NLCC Building Report July2013

8/13/2019 NLCC Building Report July2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nlcc-building-report-july2013 1/45



Contents

Project Team………………………………01

Introduction…………………………….....02

Proposed Plans……………………………03

Cafeteria Architectural Concerns…………06

Cafeteria Structural Concerns…………….08

Cafeteria MEP Concerns……………….....09

Roof Replacement Budget…………….....10

1941 Wing Concerns…………………..….11

Appendix……………………………….....14

Project Team

We have assembled a multi-disciplinary team for this assessment, most of whom have severalyears’ previous knowledge of the facility:

Architect: SMP Architecture30 S. Main Street

Concord, NH 03301603.228.8880

Structural Engineer: Omega Structural Engineering PLLC211 State Route 103 Newbury, NH 03255603.938.6222

Mechanical/Electrical WV Engineering AssociatesEngineer: 11 King Court, 3rd Floor

Keene, NH 03431

603.352.7007

Construction Manager: Bauen Corporation177 Waukewan St.Meredith, NH 03253603.279.7660

New London Community Center Feasibility July 2013 Page 1 of 14



Introduction

The New London Central School opened in 1941 to serve as a grade and high school to thetown. Over the years, as the population grew, the complex was expanded with additionalwings built in the 1950’s and 1960’s. In the 1970’s, when New London joined in forming a

regional school district with Sutton,

Wilmot, Newbury, Springfield , Warner and Bradford , a new highschool was built in Sutton and the building became the KearsargeRegional Middle School.

In 2008 a new regional middle school was built in Sutton toreplace the older facility. The Kearsarge Regional School Districtoccupies much of the newer portions of the building, but theoriginal 1941 building and adjacent cafeteria have been vacant forthe last five years. This is becoming a concern.

There have been several attempts to convert the unused portion of

the complex into a community center, taking advantage of thegymnasium, cafeteria and multiple classrooms.

Recently a new non-profit organization has been formed, the New London Community Center(NLCC), that has entered a partnership with the Town of New London to roll out a phasedoccupancy of the building under a long-term lease arrangement with the school district. Thiswould include office space for the town’s recreation director, who would in turn act as thecoordinator for the community center.

For several reasons, the New London Community Center hasfocused on reopening the cafeteria portion as a first step:

It is in relatively good repair

It is accessible from ground level

It provides a large gathering space

It has a well appointed kitchen

It has new fire sprinkler coverage

It is a manageable scale project (about 6500 sf)

At the same time, this portion of the building presents some challenges. It lacks an air lockentry for winter use. It requires new toilet rooms to support the activities independent of theadjacent SAU. The flat roof, while reasonably maintained, was installed in 1985 and hasreached its serviceable lifespan. Some code compliance adjustments will be needed in thekitchen and in the emergency lighting and alarm system.

While intended to be mothballed for now, the 1941 wing will also be part of the lease areafrom the school district, hopefully to come on line in subsequent years following the successfullaunch of the community center.

The purpose of this report is to share the findings of our team and their recommendations withthis scenario in mind. We will flag major concerns that might alter the planning of this projectwithin the limitations of visual, non-destructive observation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton,_New_Hampshire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmot,_New_Hampshire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbury,_New_Hampshire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield,_New_Hampshire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner,_New_Hampshire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford,_New_Hampshire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford,_New_Hampshire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner,_New_Hampshire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield,_New_Hampshire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbury,_New_Hampshire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmot,_New_Hampshire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton,_New_Hampshire



Cafeteria Architectural Concerns

It is evident that this portion of the building is in the most ready, move-in condition. It hasheat, power, light and it keeps the weather out. Finishes are serviceable. Most importantly, itis a flat, on-grade group of spaces which makes it both accessible and easy to evacuate in an

emergency.

Previous obstacles to occupancy included the lack ofsprinkler coverage which has been corrected by theKearsarge School District in this zone. You will want tomake sure that the cafeteria wing is isolated from the un-renovated and unprotected 1941 wing until such time asthat has been brought up to readiness. Given the Town’slikely concerns of creeping expansion of the use area, wewould recommend a simple fire-rated drywall partition toclose off access from the cafeteria altogether.

Our chief, and really the only significant concern in thisarea, is the age and condition of the roof. Preliminarydiscussions have put the exterior enclosure in the tenant’sarea of responsibility, which is why we are bringing this toyour attention.

The roof structure is flat with two internal roof drains. Asreported in an assessment done for the District by Kopper’sIndustries in 2009, the roofing was originally four plies of built-up hot-mopped roofing felt. This was applied overapproximately one inch of polyisocyanurate insulation onthe steel decking.

In 1985, three inches of new insulation and a CarlysleEPDM roofing membrane were applied over the top of theold roof, held in place by stone ballast. While the roof has been maintained historically, it is currently in need ofmultiple repairs. Aside from the failing flashings, cracksand loose seams and other minor signs of advancedweathering, we noted intermittent soft spots underfoot.This suggests that water has penetrated to the underlyinginsulation, even if it has not made it all the way through tothe interior.

The roof has reached the end of its serviceable lifespan. Itis now 28 years old. The Kopper’s report said four yearsago that the roof could be kept going a while longer withattentive maintenance. This wing of the building has beenvacant for that period. Knowing the demands made on start-up non-profits, attentive




maintenance does not seem a very likely scenario, and we would recommend planning onhaving to replace the roof soon.

Other exterior architectural items:

While not as pressing, the small shingle roof at thewest side entry is also in need of work. It wouldmake sense to combine this bit with the re-roofing job.

The use of sliding glass doors for the windows in thisroom was pragmatic at the time of construction. Inorder to prevent students from falling out to gradelevel below, the sliders have been fixed. We wouldrecommend either an interior rail to allow some of the

sliders to operate and allow in fresh air, orreplacement of one or more units with operablewindows to accomplish the same end.

The East side or back of the cafeteria is basicallyready for occupancy with some exceptions.

Stair risers not consistent in height; potential causefor falls, and not code complient.

The concrete stair which would act as the main

entrance from parking has some minor spalling thatshould be addressed. Note: under current new building code, this entry would require a center raildue to the width. As a main exit out of the space, thetop landing would require a roof covering if it werenewly constructed.

The handrail at the kitchen entry steps has been broken and needs to be replaced.

West side entry windows were modified and theopenings were reduced. Painted plywood infill panelsrequire repair and repainting. This could becombined with trim painting across the entire leasearea. An upgrade to a lower maintenance panel couldalso be considered, as this is a primary entrance area.




The west entry has a slight concrete ramp leading tothe double doors. This ramp has had some minorspalling as well and could be repaired with the otherconcrete work. Note: current new building codewould require railings for a slope greater than 1:20,a level landing at the top, and a covered by a projecting roof. Such a new canopy could be a wayfinding opportunity.

Pediment above the door requires minor patch and paint.

On the interior, we discovered that the cafeteria had been added to a pre-existing long coveredwalkway that joined the buildings on either side. The flat roof, supported on its ownindependent structure, cantilevers out to meet the ridge of the old gable roof. This conditionruns the length of the façade, creating the mansard effect. The old roof is still visible above the

suspended ceiling.

Floor finishes are vinyl composite tile in the cafeteria and two adjacent classrooms and tile inthe kitchen. All are in good to serviceable order and do not require work.

Walls are primarily masonry, painted CMU and unpainted brick. The exception would be thelater added wooden wall separating off the northeasterly classroom. This requires painting. Asthe floor tile changes on either side of this wall, we recommend retaining it unless new flooringwork is anticipated.

Wall paneling is present in the area of the proposed new toilet rooms, but this area wouldundergo significant reconstruction anyway under the proposed plan.

The proposed plan calls for the creation of a new entry vestibule inside the west entry (see bottom of page 5). The new partitions will intersect the exterior walls at metal radiator coversthat will need to be modified. At that time miscellaneous cosmetic repairs to the enclosures upand down the hall could be undertaken.

Similarly, acoustic ceilings are in pretty good shape and do not require attention other thanyour option to replace those that have been decorated by past students.

Cafeteria Structural Concerns

Please refer to the engineer’s complete report included in the appendix. By observation he

found “no apparent signs of structural overstress or distress” in the lease area. Masonry wasreported to be in good shape. The chief drawback in the original design of the cafeteria wing isthe probable lack of elements to give the building lateral stability (in the event of earthquake)to the degree that the current code would require. Under the applicable International ExistingBuilding Code, improvements would not be required since no structural modifications are planned and the type of use in the building will not change from the original intent. Lateralreinforcement is possible, and always advisable, but it would significantly change the scope ofthe initial project from what the NLCC has anticipated.




Note also that the roof replacement, if undertaken, could potentially reduce the dead load onthe roof (from the Kopper’s estimated 22 lbs per square foot) due to the elimination ofredundant roofing layers and embedded gravel and stone ballast. However, if the insulationvalue increases significantly, it could increase the snow load since less would melt away. Thisshould be calculated into the design at that time. Considerations should be made for

mechanically fastened or fully adhered roofing systems.

Cafeteria Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Concerns

Please refer to the engineer’s complete report included in the appendix. The cafeteria wingreceived a relatively usable assessment from the engineer with a few items that requireattention.

The wing is heated by oil-fired boilers over in the school district building which provide hotwater to several radiators and to three through-wall air handlers along the back wall and one inthe kitchen. Four newer condensers on the roof provide cooling to these three plus a wall unitin the inboard classroom.

In general: The relatively new sprinkler system in this wing is ready to use. The fire alarmsystem is reusable with the addition of a few horn/strobes for the new layout. Mechanicalequipment in this area works—a few room units need replacement. The mechanical equipmentis controlled with by a pneumatic system, and replacement with an electronic system isrecommended. Adequate water supplies exist to provide for the new toilet rooms. Plumbingwaste systems appear to be adequate for what is existing (though small by modern standards) but not capable of picking up the additional toilet rooms. This will require a new line exitingacross the hallway. Electrical panels are usable—some investigation of the branch wiring isrecommended to verify what equipment is on what line. Lighting is serviceable in the wing, butsome replacement of the lenses could make a noticeable improvement in appearance. There isno data system available, and either new drops or a wireless system will need to be added ifthat is part of the concept for the community center. The kitchen is basically serviceablethough somewhat behind the times and will require some safety and health upgrades.

In the kitchen: The chemical system in the kitchen hood needs to be serviced to make sure it isstill in working order. At the same time the hood exhaust fan should be serviced as well. Thisfan has no provision for a controlled source of makeup air to replace what is exhausted, andthat should also be addressed.

When the kitchen is put back into use, it will require some upgrades to tie equipment into thefire alarm system with a provision to automatically shut down the cooking equipment in anemergency.

The hot water unit heaters and radiation in the kitchen need to be replaced.

The small toilet and janitor’s sink in the kitchen are in rough shape; we recommendreplacement of the fixtures, heating and ventilation units.

You should also be aware that the sinks and dishwashing equipment lack the high temperaturewater system and so will require continuation of chemical sanitation.Lighting fixtures in the kitchen are not vapor tight as would be required in a new kitchen.




Cafeteria Wing: Roof Replacement Budget

Reroofing of Cafeteria Area - 7,100 sf area

Scope of Work:

Remove existing roofing (EDPM, ballast, and built-up roofing)Remove existing insulation (3"" rigid and 1"" Isocyanurate board)Dispose of off site.Pricing based on all materials being non-asbestos.

Install new pressure treated blocking around the perimeter.Install 3"" and 2-1/2"" layers of polyisocyanurate insulation board.Install 1/4"" per foot tapered insulation, minimum of 1/2"" thickness over 5-1/2 layer.Flash all rooftop unit and penetrations.

Install new perimeter aluminum drip edge.Provide 20 year warranty.Pricing based on 2014 construction period.

Suggested budget is $98,700




1941 Wing Concerns

As we understand, the proposed lease arrangement between the CommunityCenter and the School district will include the original New London CentralSchool, built in 1941. This two-story brick, concrete and wood building

occupies the most northerly part of the complex. If it were brought on linein the future, would add 15,000 s.f., ten classrooms, a gym/assembly spacewith a stage and an additional 4,000 s.f. basement workshop to thecommunity center. It also embodies the old school house image and has alot of sentimental value to citizens of the area.

While solidly built for its day, this portion is also the least improved part of the property, andtherefore a relatively long laundry list of needs would have to be met before a future phase ofoccupancy. Without doing a strict economic analysis, our consensus is that re-using this building would make sense and the instinct to preserve it is not misplaced. A basic goal of thisreport is to alert the New London Community Center of conditions in the building that wouldmake it inadvisable to take on responsibility for it in the lease, let alone restore it to usability.

Other than the temporary heat that is running in the basement to prevent freeze-ups in the gym,the building is basically stable in its mothballed state. The exterior has a reasonably new roof,new windows and a masonry exterior that is in pretty good repair. We did not observe anyshort-term interventions that would be needed prior to putting the building back into use. Itwould be wise to monitor the building through the year to confirm that the moisture damageobservable on the basement level was in fact a result of the radiator lines freezing above or if itwas in some part a recurrence of past drainage issues associated with silt-clogged drain linesunder the parking area.

As of this past year, the State of New Hampshire has adopted the 2009 International ExistingBuilding Code. This new code offers a range of options for bringing an older building intocompliance with hopefully a greater factor of practicality. One course of interpretation(classification of work) involves assessment of the degree of renovation with a sliding scale ofstricter code compliance requirements as you renovate more and more of a building. So forexample, if you could simply paint and carpet the 1941 wing, you could show cause to avoidmore involved upgrades. There are four plateaus in this code:

Level 0: Repairs that replace elements with the same materials existing

Level 1: Simple cosmetic upgrades

Level 2: Alterations that reconfigure space, doors, windows or partitions

Level 3: Alterations that affect more than 50% of the building areaWe believe that Level 2 applies in that the building is basically serviceable but requires small

changes to the layout here and there around the plan.With that in mind, here are some of the more important shortcomings that would need to beaddressed in the long term. Please understand that renovation project would be some years off,so the regulatory context and the condition of the building may have change. Based on what weknow today, and taking into account the minimal resources of a start-up non-profit, we haveranked the work as “Must Do”, “Should Do” and “Could Do”.




Must Do:

The Town of New London will insist on sprinkler coverage as a condition ofoccupancy.

Fire alarms, pull stations and horn strobes will likewise have to be fully compliant.

The building water heating system is 30 + years old, some parts original 1941;

complete replacement should be anticipated. Plumbing system needs to be replaced and reconnected.

Rooms without operable windows will need a source of fresh air delivered by amechanical system at minimum.

A method to access the gym floor by ramp or lift is needed as this is a major and unique public space. Verify existing ramp will satisfy the Town.

Rear exterior stair from the parking area to the gym has deteriorated significantly andneeds replacement or upgrade to concrete (concrete option would also require fixing thefailed retaining wall).

Should Do:

An elevator should be planned for access to upper floor classrooms and basement

activities, if any. The elevator will require three-phase electrical power to run its motor.

While the mechanical and plumbing systems are being replaced, it would only makesense to replace electrical wiring while the building is essentially gutted.

Provide mechanical ventilation to all rooms so fresh air doesn’t come in through thewindows in winter.

The two stair towers connecting the second floor need to be isolated with a fire rating.

Whether or not heating costs are shared proportionally with the landlord, the lack ofinsulation should be remedied for comfort reasons at least.

The wood roof structure should be tied by fasteners to the masonry walls for addedearthquake/lateral load resistance.

Child-sized plumbing fixtures should be replaced with modern fixtures spaced to allow proper accessibility clearances.

Demolish on-stage office partitions and re-open the proscenium to the gym.

Repair water damage on gym floor to provide level surface for use.

Strip and repaint basement level concrete.

Provide drinking fountains.

Provide janitor’s closet and mop sink.

Inspect and clean out site drains, especially near the old wood shop doors.

General exterior painting, especially roof trim.

General interior painting.

Replace all carpeting. Secure and replace overturning retaining wall at rear.

Provision for seating in the gym (folding or stacking chairs).

Automatic defibrillator on site.


https://www.google.com/search?q=defibrillator&start=0&spell=1

https://www.google.com/search?q=defibrillator&start=0&spell=1



Could Do:

Change out classroom lighting for more efficient and effective modern units.

There is evidence of a former gutter system that was piped into site drainage belowgrade. While presenting a maintenance issue, this could help remove a source ofmoisture in the basement.

Consider replacement of “Kalwall” gym panels with insulating glazing and roomdarkening curtains.

Expand paved parking areas nearer the logical entry points.

Provide entry greeting area for safety and orientation.

Provide air conditioning.

Provide data and cable connections in the classrooms.

Repair/replace overhead access doors to the old wood shop.

New acoustical tile ceilings.

Provide carpeting or resilient tile in the corridors.

Change out building hardware to lever style and update keying system.

Mural protection and feature lighting.

Simple “Entertainer” sound system for the stage.

Lighting positions and circuits for stage lighting.

Sand and Refinish gym floor.

Art sink as needed (special clean-out trap).





Appendix

Omega Engineering Structural Report

WV Engineering Mechanical Electrical Plumbing Report

Summary of Kopper’s 2009 Roof Report



211 STATE ROUTE 103 NEWBURY, NH 03255 T 603.938.6222 F 603.938.6288 [email protected]

28 June 2013

Mr. Eric Palson

Sheerr McCrystal Palson Architecture, Inc.

30 S Main StreetBuilding 2, Concord NH 03301-4809

Re: Structural Observation and Walk Through

Former Kearsarge Regional Middle School cafeteria and the old school building

New London, NH

OSE Project: 13-117

Dear Eric:

Per your request, a site visit was made to the above-referenced property on June 17, 2013. The

purpose of this site visit was to perform a limited walk through of the existing cafeteria and the old

school building in order to provide a professional engineer’s opinion regarding the current structural

condition of these two buildings. The walk through was limited to the subject area. Present at the

site during the observation were you, Mr. David Kidder, Mr. Mark Vincello (WV Engineering), Mr.

Andre Klaoetz (Bauen Corporation), and the writer. This report contains a summary of the

observations and discussions during the visit, followed by conclusions and recommendations.

Background and Observation:

At this time, it is my understanding that the intention is to renovate and reuse the old school

building and the cafeteria as a community center and multipurpose community area. Inside these

buildings, most structural framings are covered by architectural elements. In the cafeteria building,

in a few locations, the roof framing was observed through openings in the ceiling panels. In the old

school building, through an access opening, a portion of the attic was viewed.

OMEGA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, PLLC

R E S I D E N T I A L . C O M M E R C I A L . C O N S U L T I N G . R E T R O F I T . F O R E N S I C




The old school building is reported to have been constructed in 1941. The structural system of this

building is comprised of wood-framed roof supported by CMU and brick masonry bearing walls.

The roof framing is typical of the construction of that time consisting of wood rafters, heavy timber

beams and wood sheathing. The floor system appears to be cast-in-place concrete with the

exception of the old gymnasium floor which is constructed of wood framing over a basement area.

There is a brick veneer on most of the exterior walls. It appears that the brick veneer on some walls

maybe an integral part of the bearing wall system (e.g. multi-Wythe brick walls over CMU blocks-

this was noted in some areas in the attic). The basement walls appear to be constructed of concrete.

It is unknown if the CMU blocks are grouted and/or reinforced.

The existing cafeteria is a more recent addition and was reported in the old Turner Group report (see

below in the conclusion section for more description of this report) to have been constructed in

1954. However, I believe it was built in the 60s or the 70s because of the construction and the fact

that it is attached to a building which was built in the early 1960s. The cafeteria building was built

in between the two older buildings- the 1941old school building and the SAU building- and it

appears to be structurally attached to both of them. The roof construction consists of wide flange

steel beams at approximate spacing of 8 feet. These beams are supported by steel wide flange

girders and columns. The exterior walls are constructed mostly of CMU masonry walls. The

cafeteria roof framing appears to be attached to, and in some areas, also supported by the existing

walls of the earlier buildings around it. Metal roof deck provides the structural roof membrane over

the steel beams. As with the old school building, it is unknown if the CMU blocks are grouted

and/or reinforced in this building

Conclusions and recommendations:

The purpose of this report is to provide a professional opinion on the structural condition of the two

attached buildings noted above. These existing buildings appear to be in sound condition. At the

time of this site visit there were no apparent signs of structural overstress or distress. The masonry

walls and brick veneer were in good condition with only a few minor cracks. The mortar seems to

be in good condition and of acceptable quality. When checked in a couple of locations, the mortar

could not be easily scratched off with a sharp metal object




Based on my understanding of the proposed improvements, it does not appear that any existing

structural elements will be altered at this time. Additionally, this proposed renovation does not

change the occupancy category of the buildings to a higher level as specified in the current

International Building Code. According to the IEBC 2009 (International Existing Building Code)

which is the code currently in effect in the state of New Hampshire for the existing buildings,

assuming that the structural elements of the buildings were constructed according to the building

code/ regulations in effect at the time of construction, no structural improvements are required to be

done if the structural elements are unaffected by the new work. Voluntary improvements to the

structural elements, under these conditions, are allowed and do not have to meet the current code as

long as they improve the existing conditions.

It should be noted that during this walk through, a well-defined lateral load resisting system was not

apparent in the cafeteria building. A lateral load resisting system is the part of a building’s

structural system that resists lateral loads on the building such as wind and seismic forces.

However, this does not mean that the building does not have an appropriate lateral load resisting

system but only that within the limited scope and time of this walk through it was not possible to

assess this system. In the old school building the lateral resisting system is more apparent however,

it consists of a wood diaphragm (roof) providing lateral support for massive (CMU block and

bricks) walls. Buildings with unreinforced masonry bearing walls, especially where these walls are

attached to a wood diaphragm, have shown in the past to perform poorly during seismic events.

Therefore, I recommend that as part of this renovation, a more detailed review of the lateral load

resisting system of these buildings be provided and improvement to the system be added as

determined by that review. As a minimum, I recommend that the connections of the massive (CMU

or brick) walls to the floor and roof diaphragms be looked at and, if found inadequate by a structural

engineer, positive and adequate connections between the walls and roof/floor diaphragms be added.

In most cases, these connections have shown in past earthquakes to be the main areas of weakness

in this type of building. Improving these areas will substantially improve the performance of this

type of building during a seismic event. These types of improvements are generally relatively easy

and inexpensive and are usually accomplished by the use of steel plates, rods, and anchors.




As part of preparing this report, the report prepared by the Turner Group titled “Proposed Kearsarge

Regional Middle School Building Project”, dated November 2005, was also reviewed for structural

issues. Several structural items were noted in that report and are stated verbatim below:

1- 1941 building: “Structural members are translating through the roof sheathing. Maybe sign

of deterioration of the sheathing from condensation. Little or no insulation present. No

vapor retarder.”

2- 1941 building: “ Existing framing members are undersized to meet current snow load

criteria…”

3- 1941 building: “ Existing wall is tilted.”

4- Cafeteria building: “…Little insulation is present on top of roof deck. “ ( not directly an

structural issue but could lead to one)

The structural issues stated in items 1 and 3 were not noted during this walk through. I recommend

that, as part of any renovation, a more thorough study of these structural issues be performed and

any inadequacies discovered be repaired and upgraded as required.

Item 1 and 4 refer to the possibility of inadequate insulation. At this time, I am not aware of any

roof insulation improvement as part of the proposed renovation; however, a substantial roof

insulation improvement over a large area may require analyses of the roof structural members and

upgrade to meet the snow load requirements of the current building code.

No analysis was performed as part of the preparation for this report, therefore, it was not possible to

verify item 2. As was stated earlier in this report, existing members which are in sound condition

and not altered are not required to be brought up to meet the requirements of the current building

code provided they were adequately designed per the then-in-effect codes or regulations.

This completes the scope of work. Thank you for this opportunity to provide you with this

structural engineering service. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or need

additional assistance. Our office will be pleased to work with you if you decide to investigate the

structural conditions further, address questions on the present structural condition, review the




process during the renovation, provide sketches, construction consultation support, or assist you in

any other areas that you feel may require structural engineering assistance.

Report Limitations and Disclaimer

The opinions stated in this report are based on the limited observation of readily visible conditionsduring the site visit and information provided by you, and addresses only the areas observed. They

do not express or imply any warranty of the structure, or that all conditions have been observed. No

other elements were investigated except as noted in this report. No testing including any destructive

testing was performed during this visit except when noted in this report. Structural drawings for

these buildings were not available for review at the time this report was written. No analysis has

been performed as part of the preparation of this report. Conclusions and recommendations are

based on observations, experience, and professional engineering judgment.

Sincerely,

Ω Omega Structural Engineers, PLLC

Alex Azodi, P.E.



wv engineering associates, pa . www.wvengineering.com11 king court . keene, new hampshire 03431 t: 603.352.7007

July 31, 2013

Mr. Eric Palson, President

Sheerr McCrystal Palson Architecture, Inc.

30 S. Main Street

Bldg. 2, Suite 401

Concord, NH 03301-4809

Re: Kearsarge Regional Middle School

Existing Conditions Analysis

Kearsarge, NH

WVA Project No. 13063 - UPDATED

Dear Eric:

We understand that the 1941 cafeteria/kitchen infil section of the building is intended to be upgraded and

renovated. The kitchen is to be put back in service and the cafeteria is to be used as a multi-purpose

assembly area.

Based on our site visit of June 18, 2013 our observations and recommendations regarding the mechanical

and electrical systems are as follows:

Fire Protection

• This section of the building is provided with sprinkler coverage.

• The sprinkler system can remain and be reused. Modifications will be required to accommodate

proposed interior layout changes.

• The existing kitchen hood is currently equipped with a chemical hood suppression system. This

system should be serviced to verify full functionality.

• Fire alarm system monitoring and cooking equipment line shutdown will need to be upgraded as

part of proposed kitchen equipment modifications.



July 31, 2013 Page 2


Plumbing

• It is our understanding that the kitchen 3-bay sink and associated grease trap are to be reused as

is.

• It is also our understanding that the dishwasher is going to be reused as is.

• Both the 3-bay sink and dishwasher relay on chemical sanitation, there is no dedicated high

temperature domestic hot water system.

• Kitchen area toilet and janitor sink fixtures are in poor condition. Proposed renovations should

include replacement of these fixtures and upgrading the hand sink in the kitchen area.

• Proposed renovations are to include new mens and womens toilet facilities. Domestic hot and

cold water can be extended from existing services in the kitchen. The existing sanitary sewer

serving the kitchen is not large enough to accommodate the proposed new toilet rooms. Sanitary piping will probably need to be tied into the municipal sanitary main in the access road on the

west side of the building.

HVAC

• It is our understanding that the existing kitchen hood is to be reused as is. The existing fan

should be serviced to insure proper function.

• The kitchen does not currently have a means of providing makeup air to replace the kitchen hood

exhaust air. A makeup air system should be provided.

• Heating hot water is pumped from the central boiler plant for use in this section of the building.

• The existing hot water unit heaters and radiation in the kitchen are in poor condition and should

be replaced.

• The existing toilet room had electric heating and a ceiling fan, both should be upgraded as part of

the renovation work.

• The new toilet rooms will require exhaust. Ceiling fans interlocked to operate when the toilet

room lights are on is recommended.

• There are two unit ventilators serving the cafeteria and one ceiling hung unit ventilator serving

the adjacent activity room. These units provide heat and ventilation outside air. It also appearsthat the unit could provide cooling from roof mounted condensing units. All three units appear

to be in good condition and can be reused. Controls should be upgraded and units served to

insure reliable and efficient operation.

• The corridor heating system will need to be modified to accommodate the proposed new entry

vestibule.

• Renovations should include removal of all existing pneumatic controls and providing a

microprocessor based system.



July 31, 2013 Page 3


Electrical

• This infil addition was provided with two panels in the kitchen storage room. It appears that

these panels could be reused as is.

• There has been some rework of power circuit from these panels to accommodate kitchen

equipment changes. Existing circuiting should be traced and new panel directories provided to

verify existing conditions.

• Existing lighting in the kitchen area is in fair condition. The renovation should include

replacement of the fixtures in the kitchen area with vapor tight fixtures.

• Existing lighting in the cafeteria, adjacent activity and connecting corridor is in fair/good

condition. Fixtures could be reused, replacement lens should be provided.

• New power and lighting will need to be provided for the new toilet rooms.

• Power for the makeup air unit and toilet room exhaust fans can be connected to the existing

panels.

• The buildings fire alarm system is in good condition and can be reused. Additional horn/strobe

devices will be required to comply with current codes.

• Exit and emergency lighting will need to be upgraded to accommodate proposed renovations and

provide adequate coverage.

• There appears to be some overhead paging and exterior door security systems. It is assumed that

these have been abandoned and should be removed.

• Proposed renovation will likely want to include wired and/or wireless internet access. Provisions

to provide data outlets and wiring to the buildings phone/data service provider should be

considered.

Very truly yours,

WV Engineering Associates, PA

Mark D. Vincello, PE, CEM, HFDP, CxA

NLCC Building Report July2013

Documents

Transcript of NLCC Building Report July2013