Facility Assessment for 11801 East Main Street, Huntley, IL July 12, 2012 Prepared by: Dewberry Architects Inc. 25 S. Grove Avenue, Suite 500 Elgin, IL 60120 (847) 695-5840
The Village of Huntley requested Dewberry to conduct a facility assessment of the building located at 11801 Main Street in Huntley. The assessment was conducted on July 2, 2012. Nathan Bossenga, SE, AIA of Dewberry met with Victor Narusis, Business Recruitment Coordinator with the Village of Huntley and a representative from the property management service. The building is located on the south side of Main Street and currently serves both commercial and residential capacities. The property is bounded on the west and south sides by a paved parking area. On the north, the property fronts Main Street and has available on street parallel parking. The east side of the property is at the termination of Woodstock Street, which provides access to the parking for the restaurant/pub across the street and access to the parking on the west/south. The building appears to be built to the property lines on the north, east and west with a small grassy area on the south. It was unclear if any onsite parking was provided. The entire lower level, the first floor common areas and the exterior of the building were made available for the assessment. The assessment was visual in nature; no destructive testing was conducted as part of this assessment. (View looking east from adjacent parking lot) (View looking west along Main Street) (View looking west across Woodstock Street) (View looking south from adjacent parking lot) Commercial businesses currently occupy portions of the first floor and the lower level. Residential apartments are located on the first and second floors. The rear entry to the lower level provides access to the laundry service and storage for the apartments, as well as the mechanical and electrical service room for the building. The lower level is partially recessed below grade and the entry to the first floor is 2
consequently raised above the sidewalk level. The lower level, for both the commercial area in the front and the storage area in the back, is accessed by cast-in-place concrete stairs on the north and south sides respectively. The commercial area on the first floor is accessed by a concrete stair on the northeast corner of the building. The second floor apartment is accessed by an exterior concrete stair on the north-west corner of the building, leading to an interior stair to the second floor. A wood deck on the east side leads to an interior hallway, which accesses the two first floor apartments. An interior stair providing second access to the second floor apartment also opens into the interior hallway. (Exterior stairs leading to 1 st floor and lower level) (Stair enclosure leading to lower level at south) (Exterior deck leading to 1 st floor apartments) (Exterior stair leading to 2 nd floor apartment) The building is believed to have been originally constructed in the 1880 s. The building is a wood framed structure supported on a stone rubble foundation. The lower level has a concrete slab-on-grade floor. The structure is a post and beam wood system supporting rough-sawn wood floor joists. The floor framing consists of a majority of wood plank floor boards with areas of plywood where modifications have been made. The attic area was not accessible at the time of this assessment. The building 3
structure overall is in satisfactory condition for its age, based on the area exposed to view in the lower level and in the interior stair linking the first and second floors. Local areas of damage were visible where floor joists had been cut out or removed. In the lower level, several of the wood columns have been replaced with steel pipe columns. In the interior stair, accessed from the first floor corridor, there were signs of fire damage. One column and beam on the exterior wall had been burned, as well as several of the floor joists. The damage to the column and beam appeared to be minimal, with charring affecting only the outer 1/8 to 1/4 of the column and beam. The damage floor joists had a similar amount of charring, and it appeared that a portion of the floor had been removed as a result of the fire. A more detailed investigation and subsequent engineering analysis is required to determine full extent of the required repairs. Also, there is evidence of small leaks in the foundation wall in several areas where existing windows have been closed off and in-filled. The walls show signs of staining and there is some degradation of the mortar in the walls. (Improperly cut floor joist) (Water infiltration at in-filled window) (Interior exit stair w/ open risers) (Fire damage to post and beam, as well as floor joist framing) 4
(Fire damage in interior stair) (Lower level framing w/ steel pipe column) The building has a combination of mechanical systems. The two first floor apartments each have a forced-air furnace, located in the lower level mechanical room, to provide heating. Heating for the two commercial spaces is from a boiler and radiator system. Cooling for the building is provided by window air-conditioning units. Three tank-style water heaters were also located in the lower level. It was not determined how heating for the second floor apartment was provided. It does not appear that any ventilation is provided for the spaces heated using the boiler/radiator systems. Electrical service for each unit was provided by an individual meter and circuit panel, located on the west side of the building and the lower level respectively. In the interior stair leading to the second floor apartment, there is an electrical sub-panel without the proper clear working area. Proper emergency lighting and exit signage was not provided in all areas. The building does not have fire sprinkler system or a fire alarm system. (Boiler and water heaters in mechanical room) (Furnaces for 1 st floor apartments) 5
(Electrical service panels in mechanical room) (Electric meters on west exterior wall) The exterior of the building is in very poor condition. The aluminum side is in significant disrepair, having been previously patched in various locations. The windows for the building are mostly wood frames, but a few vinyl units have been installed in one of the first floor apartments. All the wood windows show signs of significant water infiltration at the frames. Remedial work to the surrounding wall framing and sheathing would be probably be required to correct additional water damage. Previous large openings have been in-filled during prior renovations, but they also show signs of allowing water infiltration. The current exterior door leading to the first floor apartments, as well as the deck that provides access, are in poor condition. There appears to be an attic for the building, but the vent panels on the north and south sides are damaged and no longer close the attic off from the exterior. The shingle roof is beyond its useful life, with shingles missing in numerous locations and needs to be replaced. The gutters and downspouts also are torn loose from the building in some locations, also need to be replaced. This may also indicate damage to the eave framing members. (Siding damage on south facade) (Siding damage on south facade) 6
(Opening in-fill damage on east facade) (Door and side light damage on east façade) (Shingle damage on west side of roof) (Disrepair on south façade) (Siding and window damage on north façade) (Wood and vinyl windows on west façade) The building has no means to allow for access required under ADA guidelines. The two lower level areas have no lift or ramp to allow for access. The commercial space on the first floor also has no means of access. The two first floor apartments, as well as the second floor apartment, also have no means of accessibility provided. The restroom facilities also do not meet accessibility standards for turning radius, grab bars, fixture type and locations. 7
(Lavatory in lower level restroom) (Water closet in lower level restroom) The ceiling height, approximately 6-9, of the lower level is less than the code allowed minimum of 7-6. Both interior stairs leading to the second floor apartment do not meet current code for maximum riser height and minimum tread depth. The stairs do not meet code requirements for hand and guard rails. The interior exit stair leading to the interior hallway is an open riser stair, which is not allowed by code. Also, the enclosure for the stair does not appear to provide the required fire rating. The deck on the east side of the building allowing access to the first floor apartments does not meet the requirements to function as a guard rail. The rail for the stair leading to the lower level on the north side of the building also does not meet the guard rail requirements. (Stairs and guard rail at lower level entrance) (Stair at 1 st floor entrance) In conclusion, the overall structure of the building appears to be in satisfactory condition. The stonerubble foundation does not show signs of significant deterioration due to water infiltration. The wood post and beam structure does not appear to show significant distress or damage. The floor joist and decking have localized areas of damage from previous, improperly done modifications to the building. However, the exterior enclosure of the building is in very poor condition. The roofing, siding and windows of the building have far exceeded their useful lifespan and will need to be replaced. Based on the visual appearance of the exterior enclosure, it is to be expected that water has infiltrated the 8
building at numerous locations in the walls and roof, deteriorating and damaging the exterior wall framing, possibly significantly. Another major concern is the required accessibility for the various spaces. Significant work would be required to bring the building up to current building code requirements. No proper access is provided to any of the three levels of the building via an elevator or ramps. Interior doorways, bathrooms and ceiling heights did not meet code requirements. Proper firerated exiting from the various spaces would need to be addressed. The applicability of these requirements would need to be reviewed with the building code officials. This report concludes our facility assessment scope of work. Sincerely, Nathan Bossenga, SE, AIA Dewberry Cc: Daniel Atilano, AIA 9