Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-06-043 - Cost Clarification - Forsyth (Smyth / Art Deco) Optionsl K KR Corporate Services REPORT Report To: Mayor C. Zehr and Members of Council Date of Meeting: March 20, 2006 Submitted By: G. Sosnoski, General Manager of Corporate Services & City Clerk Prepared By: G. Sosnoski Ward(s) Involved: Ward 1 Date of Report: March 9, 2006 Report No.: CRPS-06-043 Subject: COST CLARIFICATION - FORSYTH (SMYTH /ART DECO) OPTIONS RECOMMENDATION: None at this time -for information only. BACKGROUND: At the February 6, 2006 Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting, staff report CRPS-06-023 was considered, with a subsequent recommendation to Council. The report included costing of four possible options with respect to the future of the Smyth Residence and Art Deco Addition of the Forsyth Complex. The report also contained estimates of the cost of each of the four options based on contractor and engineering estimates. Staff were subsequently directed by Council to make application to Heritage Kitchener for a permit to demolish the Smyth and Art Deco portions of the Forsyth Complex. Heritage Kitchener met on March 7, 2006 to consider the application and the recommendation of refusal will be presented to Council on March 20, 2006. REPORT: During the above referenced Heritage Kitchener meeting, questions and concerns were raised with respect to the cost estimates in staff report CRPS-06-023. A question was also asked as to the cost the City would incur in the event Council should decide to delay any decision on demolishing the Smyth and Art Deco buildings pending submission of a detailed site plan or receipt of a solid development proposal for the Centre Block. The response to these questions / concerns are outlined below. A copy of this report is to be provided to Heritage Kitchener prior to the March 20 meeting. have reviewed the estimates /proposed work with staff and am confident that the numbers in Appendix `B' of this report are an accurate reflection of the costs the City could expect to incur given the data presently available. Securing the Smyth and Art Deco Structures The cost of weatherproofing and structural safety measures required to secure the two buildings in the short term were included as an appendix to the attached Corporate Services Department report CRPS-06-023 previously circulated to Council and members of Heritage Kitchener on February 6, 2006. The appendix is entitled `Structural Safety Evaluation -Forsyth Building, 31 Young Street', and outlines the measures required for each of the two structures and the associated costs. These details have been included as part of Appendix `A' of this report. In summary, the City would incur a cost of approximately $350,000. to perform this work on the 1937 Art Deco addition; and, a cost of $200,000. for the Smyth residence. The scenario whereby the City could complete weatherproofing and structural safety measures to moth ball the building for a period of up to 2 years and enter into negotiations with a developer as to the potential for incorporating the buildings into the Centre Block development has not been costed in Appendix `B'. Though some may view this as a viable option, the full cost to the City cannot be determined at this time to the extent necessary to fully cost this scenario, as some of these costs would likely be negotiated as part of the development proposal. It is assumed that any developer wishing to incorporate both of these heritage structures would expect the City to pay part or all of the costs associated with bringing the buildings up to Ontario Building Code standards. In addition, there would likely be negotiations involving possible City contribution toward the structural work necessary to accommodate an underground parking garage. Adaptive Re-Use of Remaining Heritage Buildings -Validity and Comparability of Cost Estimates Report CRPS-06-023 outlined four options with respect to treatment of the remaining heritage structures ranging from demolition of all, to retention of one or both of the Smyth and Art Deco buildings. Questions were raised at Heritage Kitchener as to the validity of the amounts attributed to construction and structural work required to facilitate adaptive re-use in the event a parking garage is constructed under the buildings. The City retained Sze Straka Engineers, Structural Division of MTE Consultants Inc., to conduct a feasibility study with respect to future development of the Smyth and Art Deco buildings. This analysis was completed in February, 2006 and contains a summary of findings which include an outline of possible engineering solutions and associated costs. This report formed the basis of the cost estimates included in the previous staff report and is a public document which can be provided to any interested party upon request. The MTE report in turn utilized estimates extracted from a report by the Walter Fedy Partnership regarding the work required to bring the structures up to Ontario Building Code standards and provide a shell as the basis of further redevelopment work. This latter report was entitled "Evaluation of Three Development Scenarios - 31 Young Street, Kitchener, dated May 17, 2005 (Rev). In addition, staff have added costs related to removal and storage of the pre-cast concrete fagade as this would have to be done even if the buildings were retained given the likely failure of some of the structural elements currently holding the pre-cast concrete panels in place. In addition, a $250,000. amount was provided for the removal of hazardous materials from both buildings prior to undertaking any further work to stabilize and re-develop the buildings. This estimate was provided by the City's environmental consultant for the project, Frontline Environmental Management Inc., and varies depending whether either or both buildings are retained ordemolished. Where the confusion arose at Heritage Kitchener was in relation to whether costs had been incorporated in any of the estimates provided in report CRPS-06-023 with respect to the construction of underground parking for the Centre Block development. Appendix `B' of this report clarifies this issue. It is noted that none of the estimates provided in Appendix `B' include costs to construct an underground parking garage. The cost estimates include a structural support system which is required to stabilize the Smyth and Art Deco buildings to facilitate (not construct) underground parking. The physical construction of an underground parking structure would be a cost in addition to the estimates provided. The Sze Straka engineering report contains an appendix illustrating a possible structural support system which staff will have available at the March 20 Council meeting should it be required. The structural support system will support the buildings during the excavation fora 3- level underground parking garage. Associated costs include: construction procedure restrictions due to undermining of existing buildings; extra work (eg. sheet piling} below the existing buildings. All of these measures would stabilize and hold the 2 buildings at their current elevation and position in order to accommodate the below grade excavation required for the construction of a parking garage. Cost of the parking structure itself is in addition to the cost estimates shown in Appendix `B'. There was some skepticism expressed by certain Heritage Kitchener members and one of the delegations as to the validity of the numbers. The data was gathered, analyzed and presented by professional engineers and architects from very reputable firms. I remain uncertain as to the professional credentials of the Heritage Kitchener members and the delegation who suggested the numbers were inflated and l or not representative of actual costs. In addition, it was suggested that an amount should have been added to Option 4 (demolition of both buildings) in order to accurately (and fairly) compare to the other options. I would clarify that based on the description above, nothing further needs to be added to the cost of demolition ($450,000.) as there is no structural support work required to facilitate construction of an underground parking garage. These costs only apply in the event either or both of the heritage structures are retained. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Attached (Appendix `B') is a summary of costs with respect to the four options previously presented to Council. They are separated into three scenarios: 1) costs to bring buildings up to Ontario Building Code standards with no allowance for the structural support work required to stabilize the heritage buildings in the event underground parking is provided; 2) same as above only including the above referenced structural work required to facilitate but not provide parking; 3) cost to demolish the heritage structures and preserve / re-install the Art Deco facade (Duke Street elevation only). It should be stressed that the cost estimates in the above scenarios are based on the February 2006 engineering report prepared by Sze Straka Engineers (Structural Division of MTE Consultants Inc.); a prior study undertaken by The Walter Fedy Partnership entitled "Evaluation of Three Development Scenarios - 31 Young Street (May 17, 2005 -Rev)"; demolition estimates provided by Bel Air Demolition; and estimates with respect to removal lstorage / re-installation of the Duke Street fagade of the 1937 addition provided by Kappeler Masonry. G. Sosnoski General Manager of Corporate Services & City Clerk GS/lk c: C. Ladd R. Regier L. Bensason H. Gross J. Witmer L. Proulx R. Gosse M. May C. Goodeve Heritage Kitchener APPENDIX `A' (A) COST ESTIMATE BASE BUILDING UPGRADES TO FACILITATE RE- DEVELOPMENT- $4,000,000. (Art Deco) - $1,440,000. (Smyth) Cost estimates were prepared by the consultant using standard costs per square foot. The scope of the work for the cost estimates includes longer term repair and stabilization of the structure, mechanical and electrical systems to produce a "Base Building" capable of being taken by a developer for completion as either an office or as a residential development. Included are the following elements: Complete replacement of the roof covering and introduction of vapour barrier and thermal insulation. Replacement of a portion of the roof deck, based on visual review. UUindow replacement on all facades. New building envelop consisting of stud framing, insulation, air/vapour barrier, interior drywall finish surface, on all exterior walls. Existing hardwood flooring to be removed throughout. Gypsum floor topping to be provided throughout. New service core including an elevator. New exit stairs on building perimeter. Mechanical Systems o Roof top equipment for air handling (heating and cooling for common space o Stormwater drainage system connected to street services o Rough-in for plumbing (since the scope varies based on occupancy, a central riser for water, sanitary has been included) Sprinkler System Electrical Systems o Distribution panel for space o Lighting rough in for space (no fixtures) o Fire alarm system Civil o Service connections to the property line for stormwater, sanitary, water and gas. o Removal of designated substances 0 (B) COST ESTIMATE -WEATHER PROOF AND REPAIR BUILDINGS FOR UP TO 2 YEARS - $550,000 COMBINED After the demolition of Phases, 1, 2 and 4 of the above building were substantially completed to abate the unsafe condition, an inspection was completed by representatives from Sze Straka Engineers and the City to evaluate the condition of the remaining structures. The inspections have concluded that neither of the buildings is structurally unsafe at this time; however there are issues which need to be addressed. i) Phase 5,1937 Addition: • The southeast corner brick pier under the re-built section is badly damaged • The top section of brick on the south wall is in poor condition • The pre-cast panels on the north facades are cracked, chipped and spalling • The reinforcing steel in the panels has rusted and is exposed on several panels • There is outward displacement of one panels • The fasteners for the panels have deteriorated and may be non- existent • The stair between the ground floor and the second floor is in very poor condition Immediate action fortemporary protection: • Repair or replace damaged bricks areas on south wall • Tarp and close off from the weather south wall • Remove precast panels, repair and replace or store for re-use • Provide new bracing for north wall and tarp opening for weather protection Sub-Total: $350,000 ii) Smyth House: • Due to the previous addition and resultant snow loading, the buildings upper roof structure has sustained damage and the lateral loading is causing the structure to kick outward. Immediate Action required: • Shore the roof structure from the third storey. • Remove and repair damaged masonry. • Rebuild the brick walls and rood structure where it has been modified during the construction of the Phase 4 building. • Cover the roof to prevent water penetration. Sub-Total: $200,000 Combined Total: $550,000. (C) DEMOLITION -BOTH BUILDINGS ($450,000) • Removal of hazardous materials • Disassembly and storage of Art Deco pre-cast fagade • Demolition costs • Future installation of Art Deco fagade • Backfilling /leveling to surface grade Total: $450,000 m 0 Z W a a a 0 0 O O O O O O H O O O O M y O O O O O O O O O O O }, O O O O O O O O O 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O~ ~ O O O ~ CO ~ ~ r +~ +~ r C'~ O t0 O tD o a ~ ~ ~ ~o ._ i N 0 ~ ~ O O O O D O O O O ~~ ~+ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ O V ~~ O O O O 0 N O ~ ~ ~ ~ N r N ~ ~ f~ i (D 00 O O 00 0~ ._ r Q r N M i N ~ _ r~ O O O O O ~ ~ O O O ~s o 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 00 ~~ ~ N ~ ~ M O ~ M ' ._ ~ ~ to I t h r i 0 ~ }' ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v ~ ~ N ~ , O ~ ~ Q O ~~ ~ +~ Q N Q - .- +~ ~~ y U . N ~ 0 ~ ~ ~XQ ~ L ~ ~ L ~C~~ ~ ~ itA ~ ~ ~~ ~ N ~ ~~ m ~~i ~~ 0~ ~ ,_ ~ O ~ ~ ~ Qi O ~ (~ Q N~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~~ ~ U 0~ ~~ ~N c~~ ~ +r N~ c~~ ~~ c~N N~ ~~ ~ p ~ = ,~ ~ `~0 ~O ~~ 0 00 ~~ ~ p \~ N~ O ~ _ O~~ NO ~ ~~ cAN U +, ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ _ ;~ 0 ~ ~ ~ c~0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0~ ~ U N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ _ ~ ~~~ L ~ ~L ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ _ 'L N O ~ _ ~ ++ N~ 0~ ~ ~~ ~~m ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ m (~ X00 (n~U ~ O O O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 Ln Ln Ln L(') O O O I~ ~ C~ (D T T ~ O N ~ N ~ O }, ~ (~ N 0 ~ ~ Q `~ O ~ '~ 0 O N Q ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ i o ._ ~ Q ~, 'o ° o 0 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ (~ ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M N 0 ~ N ~ ~ N O , O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ - ~ = v i O ~ O ~ > ~ ~ -_ v~~ N U c~ ~ N v' ~ N + + 0 o~~ ~- o ~~~ c~ °~o~ .~ U U ~ ~ (~ +~ ~ ~ ~ (~ ~- N ~~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~j N~ O O ~ .~ Z T N ~ ~ ~.o .~~~ ~ ~~ a~ U U Q ~ ~ X ~ O N O O N ~~ O N ~ O QO Q~ ~ O O O N ~ ~ ~~ °'~3 ~N a~ ~~a ~ ~~ ~_~ O~ U U i ~ ~ ~ 0 ~~ ~ i ~ ~ Q L ~ ~ - ~ O ~~ O ~ N ~ O N O ~/'1 `u ~ ~ (~ ~ O L i--~ ~ t!1 O .^, ^, L ~ N N ~ N ~~ N +~ N N O O (~ (~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ .p ~ ~ (~ ~' ~, ~.~~~ ~ ~ (~ ~ N QN i ~ ~ '~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~~~ U~ N~NC~ ~ O N ~ U ~ O 0 Z~~o