 MHC Survey forms, 'this prominent block is the last wood frame commercial structure to survive in Salem.' The Arrington Block was originally built as a hotel, known as the Central House and later as the Washington House Annex, and benefited from its location across Washington Street from the Boston and Maine Railroad Station. After the demolition of the railroad station in the 1950's, the Arrington Block's prominence increased as a defining element to the streetscape of lower Washington Street, and what is known as Riley Plaza. The prominence of this commercial block is even more significant today, since the Riley Plaza rotary and parking lot has been replaced with signalized intersections and realigned street patterns. The Arrington Block was originally built in the form of a three story main block (159 - 167 Washington Street) approximately eighty feet in length with a lower scaled three story ell (169- 189 Washington Street) extending approximately one hundred and twenty feet to the south. • The two story brick addition to the north (35 Front Street and 155-157 Washington Street) at the corner of Front Street was constructed in 1925/1926 in the Classical Revival style. The main block is nine bays wide, and although it has been altered, remains distinguished by its peaked Italianate window hoods on the third floor, and the bold bracketed and overhanging cornice. The original second floor windows with bold, bracketed crowns have been replaced with multiple window openings, and the original novelty ship-lap siding has been covered (or removed and replaced) with stucco. Another original but now missing feature of the main block which also contributed to its height and prominence was a flat sawn balustrade above the cornice. The southern ell extends sixteen bays, and is about half a story less in height. The cornice is also in the Italianate style with brackets, but of smaller scale and with less detail than the main building. The original wood clapboard siding has also been covered (or removed and replaced) with stucco. All of the second floor windows and one of the third floor windows have been replaced. During the 1925/1926 construction of the brick addition to the north, both the main block and southern ell were extensively modified as noted above. It appears that the street level storefronts have undergone several extensive renovations over the past six decades, resulting in a total loss of most if not all of the original building fabric at this level. The windows and storefronts of the brick addition have also been replaced with dark brown • aluminum framed units with bronze tinted glazing. Evidence of the original profiles of the wood entrances, storefronts and window frames remain in the form of paint ghosting on masonry surfaces. 1 J11 ilii J 5 _ � E R l I - ,y R �- RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. TRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 Somerville MA 02143 (617) 666-5566 FAX(617) 666-4115 September 2, 1997 Mr. Barry Gaw Simsbury Associates 41 Warren Avenue Boston, Ma 02116 RE: Salem Proiect Washington Street Dear Barry: This letter confirms our observations during our visit on 8/18/97 to the referenced building. The purpose of this visit was to observe the apparent structural condition of the building. This report is based on our observations and qualifications as well as information provided to us during this visit, and does not claim to be an itemization of all structural problems, but to provide the client with a general idea of the structural problems observed during this walk-through inspection. I. OBSERVATIONS This is a combination of 2 buildings, a large block, which is built of several different types of structures, and a factory-type building in the back. We started by observing the front elevation of the building on Washington Street, from the left to the right. The first building on the left is a 2-story brick building, and its front facade is in good condition. Then there is a 3-story building which facade had been recently stuccoed over. As a result, the windows are recessed inside of the facade, which raises a question as to the quality of the structure inside, given the fact that this was added on top of the existing wall, most likely without removing the existing damaged fagade. The first floor facade has also been superimposed on the existing structure, as there is a recess at the base overlapping the sidewalk by at least 4". i The next building is very similar, even though it was most likely built at a different time. It is also a 3-story building. The top part has been similarly remodeled with stucco superimposed on a wood frame, but the first floor is most likely what was the front of the building that we observed before. One problem is that the wood exterior of the front fagade is in contact with the ground, which is in violation of the Code as it is prone to insects and water damages (Photo 1). As we progressed in front of the building, more damages could be observed, such as in front of the entrance located to the left of 175. The damage to the entrance is such that it creates a tripping hazard (Photo 2). As you suggested, removing the stucco and clapboarding would be a very good solution, as it would allow us to properly observe the back-up wood framing of the fagade and address it accordingly, since the different uneven exterior of the building leads us to believe that there is damage to the original structure and siding (Photo 3). At the back side of this building, which is covered with clapboard, we became concerned by the very irregular fagade, which has moved laterally, as one could see by looking at the fagade from the side. It is important to ensure that the studs of this wall are plumb, in good condition and properly connected to all floors. Please note that the covered deck between the front and back building is badly underdesigned, and certainly not properly designed to support the snowdrift. (Photo 4). We noted that the base of the back wall is still very close to the ground and far closer than the Code calls for. We then proceeded to the inside of the first floor of the right building. We became concerned by the large movement of the floor (Photo 6). The columns have badly moved laterally (Photo 7). Photo 8 shows the wall between the first bay to the right and the second bay, which again indicates the same type of movement. We then observed the second line of columns on the left, where the building shows a very important displacement in excess of 1" per 2-feet of level towards the right. The floor has badly moved also (Photo 9 is of the floor and Photo 10 shows the column). As we proceeded toward the left of the building (as one looks at the building from Washington Street) the same type of movement could be noted throughout. 2 As we proceeded to the small and limited basement room, we became very much concerned by the fact that the columns in this area are completely corroded and in imminent danger of collapse (Photos 11, 20, 21). The plaster ceiling above prevented us from properly evaluating the structure, but given the movement of floor above, we have a strong doubt that it would be proper. There is a grade beam on the right side of the basement (as one looks at it from the street), and there is a very dramatic crack in the concrete caused by settlement (Photo 12). We proceeded through the basement and noted that several of the columns are in imminent danger of collapse. Some of them are badly rusted to the point that the concrete inside is exposed, and is itself badly damaged. This goes for all the steel columns in this space, as mentioned above, but we also noted temporary posts, which could be moved by simply applying pressure. This is a very dangerous condition, which needs to be immediately addressed (Photos 16, 17, 18, 19). As we proceeded through the crawl space, we noted that one footing has been almost completely undermined with a void underneath (Photo 13). The foundation wall under the front of the building was also crumbling and very improper (Photo 14 and 15). There were many wood structures that had been temporarily introduced to hold the floor above (photos 16, 17, and 18). This was the only accessible area, and this raises a question for all other areas which were not accessible. As we proceeded to another crawlspace on the right of the area of concern, we were extremely concerned by the very poor condition of the framing supporting the floors. The beams and joists were much too small for their span (Photo 22). There were many burned areas which have not been addressed, as we could see charred without reinforcements (Photos 23 and 24). Given the fact that new temporary columns had been added from the first floor to the second (Photo 25), this leads us to believe that the failure of the structure observed on the first floor is also occurring on the upper floors. (Please note that the large differential lateral movement in Photo 25). We then proceeded to the second floor, and on the way up we noted very bad cracks throughout the marble steps, indicating movement as well as failure of the stair structure (Photo 25). There were also cracks on the plaster of the side walls (Photo 27), indicating differential downward movement. We then proceeded to the top floor and noted cracks everywhere, indicating a very important differential settlement (Photos 28 -36). 3 As we looked at the exterior wall, we noticed separation between the back wall and the floor, which confirms our observation of the movement of the back wall mentioned in the beginning of this report (Photos 33). As we proceeded to the top floor, which is immediately under the trusses, we became very much concerned by the history of cracking that has occurred over the years. There is also evidence of many fires in this area that had not been addressed. Only in a few areas could we see some doubling-up of the roof rafters. (Photos 36, 37, 38 and 41). Recently added built-up frames are reinforcing the roof(Photos 39 and 40). As we went to the roof, we became concerned by the new mechanical units which had been introduced above the portion of the building, which is presently used as a press. We advise you to verify that proper engineering was provided to support these units. (Photo 42). We then proceeded to the last basement in the building on the left, located under the Evening News. We noted that the structures were in much better condition. A steel girder had been introduced at one time, and the basement had been dropped so as to install the boilers. We then proceeded to the back masonry building. This building is built of brick with concrete girders and a concrete slab structure inside. There is only need for repointing of the wall (Photo 43). There is a new building at the very back of this building which has a very high ceiling. There were no obvious signs of failure (Photo 44). II. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations should not be considered a blue print of repairs for a Contractor to use as they do not include designs, drawings, nor specifications. They are to inform the client of the general direction of the repair work. Additionally, other structural problems could be concealed behind finishes which were not observable during this walk- through inspection, and therefore other repair recommendations may be necessary which could only be provided after selective demolition. These recommendations could nevertheless be submitted to a Contractor, combined with a complete and thorough observation of the site, for the purpose of obtaining an idea of the way the work could be implemented. These recommendations as well as other possible findings must be developed into working drawings after a detailed exploration and careful engineering of the building. Several recommendations were made in the Observation Section above as it was more practical to do so, and therefore must be also considered as part of this section. Given the poor condition of the front building, we recommend that it be completely stripped of all finishes and re-engineered to determine all necessary reinforcement to bring the structures up to Code as required for underdesigned conditions, fire and rot damage. (See below). This will involve some localized re-alignment of members as much as possible, as it is very difficult to realign the columns if the foundations and the girder underneath and the girder supported above are no longer plumb. This may be made easier per the next paragraph: FOUNDATION WORK The first step is to determine the location of the good bearing soil. Given the fact that the building on the left which houses the newspaper company is behaving properly, it is our professional opinion that the good soil must be located within the depth of the basement. This, of course, is extremely imperical, and borings will be extremely important. Two to 3 boring samples will be necessary and could be taken at the center portion of each face of the front building. This will not only indicate the location of the good soil, but also the location of the water level, which has a very important application in the difficulty of excavating the foundations. As indicated below, it is recommended that the building be completely stripped. This will substantially lighten the building, but will also imply laterally bracing some of the remaining portions of the structure to prevent further displacement, which is already very important at this time. The foundation contractor, who must have good experience with this type of work, will have to provide new foundations underneath the exiting structure after removing all existing foundations. It will be possible at this time to increase the size of the basement, and therefore, it will be necessary to determine before-hand whether or not space will be needed for mechanical equipment, storage, etc., as digging the basement may become less expensive of a task given the fact that excavation will be necessary to go deeper than the normal 4-feet, which is recommended for a building on good undisturbed bearing soil. The system of foundation will depend on the depth of the good soil. It is our opinion that, at this point, a continuous grade beam would be the solution of choice, as we did not expect the good soil to be too deep. If the soil is much deeper than 6-feet, we would switch to isolated piers with a 4-foot minimum grade beam on top of it. We suggest if possible, at that point, to slightly raise the building in order to free the wood from the exterior grade by a minimum of 6"to 8" in order to minimize the exposure to water and insects, which was already responsible for a substantial amount of damage. if this is not possible, as it is not really possible to play with exterior landscaping given the fact that this building is on a sidewalk, then the sill plate may have to be replaced with pressure treated members in order to minimize the damage to the building. 5 Note again that it is important to understand that the building cannot be lowered in its foundation before the concrete foundations have reached a certain degree of curing, which can allow them to take the weight of the building. Finally, the building will need to be properly bolted to the foundations, and particular details need to be introduced for this purpose. EARTHQUAKE PROVISION It is important to understand, given the work to be done on this building, that this building will have to be designed according to the new Building Code, which implies that it should be earthquake resistant. FRONT OF BUILDING ON WASHINGTON STREET On the front of the building, we suggest that the stucco be removed in order to properly evaluate and address the problem with the original structure of the building. This repair work could be done from the exterior, if a large amount of original siding is to be replaced, or from the interior after removal of the plaster. MEMBERS DAMAGED BY PREVIOUS FIRES Burned members have triggered loss of capacity to the structures in areas of previous fires, which have not been addressed properly. In order to properly evaluate the structures, all finishes, such as plaster, sheetrock, etc., must be sufficiently removed to expose the structures. Once all damaged structures are exposed the members which are not to be replaced will have to be sandblasted or wire brushed to expose the solid wood. At that point, the structural engineer will be able to compare the remaining section of wood with what is necessary to adequately support all the dead and live loads. Only after exposing all supporting structures will the structural engineer be able to evaluate the extent of the repair work. The structural engineer will then need to make the necessary calculations and determine where these reinforcements are necessary. All properly sized members and slightly damaged members, which were over- designed at the initial construction, may not need to be reinforced. Members which are questionable should be sandblasted or wire brushed cleaned, and their remaining "good" section evaluated for their capacity. 6 Badly damaged members could be doubled-up by splicing members to them, and if necessary, replaced. This condition is particularly critical on horizontal floor boards which could easily be punctured upon walking on them, and which are too thin to be reinforced, Members which are completely damaged to a point where they no longer have the capacity for which they were designed must be removed and replaced. It is extremely important to understand that the existing and new shoring must remain in place during part of the final work and is not to be removed until permanent reinforcements have been introduced. Additionally, during demolition some portions of the structures may be left improperly supported (such as lateral support of the exterior walls), and this will have to be taken into consideration by the contractor where more temporary supports may be needed during the final construction. The choice of the contractor is an important factor as he must be entirely responsible for the means and methods of construction. STRUCTURES DAMAGED BY ROT There is a substantial amount of rot damage underneath the first floor of the building and possibly underneath the stucco in the front of the building. It is important that all members which are rotted or that have a moisture content above 19% be treated per the following recommendations: In order to properly dry the structures, the finishes must be removed where necessary, and it may be necessary to use heaters with fans to adequately dry the wood as well as to obtain good cross ventilation. Once the structures are properly dried, all rotted members must be re-evaluated. The rotted part must be removed by sand blasting, wire brushing, etc.. Their "good sections" must be able to resist all the loads (live and dead) that they are required to resist. If they are found insufficient, they must be properly reinforced or replaced. In light of the above observations, it is our professional recommendation that a full structural investigation be conducted to reinforce and repair the structures of this building. We suggest that structural plans be drawn which would indicate the structures as they exist at the time of the investigation as well as all new reinforcements necessary to bring the existing structures up to Code. Such plans would be useful in that: 1) they would provide comparative bids from contractors on the work to be executed; 2) they would enable you to obtain the necessary permits for the repair construction; and 3) they would document the work executed for future reference, such as in the event of future alterations to the building. It would also be important that the Structural Engineer visit the site during construction so as to verify its compliance to the plans and structural recommendations. This report addresses only those structural problems referred to above and observed during this walk-through. Other structural problems may be concealed behind finishes, plaster ceilings and walls, since few of the structures were exposed during this visit. We did not implement computations, nor verify compliance with earthquake code regulations, nor claim that the structural members observed were of the proper size, nor properly transmitting the load from floor to floor. The Structural Engineer is not responsible for determining the existence of insect infestation and waterproofing which are the specialties of professional exterminators and waterproofing contractors. This report and analysis is based upon observations of the visible and apparent condition of the building and its major components on the date of this inspection. Although care has been taken in the performance of the inspection, we make no representation regarding latent or concealed defects which may exist and no warranty or guarantee is expressed or implied with any structure. We do not take responsibility in the capacity of the stairs, banisters, and handrails. The report is made only in the best exercise of our ability and judgment. Conclusions in this report are based on normal working life of various structural items. Predictions of life expectancy and the balance of useful life are necessarily based on industry and/or statistical comparisons. It is essential to understand that actual conditions can alter the useful life of any item. The previous use/misuse, irregularity of servicing, faulty manufacturing, unfavorable conditions, acts of God and unforeseen circumstances make it impossible to state precisely when each item would require replacement. The client herein should be aware that certain components within the above referenced property may function consistent with their purpose at the time of the inspection, but due to their nature are subject to deterioration without notice. All repairs recommended herein require design and supervision from a Structural Engineer. Should you have any questions, or require our services for an investigation and the preparation of structural plans, please feel free to contact me. Veryrul' our�sL,'• Renugnier,•P. ., Principal RE NE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC.I/ ho RM/psf Inv. s RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. •' Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square0• 8118197 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE (oashCng.ton S.tAeet, Salem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8/18/97 • SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666.4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE O 7. J 4r • r r 1. i f Wcusk, ng.ton S.tAeet, Salem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JCB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8/18/97 • SOMEWLLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED 6V DATE (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE i ! O � Y ' � I ..... RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOe (Vasktng•ton, StAeet, SaE'em Structural Engineers SHEET NO. DE 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 f/ 78197 • SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143- CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666.4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE i v �� � 4i t -�s��----ice �-_ •,�+.r.,�. > J,f,n s 1,. F _ �S9 7g`YA'� .{ y ...-. .i5 ♦.y. ,.. .%.� -, •. ,�C®�1CY�44lf�Ci.lr1}YMJ[R1I410IDi�'a .'da` Ae 'M� t=z '.. ; Wash,ing•ton S.tAeet, Sa!'em RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. 'OB Structural Engineers SHEET NO, of 66.70 Union Square Suite 204 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE • (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE l _ F Washington S-tAeet, Sa.2em RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197 SOMERVILLE. MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE • (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED By DATE SCALE O - O - 4, _. �._.._:... e .2d - -- a y 11 44tt v . �IL4RYa 71l11.f1711110l11{l �. - :; .C4 -.',4 (Vashing.ton S.tAee,t, Salem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8/18/97 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED Br DATE • (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE 0 .s A a . . .. . ... . . . . 3. b x Walk, ng.ton SttAeet, Salem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOS Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8/18197 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED 8 DATE • (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY- DATE SCALE ! O t } 1 I b 1 wash,i-ngton St)Leet, Satem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 9118197 • SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED-B DATE (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BV DATE SCALE Ij {is A tj Washington Sttteet, Saeem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BV DATE • (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666.4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE i Il r r } i CvaskEngtonSatem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEE­r NO. OF 66-70 UnionSquare Suite 1/ 8118197 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSET7S 02143 CALCULATED By DATE- (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED By DATE- , v s •r:" ., ,• rc a ASSOCIATES, .: . . Structural Engineers SHEErNO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 0 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED By DATE (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKEDBY DATE SCALE ! . i ,yl rte. 6 4 A '� � t •'a �'� ,a�'�. F"^'i Fr � R n Y k f m , . Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF • Union Square Suite 204 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED By- DATE (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY W,E SCALE r� r4• T_ r== ' i I /t ASSOCIATESStructural En.-ineers SHEET NO OF •• • Union Square04 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED By DATE SCALE r O � •-t V t ASSOCIATES, ,• Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF .. • Union Square Suite 204 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE- (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED By SCALE ^ :�tie. ♦ �L''}}at���*'� '•. J RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square= S 8118197 uite 204 • (617) 666-55766 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY- DATE SCALE u� `t „ e �w r Wask�ngton " , ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF • Union Square= Suite 204 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATEDSY- DATE- (617) SCALE � r • ��. ;. _ r ;r8• :552„ RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. aoe Cva6 i ng-ton Stxeet, Satem Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66.70 Union Square Suite 204 7118197 • SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED SY DATE SCALE taCCJDi]t-I Srn4miY.it P-_.I AMS.xfir¢n Vuv ll+'I fedfrl!:!E SGL'fi&I-09II:{31 Wcohi.ng.ton S.t%eet, Sa.Pem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8/18/97 • SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE � 9 �u 4 1 RENE MUGNIER:ASSOCIATES, INC. aoe (u"khng.ton S.theet, Satem Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197 • SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED By DATE (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCAL'- O RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. roe Wa6h6 ng.ton S.tAee#, Sakem Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66.70 Union Sgcare Suite 204 8/18/97 • SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 6664115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE I (Vash,ing-ton Street, Sa.eem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 81I8197 • SOMERVILLE. MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKEDBY DATE SCALE ff �.:1=•. - Eve � y1- �a . .. ....... Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 1 Union Square1 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED DATE (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKEDSY DATE SCALE ♦ T. .♦ r Woshington . , RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. ,. Structural Engineers SHEET NO OF .. • Union Square Suite 204 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED By DATE (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKEDBY DATE SCALE .s .s.uvr (VashingtonS/--em •. UnionStructural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED By DATE (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE M1i, • s � Wabh.ington S.tAeet, Sa,2em RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEER NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 gf8 797 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED DATE • (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666.4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE z6 AF W�i2S7iiGo'tfC '�^ ys ti �T rf �# Ir. e .t t RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB WcLshi.ngton Sti eet, Sakem Structural Engineers SHEET NO, OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 -11 7� 7 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE • {617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666.4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE 27 WhZng.ton S.tAeet, Sa.2em RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO, of 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 T/181q7 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE • (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666.4115 CHECKEDBY DATE SCALE M .y N . ,. .` �✓"'�yam. 4 q\ ,' _ r2 I ,t` s:Yv . ENE . . . . ' „ Structural Engineers , , � . e � . . . . 8118197 . . . MASSACHUSETTS . . CALCULATED By DATE (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED By DATE SCALE - � — w©� 1A ��\ y�y . < LZ RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. j JOB (va s h i.ng-ton S.tAee t, Satem Structural Engineers SHEET NO OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 g1 8F97 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED Sr DATE. • (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666.4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE �w 30 Y vim' RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB lVa6kZngton Street, Sateen Structural Engineers SHEETNO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 —TTI 77 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE • (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666.4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE 3 � a "'XXI Wo.ah.ing.ton S.tAea, Satem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 --8-118197 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE • (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE 3 � WasUng.ton Street, Salem RENE MUGNIER-ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. ' OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8/18/97 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED By DATE • (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BV DATE SCALE c w, �` 33 1•. i. �I Washington Stkeet, Satem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 f/1 7197 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE • (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE 3(� ar. wa hungton S.tAeet, Salem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. of 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 &/18/97 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 cALcuLATEDBy DATE • (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 ' CHECKED BY DATE SCALE 35 .f pp Yr' _ 1 f fes,-ti i { (Vashing.ton S.tAeet, SaXem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8/18/97 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE • (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE ' 36 wx[t:vn.S.a se-m rsi.v,�i n_..c,...�,...,,,,.._.e,•...n .............._ Wa6hing.ton S.theet, Satem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 81 18T9-7 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE • (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 6664115 CHECKED BY PATE SCALE Wa hing.ton St)Lee,t, Satem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8/18/97 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE . (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE L i y r- nsti t fKq.:n. a f i W"hi,ng.ton SttAeet, Satem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. ,roe Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8/18/97 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666.4115 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE F 3g w 5 i W skington S.tAeet, Sa,Eem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66-70 Union Square Suite 204 g/I8/97 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE • (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY GATE SCALE ' 1 0 i ,n. ;. IPoR�Ttf1.I IYpY5tae1 L151 IN0 ) 7-7. 4om Yea MCI T,01,1411 Tris WgshZngton StAeet, Salem RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF 66.70 Union Square Suite 204 8/18/97 SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATEDv DATE • (617) 666.5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 - CHECKED BY DATE SCALE Axa' .•a •M � I A rA