HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-25_CommunityCenter_PioneerHall_Ad-Hoc_PacketENGINEERING DIVISION Tel: 541/488-5587 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541/488-6006 Ashland OR 97520 TTY: 800/735-2900 www.ashland.or.us
Community Center and Pioneer Hall Ad-Hoc Committee
MEETING #1 AGENDA Pioneer Hall Courtyard
Friday, June 25th, 2021
9:00-11:00 a.m.
1. Introductions (meeting will commence in courtyard of Pioneer Hall)
2. Project Background and Objectives 3. Next Steps
Attachments:
1. Committee Scope of Work 2. Pioneer Hall Background Data 3. Community Center Background Data
Community Center and Pioneer Hall Ad-Hoc Committee
Committee Scope of Work:
The committee is charged with developing recommendations for the least cost options for the timely repair and reopening of each of the buildings, either concurrently or in sequence. In doing so, the committee may include options/alternatives to the least cost approach that it deems worthy of Council consideration.
Recommendations or options that restrict or alter the historical uses of the buildings shall contain descriptions of those limitations. Likewise, options that expand or enhance potential legal uses of either building shall be described in the final report. The committee will have access to all available City documents relating to each structure, including all recent reports, analysis, code
reviews and other documents that could benefit the final recommendation. Additionally, the
committee will have access to the building under the oversight of the staff liaison for visual inspection. No physical alterations to the current condition of the building will be permitted without prior request and approval by staff (materials testing, removal of cosmetic wall coverings, etc.)
All meetings will follow public meetings laws consistent with applicable sections of AMC 2.04. Staff liaisons will assist with public notice, public input, site access and can assist with the development of the final written report to Council with final review and approval of the recommendation document the responsibility and authority of the committee. Schedule/Timeline
It is anticipated that the committee will commence their work immediately upon approved
creation and appointment of the committee and will provide its final recommendations report to Council by the second Council Business meeting in September of 2021 or earlier if the committee so chooses.
CONFERENCE REPORT
CLIENT:City of Ashland
PROJECT:Pioneer Hall
LOCATION:73 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon
REPORT NO.01
JOB NO.1729
DATE:February 21,2018
TIME:9:00 A.M.–9:45 A.M.
UNLESS WRITTEN OBJECTION IS RECEIVED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS, WE ASSUME THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE ACCEPTED
PRESENT:Ralph Sartain (Ashland Fire & Rescue), Robert Rice (Northwest Code
Professi onals), Kaylea Kathol (Ashland Public Works) and Steve Ennis.
1.Those listed above met to review the following handouts (which are also attached to this report):
a)Pioneer Hall Building Code Analysis, dated 02/20/18.b)Oregon Fire Code Technical Advisory 11-14,dated 11/30/11.c)Pioneer Hall Floor Plan,dated 02/12/18.
2.It was agreed that this building could be used as an Overnight Shelter.
3.Ralph Sartain explained that since this is not a temporary use and the building will be used as anOvernightShelter year after year it will need to be fire sprinklered.Ralph stated that the TechnicalAdvisory was more applicable to temporary uses such as Warming Shelters.
4.The following was discussed regarding Fire Sprinklers:
a)Steve Ennis explained that a 2”water line will be needed. Ralph questioned whether it wouldhave to be so large.b)The Fire Department Connection (FDC) will need to be a 2 ½”Siamese connection with a
minimum of 3’-0”clearance in front of it and accessible from the road.
c)The fire sprinkler system will meet the requirements of NFPA 13R. Flow through systemsare only applicable to 13D, so this one will need to be separated from the domestic water service witha backflow device.Ralph recommends a wet system and will require a Knox Box.
d)The fire sprinkler riser does not have to be exposed.
e)A 13R system does not require fire sprinklers in the attic.5.The Fire Alarm system will be as follows:a)Off-site monitoring with back up is required. This connection can be made with a standard
phone line,data line, VOIP or cellular line.
b)The Fire Alarm is primarily for monitoring the Fire Sprinkler.c)Minimum components include a FACP,manual pull station, water flow alarm and smokedetector. These devices can all be in the same location. Additional smoke detectors could be added.
6.The Building Code Analysis was reviewed. Since Pioneer Hall and the Community Center are on the
same tax lot and have a combined square footage of less than 7,000 SF, the north wall of the buildingwill not need to have a 1-hour fire resistance rating (Exception to OSSC 705.3).Robert Rice willgive some more thought to the portion of the SW Building Corner that is within 10’-0”of the
property line.
1108 EAST JACKSON STREET • MEDFORD, OR 97504
PHONE: (541) 618 -9155 • FAX: (541)618 -9156
S T E V E E N N I S A R C H I T E C T
CITY OF ASHLAND
PIONEER HALL
ASHLAND,OREGON
BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS
February 20, 2018
1.PROJECT OVERVIEW:
a.Building Code Analysis of existing building constructed in 1890 and added onto in 1920’s and 1988.b.Existing building does not have fire sprinklers or fire alarms.
2.BASIS OF CODE REVIEW:
a.Communication with Kaylea Kathol, Project Manager for City of Ashland.b.Use of the building as a Community Hall, with occasional use as an overnight shelter with a maximum occupancy of 44.c.Field measurements and as-built drawings dated 02/12/18 (attached to this report).
3.BUILDING CODE REVIEW:a.Applicable Code:2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code.b.Occupancy (Chapter 3):Group R-1 (Residential Occupancy containing sleeping units where the occupants are primarilytransient in nature).
c.Construction Type (Section 602.2):Type V-B,no Fire Sprinklers.d.Allowable Height & Building Area (Section 503):1)2 story &7,000 SF Allowable (Table 503).2)Actual First Floor:2,345 SF.
3)The 2,345 SF First Floor less than 7,000 SF allowable area in Table 503.e.Types of Construction (Chapter 6):1)As shown in Table 601, a Type V-B building does not require any of building elements to be rated.2)Table 602 lists the Fire-Resistance rating requirements for exterior walls based on Fire Separation
Distance.The exterior walls of a Type V-B Building with Group R-1 Occupancy that has a FireSeparation Distance of 10’-0” or more does not have to be fire rated.3)The SW Corner of the building is approximately 8’-0” from the south property line.Those portions oftheexterior wall that are less than 10’-0” from the south property line must have a 1-Hour fire resistance
rating.4)The north wall of the building is approximately 8’-0” from the Community Center, which is on the sametake lot.The north wall of the building must have a 1-Hour fire resistance rating.5)It is unclear if the SW Corner and North Wall of the building are constructed of the required 1-
Hour fire resistance rating.f.Exterior Walls (Section 705):1)Unprotected openings in exterior walls of a non-sprinklered building with a Fire Separation Distance ofmore than 5’-0” but less than 10’-0” can be up to 10% of the wall area (Table 705.8).
2)There is a window near the SW Corner of the building, but it takes up less than 10% of the south wall.3)There are windows on the north wall of the building, but they take up less than 10% of that wall.g.Automatic Sprinkler Systems (Section 903.2.8):1)An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout
all buildings with a Group R fire area.2)Automatic sprinkler systems in Group R occupancies up to and including four stories in height shall bepermitted to be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R (903.3.1.2).
110 8 EAST JACKSON STREE T • MEDFORD, OR 97501PHONE: (541) 618 -9 155 • FAX: (541)618 -9156
S T E V E E N N I S A R C H I T E C T
Pioneer Hall –2 –February 20,2018
Building Code Analysis
h.Occupant Load (Section 1004 & Table 1004.1.1)(44 if used as overnight shelter, but the following is based on assembly
use):1)The Occupant Load Factor for Meeting Hall/101 is 15 Net. The Occupancy Load is 35.2)The Occupant Load Factor for Conference/108 15 Net. The Occupancy Load is 18.3)The Occupant Load Factor for Kitchen/102 is 5 Net. The Occupancy Load is 5.
4)The Occupant Load Factor for Dining/103 15 Net. The Occupancy Load is 7.5)The Occupant Load Factor for Office/107 is 100 Gross.The Occupancy Load is 1.6)The Total Occupant Load is 66.i.Means of Egress Illumination (Section 1006):
1)The means of egress, including the exit discharge, shall be illuminated at all times the building spaceserved by the means of egress is occupied (Section 1006.1).2)The means of egress and exit discharge will need illumination levels of not less than 1 footcandle(Section 1006.2).
3)Emergency power for illumination must be provided at the three exterior doors, per Section 1006.3.4)Meeting the requirements for Means of Egress Illumination must be verified.j.Accessible Means of Egress (Section 1007):1)Accessible spaces shall be provide with not less than one accessible means of egress (Section 1007.1).
2)Given the occupancy load and configuration of the building, there needs to be one accessible means ofegress from the Meeting Hall and one from the Conference Room.3)The south door to the Meeting Hall meets the requirement for an accessible means of egress from thatspace, so the east door does not need to be made accessible.
4)The west door to the Meeting Room is accessible, but the concrete landing outside that door has a slopethat exceeds code allowances (Section 1008.1.5).This concrete landing and the brick adjacent to itwould need to be renovated in order to meet the code requirements.k.Accessibility (Chapter 11 & ICC A117.1-2009):
1)The existing Kitchen does not meet the following accessibility requirements:a.Work Surface:The existing kitchen counter is 36” above the floor.A portion of thatcounter would need to be set at 34” above the floor to meet code requirements(Section 804.3 of ICC A117.1-2009).
b.Sink:The existing kitchen sink would need to be lowered from 36” to 34” and thecabinet below it altered to provide knee and toe clearance (Section 804.4 of ICCA117.1-2009).c.Cooktop:The existing cooktop would have to be replaced by one that does not
require reaching across the burners to access the controls (Section 804.5.4.3 of ICCA117.1-2009).l.Minimum Plumbing Fixtures Table 2902.1):(See Item 3,h. above for the Occupant Load)1)66 Occupants Total.
2)33 Male’s and 33 Female’s.3)Male’s water closets @ 1/125 = 1 required and one provided.4)Female’s water closets @ 1/65 = 1 required and two provided.5)Male’s lavatories @ 1/200 = 1 required and one provided.
6)Female’s lavatories @ 1/200 = 1 required and two provided.7)Drinking Fountain = 1 required and none provided.8)The existing restrooms meet the plumbing fixture requirements, although a Drinking Fountainwould have to be added to fully meet the current code. Also note that although the restrooms
appear to have met the code requirements when they were renovated in 2003, they are missingthe vertical grab bars at the water closets required by the current code.m.Accessibility for Existing Buildings (Section 3411):1)Where an alteration includes alterations to an entrance, and the facility has an accessible entrance, the
altered entrance is not required to be accessible, unless required by Section 3411.7. Signs complying withSection 1110 shall be provided (Exception to 3411.8.1).If alterations are pursued, a sign will needto be added to the east door of the Meeting Room directing people to the nearest accessibleentrance, which is the south door to the Meeting Room.
OREGON FIRE CODE
Interpretations and Technical Advisories
A collaborative service by local and state fire professionals,
along with our stakeholders and customers, to provide
consistent and concise application of Oregon’s
fire prevention and life safety regulations.
Date: Revised November 30, 2011 (April 4, 2011)
Ruling: Technical Advisory No. 11-14 (Revised TA# 09-03)
Subject: Temporary Shelters.
Code Reference:
Content: This technical advisory contains minimal guidelines to allow a building not normally
designated as an R Occupancy (use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for sleeping
purposes) to be used as a temporary shelter with the approval of the local jurisdiction. This
may include your local building, zoning and fire official.
Note: Local jurisdictions may have more stringent requirements than are provided
here or they may not allow temporary shelters.
Time limits: To meet the allowances of this advisory, a building may be used as a temporary
shelter for a maximum of ninety days (90) within any twelve (12) month period of time
beginning on the first (1st) day of occupancy or as approved by the local authority having
jurisdiction.
Maximum Number of Occupants Allowed: The maximum number of allowable temporary
shelter occupants shall be calculated using an occupant load factor of one (1) individual for every
thirty-five (35) square feet of room area. For example, a room with 980 square feet would be
allowed to provide temporary shelter for up to 28 occupants. 980 divided by 35 = 28.
Life-Safety Requirements: The following life-safety requirements apply to buildings being
used as a temporary shelter:
1. Fire sprinklers. It is not necessary for a building to have fire sprinklers installed to
allow it to be used as a temporary shelter. However, buildings with approved fire
sprinklers installed may be granted more flexibility as follows.
When a building has approved fire sprinklers installed throughout, temporary
shelter sleeping areas may be located on any building floor level.
K:\Codes\Interpretations & Technical Advisories\2010 OFC Technical Advisories\11-14 Temporary Shelters.doc
Page 1 of 3
When a building is not fully fire sprinklered, temporary shelter sleeping areas
may only be located on the first (ground) or second floor. Sleeping areas are
not permitted in basement areas of a non fire sprinklered building.
2. Smoke alarms and detection.
All temporary shelter sleeping areas shall be provided with approved smoke
alarms or a complete approved smoke detection system.
All other areas of the building used for temporary shelter operations shall be
equipped with smoke alarms or a smoke detection system as required by the
local fire code official.
Smoke alarms may be battery operated.
3. Carbon monoxide (CO) alarms and detection.
All temporary shelter sleeping areas shall be provided with approved carbon
monoxide alarms or a complete approved detection system in buildings that
have a carbon monoxide source such as a heater, fireplace, furnace, appliance
or cooking source that uses coal, wood, petroleum products and other fuels that
emit carbon monoxide as a by-product of combustion. This would include
buildings with an attached garage with a door, ductwork or ventilation shaft
that communicates with the rooms intended for sleeping.
Carbon monoxide alarms may be battery powered.
4. Means of Egress (Exits). All floor levels with temporary shelter areas shall have a
minimum of two means of egress (exits) from each floor level. All means of egress
(exit) paths shall be maintained free of obstructions at all times. Exits from sleeping
areas shall be as follows;
Sleeping areas located on the ground floor of a temporary shelter with an
occupant load of 49 or less shall have a least one (1) exit and at least one (1)
window qualifying as an escape or rescue window as defined by the building
code.
All other floor levels used as temporary shelter sleeping areas that have an
occupant load of 10 or more shall have two (2) exits from the area. The exits
serving the areas shall be separated by a distance equal to at least 1/3 of the
longest diagonal distance of the area.
5. Emergency Evacuation Plan. All temporary shelters shall create and maintain an
approved emergency evacuation plan addressing the evacuation of all occupants in an
emergency event. At a minimum, the emergency evacuation plan shall contain the
following:
Building floor plans. Building floor plans for each floor of the temporary
shelter with sleeping areas clearly identified.
Room size. The square footage of all rooms of the temporary shelter.
K:\Codes\Interpretations & Technical Advisories\2010 OFC Technical Advisories\11-14 Temporary Shelters.doc
Page 2 of 3
K:\Codes\Interpretations & Technical Advisories\2010 OFC Technical Advisories\11-14 Temporary Shelters.doc
Page 3 of 3
Egress (exit) path. Building floor plans shall clearing show the egress (exit)
paths from all areas of the temporary shelter. Egress (exit) path floor plans
shall be posted throughout the temporary shelter.
Life-safety systems. The emergency evacuation plan shall also include
information about the fire sprinkler system, fire alarm system or the smoke
alarms.
Occupant list. A list of all occupants each night must be made maintained and
made available to the emergency personnel in the event of a fire or incident.
6. Fire Watch. During sleeping hours a fire watch shall be maintained continuously.
This means at least one responsible person shall be awake and assigned this
responsibility. This duty may be rotated among a number of responsible adults during
the sleeping hours. The fire watch person shall be equipped with a working flashlight
and have access to a phone or carry a cell phone on their person.
7. Documentation. Documentation of all fire safety requirements including copies of
the temporary shelter evacuation plan shall be maintained on site and shall be available
for review at the request of the local fire code official.
8. Notification. The local fire code official shall be notified prior to the temporary
shelter being used. Notification shall include the number of occupants being
temporarily sheltered and the expected days and times that the temporary shelter will
be used. The local fire code official may require an inspection prior to the shelter
being occupied.
Other References:
K-3544
K-3544
K-3544
ST
E
V
E
E
N
N
I
S
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
11
0
8
E
A
S
T
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
ME
D
F
O
R
D
,
O
R
E
G
O
N
9
7
5
0
4
Pioneer Hall Structural Assessment Report Page 1 of 8 October, 2017
Pioneer Hall: Structural Assessment Report
1. Project Description
1.1. Scope of Work
This report covers a condition assessment, gravity assessment, and Tier 1 and Tier 2 seismic assessment of Pioneer Hall located at 73 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon. The report also includes a
description of possible seismic strengthening of the components found to be deficient with a plan sketch at the end of the report that shows the extent of the work.
1.2. Existing Building Description
There are no original drawings for Pioneer Hall, so field measurements were taken to confirm shear wall lengths and heights and to confirm construction type. New architectural drawings are included at the end of this report.
From information provided by the facilities manager, the log structure was constructed in 1890, the kitchen/bathroom addition a few years later, and the south addition (Conference room) was built in 1988.
The building was physically observed and access into the roof spaces was provided. It is clear that the
existing wood framing is in good condition.
Pioneer Hall Structural Assessment Report Page 2 of 8 October, 2017
Figure 1: Building Corner
Figure 2: Building Corner
Pioneer Hall Structural Assessment Report Page 3 of 8 October, 2017
Figure 3: Meeting Hall
Figure 4: Attic Space
Pioneer Hall Structural Assessment Report Page 4 of 8 October, 2017
2. Condition Assessment
A visual inspection of the logs, floor framing, and roof framing show that there is no apparent wood rot.
The treated logs below grade are in good condition. The foundation stem walls below the exterior walls of the additions do not have significant cracking or spalling. The roof framing nails show no signs of
corrosion.
The roof above the meeting hall does sag significantly, but this is most likely due to creep over several years rather than material degradation.
We were unable to access the roof framing of the Conference room addition. Only a portion of areas
such as the crawlspace and buried bottom sill log were able to be viewed, so the condition assessment is representative of the entire structure and may not account for small, concealed instances of degradation.
There is a partition at the office that is separating from the ceiling at the top. This wall is located at the
exterior wall of the previous addition, so there is a concrete footing below it. If it continues to settle, the issue should be addressed, but because it is at a rigid foundation, there is not a strengthening that could
be implemented that will not involve significant foundation work.
Figure 5: Settling Wall
3. Basis of Design
The basis of design, design criteria, design loads, etc. can be found in the Design Summary at the
beginning of the calculations.
4. Gravity Assessment Results and Recommendations
The following items were found to be deficient by the vertical load analysis.
A. Floor joists under both additions are overloaded under floor dead loads plus an 80 psf live
load.
Pioneer Hall Structural Assessment Report Page 5 of 8 October, 2017
Conclusion – Floor joists under both additions require strengthening. This might be achieved
by installing four new beams with crawlspace footings at mid-span of the joists to reduce the
span length of the joists by half.
This would require removal and replacement of floor finishes and sheathing to access the
floor framing.
If the live load is reduced to 60 psf, then the floor joists under the kitchen/restroom addition
do not require strengthening. In that case, we recommend posting a live load limit of 60 psf.
B. Floor beams supporting the joists under both additions are overloaded under floor dead loads
plus an 80 psf live load.
Conclusion – Similarly for the floor joists, the load on the floor beams can be reduced
significantly if new beams with footings were installed between the existing beams to reduce
the tributary area.
This will require removal and replacement of floor finishes and sheathing to access the floor
framing.
If the live load is reduced to 60 psf, then the floor beams under both additions do not require
strengthening. In that case, we recommend posting a live load limit of 60 psf.
C. There is a long header above the double door entrance to the Conference room. This header
is overloaded under snow loads and we recommend strengthening the existing wood header
by installing a new 2x8 on the interior face of the existing header.
Conclusion – Confirm the size and type of existing header during construction works. Add to
the cross section of the existing header by installing a new 2x8 to the interior face of the
existing header. The ends of the new 2x8 should extend past the opening and nail to the
king stud.
D. Pole rafters in the roof above the log structure are sagging significantly and they are
overloaded under snow loads. It appears that efforts have been made to support them mid-
span with new framing at the ceiling level, or the new framing was installed to support the
ceiling. Regardless, the pole rafters are still overloaded, even with the new framing.
Conclusion – Install a new ridge beam to span length-wise between the exterior walls on to a
new wood post and beam frame that can span over the doorways at both walls. Put new
double 4x rafters between the existing pole rafters to span between the new ridge beam and
the exterior walls.
This work will be quite challenging if the ceiling is not able to be removed prior and replaced.
E. The stick-framed trusses at the roof above the kitchen/bathroom addition have lapped and
nailed joints. Web members were face-nailed to the truss chords with three nails typically.
These joints are not sufficient to resist the tension and compression loads in the truss
members.
Conclusion – We recommend installing plywood gussets at each truss joint opposite the web
with a 2x spacer between the gusset and the web. The gusset would be lag-screwed into the
chord and the web.
5. Seismic Assessment Results and Recommendations
Pioneer Hall Structural Assessment Report Page 6 of 8 October, 2017
The building was assessed at the Life Safety level, with non-structural items categorized as “Life Safety”. More information on the Risk Category and Level of Seismicity can be found in the Design Summary at
the beginning of the calculations.
The following items were found to be deficient by the Tier 2 Seismic Analysis.
A. The existing short logs between openings in the walls do not have adequate strength to resist
in-plane seismic lateral loads.
Conclusion – Connect the short logs between openings together along their length top and
bottom with long lag screws or steel plates to the inside face, which is sawn flat.
B. There is no edge blocking at the wall/roof edge above the log structure, which is required at
this diaphragm because it is 40 feet long.
Conclusion – Provide new blocking between the roof plywood and the top log with steel clips to attach to the bottom of the roof plywood and the top of the log.
C. Ties do not exist at the major return corner of the building, making the diaphragm chord and
drag continuous between buildings.
Conclusion – Install new steel ties from the addition wall top plates to the original log walls (see
the conceptual strengthening plan for locations).
D. It is assumed that there is no steel connector at the end of the beam separating the
Conference room from the Kitchen.
Conclusion – Confirm that there is no positive steel connection from this beam to the column
at each end. Install a new Simpson angle bracket to the bottom of the existing beam to
connect to the existing column.
E. It is assumed that there are not sufficient sill anchors and hold-downs at both addition exterior
walls.
Conclusion – Confirm the type and spacing of exterior wall sill plate anchor bolts. Install new
anchor bolts at 4’-0” on center and hold-downs where indicated in the conceptual
strengthening plan.
The following non-structural items require lateral support.
A. The stone chimney is a falling hazard.
Conclusion – The chimney is required to remain for historic purpose. The most economical
means of strengthening the chimney is to replace it with a reinforced core. It may be possible
to keep the top brick core with new internal or external reinforcing
B. It is unknown if the members of the log truss at the front of the building under the canopy
have substantial end connections. It is anticipated that the cantilevered diaphragm at the
canopy will deflect a fair amount, which could put a lot of stress into those end connections of
the log web members.
Conclusion – Create new positive connections between the canopy log truss web members
and the chords with steel angles and bolting.
Pioneer Hall Structural Assessment Report Page 7 of 8 October, 2017
C. There are several tall cabinets in the Conference room that should be restrained to prevent a
falling hazard.
Conclusion – Use light gage steel angles and long screws to fasten the tops of the cabinets to the wall studs.
NEW ANGLES
AND BOLTING REQUIRED
Pioneer Hall Structural Assessment Report Page 8 of 8 October, 2017
6. Conceptual Seismic Strengthening
The following plan sketch indicates extents of the work required for a seismic upgrade.
If there are any structural questions regarding the seismic assessment and retrofit of Pioneer Hall, please do not hesitate to contact Marquess and Associates.
Kristina Cooper, P.E.
Marquess & Associates, Inc. 1120 East Jackson St.
Medford, Oregon 97504 P 541-772-7115
Ashland Community Center Structural Investigation Report.docx Page 1 of 13
April, 2019
Ashland Community Center: Structural Investigation Report
1. Project Description
1.1. Scope of Work
This report covers an investigation of structural damage and as-built conditions at Ashland Community
Center, located at 59 Winburn Way in Ashland, Oregon.
Structural damage refers to excessive deflection in the ceiling on the west end of the Main Hall, near the
stage. A member across the width of the Main Hall has deflected downward. The north exterior wall of the Main Hall is also not plumb; there is noticeable deflection of the top plate outward. The floor is also
noticeably not level.
Figure 1: Downward Deflection of Ceiling
at West End of Main Hall
Ashland Community Center Structural Investigation Report.docx Page 2 of 13 April, 2019
Figure 2: North Exterior Wall of Main Hall Out-of-Plumb
Figure 3: Concrete Veneer at Crawlspace Pushed Outward
Ashland Community Center Structural Investigation Report.docx Page 3 of 13 April, 2019
The 1922 building was rehabilitated architecturally and structurally in 1985. This report indicates whether or not the existing rehabilitation work follows the construction drawings from 1985. No original drawings
are available.
1.2. Existing Building Description
As stated previously, original drawings of the 1922 timber structure were not found. The rehabilitation drawings from 1985 typically provide adequate information to conduct any assessments of the structure. The building was physically observed and access into the roof space and crawlspace was provided. It is
clear that the existing wood framing is not rotted or degraded, although some structural members are not functioning as intended, or have failed, or have failed and been repaired previously. The concrete
foundations appear to be in good condition. There is no spalling or major cracking observed in the concrete.
As can be seen in Figure 6 below, the Main Hall has a curve, vaulted ceiling. This area is of most
concern, due to observed ceiling deflections, and deformations in the exterior wall. The floor is also not level in the Main Hall.
Figure 4: Northeast Building Corner
Ashland Community Center Structural Investigation Report.docx Page 4 of 13 April, 2019
Figure 5: Southeast Building Corner
Figure 6: Main Hall
Ashland Community Center Structural Investigation Report.docx Page 5 of 13 April, 2019
Figure 7: Roof Structure
2. Investigation of Damages
2.1. Main Hall Ceiling
A visual inspection of the roof framing reveals some issues with the framing arrangement over the Main Hall. Several ceiling joists and hip rafters bear on insignificant structure exactly at the line where
downward deflection is occurring in the west end of the Main Hall near the stage. Perhaps at one time there had been a beam or wall here, which is suggested in the 1985 drawings. The roof framing plan
shows a line of studs to be put under the rafters, which should bear on new 2x6 ceiling joists, but in the area where the ceiling has deflected down, no ceiling joists were added, because it is a vaulted ceiling.
The flat 2x6 joists work in the flat ceiling areas of the building, but there are no 2x6 joists for the studs to bear on in the vaulted area. The photo below shows this condition where ceiling framing and rafters
terminate at a point where there is no member on which to bear.
The engineer’s notes from 1985 also indicate that some type of support that is not currently existing could or should be installed by a note “Future?”. A copy of the sketch is below.
Main Hall curved, vaulted ceiling structure
Ashland Community Center Structural Investigation Report.docx Page 6 of 13 April, 2019
Figure 8: Line of Downward Deflection in Ceiling
Figure 9: Copy of Sketch from 1985 Engineer’s Notes
Line where ceiling has deflected down (see Figure 1). There appears to be no support where these rafters
bear on this line.
Ashland Community Center Structural Investigation Report.docx Page 7 of 13 April, 2019
Figure 10: Photo at Line of Downward Deflection in Ceiling
2.2. Main Hall Out-of-Plumb Wall (north exterior wall)
Figure 2 shows that the exterior north wall of the Main Hall has deflected outward at the top of the wall.
This is likely due to the deflection produced by thrust in the main roof trusses. There are tie rods from the 1985 rehabilitation that are intended to remove the thrust from the trusses and prevent further deflection of the top of the wall outward. The 1985 drawings do not indicate that the tie rods should have been tightened to bring the walls back to vertical, so it is likely that they were tightened enough to make them
taut, and perhaps the wall had not yet deflected noticeably at that time.
It is also possible that this wall was out-of-plumb in 1985 and was not repaired. It is also possible that the connections in the tie rods have crept and slipped over the years and some extra slack in the tie rod has
been taken up by the outward movement at the top of the wall.
This line of structure does not provide sufficient
beam or truss action.
Ashland Community Center Structural Investigation Report.docx Page 8 of 13 April, 2019
2.3. Main Hall Un-level Floor
The floor structure consists of wood joists spanning approximately eight to ten feet between wood beams,
which bear on wood posts on square concrete footings. After having a close look under the Main Hall floor in the crawl-space, it is apparent that the existing concrete footings under some of the posts have
settled. Since the existing joists span continuously over the beams, a gap has been created where the joist should be bearing on the beam, which requires the joists to span twice the distance. Some settling over time is normal for foundations. The foundation drainage was improved in 1985, with
some minor excavations around the footings and installation of drainage lines and vapor barrier on the crawlspace floor. This work may or may not have affected the moisture properties of the soil.
The settlement has not caused any excessive deflection of the main structure, but it has created an
undesirable condition at the interior joist bearing line.
Figure 11: Crawlspace Showing Floor Joists and Beams
Ashland Community Center Structural Investigation Report.docx Page 9 of 13 April, 2019
Figure 12: Gap Between Bottom of Floor Joist and Top of Beam
3. Investigation of As-Built Conditions
The building was investigated for compliance with the 1985 drawings of rehabilitation of the structure. Not every structural item on the drawings was checked, but many areas were verified. Mainly, the rehabilitation sought to strengthen the roof structure and improve drainage around the foundations. It is
clear that most of the roof rafters were over-spanned before 1985.
New cripple walls under existing rafters were installed per the drawings, as well as extended rafter
splices, braces, and posts, which reduce spans.
The tie rods were installed in the Main Hall roof, as indicated by the drawings. The end connections were not observed.
The hip truss top chord failed in the northwest corner of the Main Hall and was repaired by the 1985
construction work, as detailed by the drawings.
Retrofit trenches and drain lines were observed in the crawlspace, as indicated by the 1985 drawings. Some minor structural work was done in the crawlspace, which also appeared to be installed per the
drawings.
4. Recommendations
Because strengthening of the gravity systems was completed in 1985, a structural assessment of the gravity systems is not warranted, except as noted below. This report does not guarantee that every
connection and member is adequate to resist gravity loads. Due to the complex nature of the roof framing, the entire roof and ceiling structure would have to be exposed in order to conduct a proper
assessment.
Ashland Community Center Structural Investigation Report.docx Page 10 of 13 April, 2019
A. The roof structure above the Main Hall is a poor conglomeration of structural members, some
without end support. The roof deflects excessively and consistently. Cracks that form in the
ceiling plaster and walls must be painted frequently. Some cracks have recently required
filling, which suggests irreversible deformation. The same deformation has caused the
exterior wall to move outward at the top.
While the tie rods and new connectors theoretically provide the necessary structural strength,
they do not seem adequate in providing necessary stiffness. Furthermore, as the structure
moves down and back up with the snow loads, it is unclear how much stress this imparts to
various connections within the roof framing, including the stress caused by the permanent
deformations.
Another strengthening will be quite invasive, and it will be difficult to prove that each
connection in the existing structure is sufficient, especially considering some of the main
connections in the existing trusses are a single through bolt.
Conclusion – The best way to address all of these issues over the Main Hall would be to
completely remove and replace the existing roof and ceiling structure over the Main Hall with
new wood trusses. Each system (roof rafters, trusses, tie rods, and ceiling joists) is too
flexible, and it will be very difficult to retroactively stiffen each one. In our opinion, it is not
feasible to try and re-use the existing roof structure over the main hall.
The north wall of the Main Hall should be brought into plumb after the roof framing has been
removed. The current condition is unacceptable. If more outward deflection occurs at the top
of the wall because of a failed member or slipping connections, it could cause a total collapse
of the building. Wood structures are very forgiving and give lots of warning, but only to a
point. Trying to bring this wall into plumb with the roof framing still in place will not be safe
due to the lack of dependable, repetitive members.
The concrete veneer that is bowing outward on the north crawlspace wall is not structural.
This should be repaired, however, in order to preserve the water resistance of the building
and protect the wood structure in the crawlspace.
B. The floor is not level in the Main Hall, likely due to settling in the crawlspace.
Conclusion – The gap between the bottom of the floor joists and the top of the crawlspace
beams should be filled tight with wood shims. The joists can be jacked up slightly near the
beam before the shims are installed to remove some of the sagging and it might make the
floor more level.
Another option is to jack up the floor beams and place a filler between the floor beam and the
tops of the crawlspace posts.
C. The roof rafters over the Stage, Backstage, and Dressing rooms in the northwest corner of
the building are over-spanned. There is also no ridge beam, only a continuous, thin rim. The
rafters are sagging due to the large span.
Ashland Community Center Structural Investigation Report.docx Page 11 of 13 April, 2019
Figure 13: Overspanned Rafters and Ridge
at Northwest Corner of Building
Conclusion – A ridge beam with posts could be installed at the apex of the roof. New rafters
should be installed that frame into the new ridge beam. Alternatively, the roof could be
completely removed, as suggested over the Main Hall and new trusses could be installed.
Ashland Community Center Structural Investigation Report.docx Page 12 of 13
April, 2019
5. Conceptual Strengthening
The following plan sketch indicates extents of the recommended work.
COPY OF ROOF FRAMING FROM 1985 DRAWINGS WITH EXTENTS OF WORK INDICATED
MAIN HALL RAFTERS & CEILING JOISTS DO NOT
HAVE SUPPORT STRUCTURE AT THIS LINE
NEW HEADERS &
CRAWLSPACE BEAMS UNDER NEW TRUSS BEARING LINE
Ashland Community Center Structural Investigation Report.docx Page 13 of 13 April, 2019
COPY OF BUILDING SECTION FROM 1985 DRAWINGS
WITH EXTENTS OF WORK INDICATED
If there are any structural questions regarding this investigation report for the Ashland Community Center,
please do not hesitate to contact Marquess and Associates.
Kristina Cooper, P.E. Marquess & Associates, Inc.
1120 East Jackson St. Medford, Oregon 97504
P 541-772-7115