Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

1St Draft:

September 23, 2011

BUILDING CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT

52-56 Charlton Avenue, West. Hamiltonr Ontario ÿ-,October 2.011

(A Veritÿcat[on Repoÿ Subsequent to 2006)

Prepared for

TheCity of Hami[iton, Public Works Department,

Facility Management Services

Prepared by, Evans Consulting:& Management Services & Vanderwesten, Rutherford Mantecon Inc., Consulting Engineers

o')

<

Building Condition Assessment Repoÿ

52-56 Charlton Avenue West, Hamilton,

Table of Contents

1.0

Executive Summary

1

2.0

Findings

,

5

22

Changes in the Condition of the Facility

5

2.2

Observations

',

9

'2.3

PrioritUes

12

3o0

!Recommendiatlons

,

2

12

4,0

Condition Assessment Report

 

15

tÿp.ÿa ÿv -,ÿ Evans CoIÿsutltinÿ & !Managenÿent :ÿic;eÿ

,ÿ Vaÿdÿeÿtÿn Ruitlhÿrfÿ,ÿd ÿante¢oÿ hÿe.,

Executive Summary

• he (ÿlty of Hamilton own the facility located at _52-55 Charlton Avenue Weÿst,. in the downtown core of the City, The facility consists of two three storey victorian ÿyle houses ÿttached through the construction of a horizontal single ÿtorey link conrÿecting the two buildings. Each buÿldinÿ onsists of a basemenÿ and 3 floors: The approximat,e area of the two buildin,gs combined! is 17;900 square.lfeetÿ ÿ The tÿac.ility is cL!rrently leased to the thetisan Hall Agency. In oÿu'r o:pinionÿ ttÿe building wÿuld ÿbe classified as"Groÿup C: '- (Shelter far Women, Hostels and Lodging; Iÿouses) Occupancy Ll,qder the. Ontario Building Code° AS such .the building is requi,red tO have fkre separations throughout bet;weelÿ, floors and withiÿ certain ÿompartments. We assume the C]ty of Hamilton's ÿBuiÿcÿiniÿ officials have ÿrandfaÿhered !he [acil]ly into lhe Group, C.

Evans Consulting & Management S.ervtÿes (E£MS) were comÿ.ÿ!ssÿo.ned by the City of Hamilton to Lÿpdate th,e '200.E Capital planning R,epor[ÿ

prep.a,red iby V2PM. Vanderwestenÿ Rutherford Mantecorÿ inc

Consulting Engineers of Hamilton (VRM). werÿ contraÿted by ECMS to provide

,

technical assistance and life Cycle coÿt ana y.s]s in the architectural., sl;rUctura:l, mecha:niÿaÿ arid electrica! ÿJiscipl!ÿes for this project.

he Updates made in this. reiport reflect the increased Capita:l costs and the present ÿondition of the building(s) as .compared to the 2006 submis'sÿon, The second paÿt of the ÿxerc'ise was t# restate tlÿe list of pr'ioriti#s based, on continued deterioration of the bÿilding elements as weÿl a's the pÿsitive impact of the ÿapi[al work that was completed ,by the City and Charlton Hall.

n readin8 this ÿeportÿ comments that are italicized are the items that have been amencÿed by £vans Consulting & Management Services. Ty;peface that is irl reÿ.ÿar f0nt has nat been amendeÿ exceptforthe iÿevised ÿosts.

The approact-h and methodology consisted of a ÿchedu[ed site visit, a walkthrough the faci, lity and visual exam,lnat]on of the buitdinÿ's ÿonditioÿ. The ÿepoÿ Mantillas items that have been rape!red oÿ" rffpla,cÿd, areas that have d!eteri0rated fÿrther aÿ-d a revised list ÿf priorities that ÿ.houM be addressed in the ¢ominÿ 5 year period. Na invasive or destructive tesÿirÿg was ÿonducted as part of: this review, and dÿaWinSÿ or p¢oject

i

aÿ Vÿdenÿvÿstÿn tÿutÿrfoÿd Manteÿo,ÿ Iÿ:,.

: ÿ, ,ÿ iÿ

changes were not ava]!abte to. consu!t, A ÿh,ÿMsummary meeting was he[d with thÿ terLant at the ÿtonduslon of the lou.r to advise them of any safety issues found. Items indLÿded electrical concerns with fire safety on the third floor), and damage caused By rodents.

I mp rovements

Since the initial Capital £1anning Process {eport in 2006, the C,harlton Hall (tenant) and the City of HamiJlto,n have completed several ÿ:apital

repai(s and imp.rove.re, ents to 'the facility ÿn order to address life safeWÿ code octop!!ante and general m.aintemÿnce issues, The major

.mpfovements that.were ÿom:p!.eted oveÿ t:he S ye, ar period i:nclude the following;

3[. ,Replacement of a pproximately 75% of the floo rÿnsi in thÿ fa 611ty; in stallif!ÿ laminate fie o ring and Iÿeplad nÿ ca rpet ed areas

2. ;Ful'l renovatiqn of the t{itchen [:#52) ÿncluding el! n,ÿwf!ooring, ÿupboar.ds, plumbinÿ and fÿxtures.

3. lÿeplacement of three o

4. '.Replacement of the hot water heatin8 boiler tn qnit 56,

5, Replac#men't of two domestÿ hot waterheatinÿ: units.

6. Repair of the concrete stairs and #arhage encÿosure at the back the kJtcheÿ entrance.

7. U#ÿrade el:! wÿhrpom f!×tures and flooring8, It is imp£rÿa,ntÿ to note )ÿhat !;he WaShrooms at this time wilt not meet the

Accessibility Leÿislatioÿ reqairementÿ for 2025; how,everÿ it would appear that there is s,ufficient space to redesisn the area(s), 8- Repair and rePai,nt the.interior walls, ceilinÿ and doors in. both units of tbe.fadl!ty.

9. Replacemeat ÿfthe shingle roof on both bÿildiÿss

f

the air canÿ!itionin# units #52 and one air condÿitiqnÿnÿ urÿit in #56.

IQ, Temporary repa,iFs of the soffit and fascia to deter .rodents.

Items that are still of conÿeÿn, consist of code ÿompliance, structural issues and ÿife safety. Most of thÿse items a, lre areas that were

originally sta.ted orl thÿ initial report in 200&

'The City of Ham, tton instalÿed a new asphalt shingle roof irÿ 2ÿJ06; however, the soffit and: fasda repairs noted in the V2PM ,report

were not completed. Temporary repa#s have been made to the soffit a'nÿ. fascia, however; it has not remedied the larger

problem; there are now issues with rodents zai,nin8 access [nto the building. The ÿodents are afsq causing no.table damatÿ,e to

,.d Vaaderwesten Rutherford Atfai}t,econÿ IllYria.

Paÿe '.I z

the insulation ÿn the, efectr'ica! widrÿg whidÿ preÿntÿs a ffrÿ hÿzard. The, re are a]ÿo signs of thÿ same type ot' damage to the electrical wirÿn8 on the exterior of the 5uiÿdiÿnlÿ (#52) at the fire exit oÿ the 3ÿ" level. The e>;[ent of the damase inside the attic area: is unknoWtÿ ÿnd sh(ÿuld b.e ]nve.ÿ!ÿgated hÿrlhero

There are several structuraJ items that need to be addressed in this fa.ÿJlity. Aga:ir, these items were noted in the initial! report in 2006 prodthe degradation ha# continued, The structural items i.nc!ude' repairs to the robble foundation walÿs, struf;tural crea,!kiÿg in the brick ÿ[adding, and the corner suppoÿ of the front entrance porc'h:

3. The firÿ escape alon8 the east ele#ation also has some structura! concerns as. to its construction and the cenditiorÿ oÿ the sleel

bracin#ÿ Thÿs is. serious arid should be considered a priority one item.

4. There is !ead pipe sti!lÿ being used for the. potable water suppty at this fa.ci]i[y. Lead Pÿ#e is not #efÿitted fo,ÿ ÿhe distribution of drinkin8, water under t'he Ont.ario B,ui!lding and Plumbing Codes,

5,

The ba,sement back entrance off the tatmdry room experiences aÿoÿsta.nt problem with, extensive water infiltration and moisture migratio# through ttÿe rubble foundation. This problem continues to worsen and wilÿ become more costly as time goes Oa if not ÿddressedin the neÿ year.

The buffdi,n8 is known to contain asbestes. A copy'of the asbestos report [aS noteÿ hy the tenant;) was not available to £CMS I

VRM feÿ this survey. :It appears, that same of ,the. pipI'nÿ in the basement has been covered with black plastic ÿarbage bags to contain ÿhe prÿb!em, Thi:s is not an acceptable so[utJo,n andÿ should bÿ ¢emedied.

7÷

The facilit7 was not designed to be barrier f'ÿee: [here are no barrier free ÿamps .at the ent,rance, elevators or provisions for ertic-a! transportation, ,and the washrooms and shower facilities will have to be redes]ÿ:=rÿed:. Thÿs condition has not changed si,nce ttÿe 2006 aUÿlit and Wil! be cost!y to upgrade to meet the AODA leÿ}station for 2025,

8, Minor electrical repai[s are ÿequired aÿ noted irÿ the rep0ÿ an# discussed with 1ÿh,e Tenant (Diÿ'ector of the Agency).

A.:,d ÿaÿderwes,teÿ Rutherford Mentecen ÿnc,

lÿalÿe t ÿI

guÿi.ldiÿg C:orÿd{ttgrÿ As.ÿ,e{.g+ÿ3ÿeÿ-ÿt fdÿport 52-gg Cha+:Ron, Av.aÿueÿ, Weÿtÿ Hm'ÿ+ttÿm

f

t

AÿI of the windows irÿ bot}k facilities need to b.e scheduled on a replacement program; the units are original and at the end of the projected service fife.

10. Painting is considered to be a preventative maintenance measure. The interior of the facility has been painted recently,

however, the exterior does {equire some attention. The interior of th+e buitding should be repainted euery 34 years based on its

use. Similarly, the exterior of the building should also be repainted every 5+7 years.

The resulr_s of the assessment Indicate that lhe City of Ha.milton and/or the Chadton tdall need to invest approximately ÿ1,Z09ÿ200 in this

facility :I0 tÿ 15 year period. Of that $1.2 Million, 1g% or $215,400 ate considered priority one or immediate expenditures that should

occur in. the first year, .37% or $44.4,600 of the expenditures are scheduled to occur in the see{rod priority, one to 5 years. The largest

category is in the priority 3 items, expenditÿlres that are scheduled to occur outside of the 5 year term and possibly up to 15 years eyond t'he time of the study. Those expenditures amount to 44% or $536,70D.

Priority 5 items are code compliance items, Of those items, that largest is the Accessibilltÿl for Ontarians with Disabilities Act., The work

is trot legislated to be completed until 2025; .those items account for ÿ172,000 of the ÿ211,500+ Other code and compliance Reins

.include asbestos, lead pipe, exit signs and so on. These should be addressed in t'.he time frame stated in the report

!+,+#aÿd,ÿ

#.ÿ Va.nderwesten Rutÿ,erÿord Maÿtecon ,Inc.

.Evans ,Cen+s,u;lt[ÿg & tÿan:agÿ,ment Serv,iÿes

Pa,ge I 4