Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStillwater Armory Arts Center Feasibility Study••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Stillwater Armory Arts Center Feasibility Study September 2, 2004 Larson Brenner Architects 807 N. Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Contact: Brian Larson 651 -430 -0056 651- 439 -1179 (facsimile) larsonbrenner@aol.com ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Stillwater TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Existing Building Analysis Program for Arts Center Conceptual Plan Alternatives `A' and `B' Cost Estimate and Appendix Supplemental Appendix (bound separately) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Executive Summary Introduction The purpose of this Stillwater Armory Arts Center Feasibility Study is threefold: • First, to gather information and analyze the existing Stillwater Armory Building to determine its assets and liabilities, as a site and a building, for a new Stillwater Arts Center. • Second, to meet with the Arts Community in the greater Stillwater area and develop a preliminary Program of spaces and services an Arts Center could provide to support the Arts Community. • Third, to conceptually overlay this Program on the existing Armory building plan to determine whether the building can accommodate the program, and serve as a viable Arts Center for Stillwater. Over the course of three meeting/workshops, program and design input was received from various members of the Arts Community, and conceptual plans were developed and reviewed. Two of the meetings took place at the Armory Building, and members were able to walk through the existing building and see its condition firsthand. In the final meeting, two Conceptual Plan Alternatives "A" and "B" were discussed in detail. These plans are included in this report, along with a preliminary construction cost estimate. Existing Building Analysis The Armory site provides an excellent location for an Arts Center in Stillwater. Its proximity to the Central Business District for pedestrians and to key streets for vehicular access are strong assets. These assets are offset by a shortage of parking on site and in the area. The program and Conceptual Plans assume there will be a Parking Structure adjacent to the site. The existing Armory Building, built in the early 1920's, has long had a visible presence on the prominent corner of Chestnut and Third. Its brick exterior, roof and windows are in good condition and worth preserving. Its gymnasium/assembly hall provides a clear -span space suitable for a large performance area that the Arts Community needs. With the exception of this space, the interior is unremarkable and lacks updated electrical and mechanical systems. Some areas of its interior floor structure are inadequate and likely to require replacement. There appear to be no serious environmental liabilities with the building. In extensive remodeling of existing buildings, keeping and working around marginal elements often costs more than building these elements new. Our preliminary assumption is that much of the interior - systems, partitions, finishes and structure - would likely need to be removed to create a somewhat clean 'shell' of a building that could accommodate the new systems and structure needed for the Arts Center. Program The Feasibility Program establishes and prioritizes a list of spaces responding to needs of the Arts Community of Stillwater and the St. Croix Valley. The Programming Process for the Arts Center began with Jammi Hansen Blair, the Executive Director of Art Reach Alliance (formerly the River Valley Arts Council). She helped identify people and groups involved in the arts, some of whom attended the three programming and design meetings. The people invited represented a broad cross - section of the arts community. The process included: • Creating and prioritizing a list of needs for spaces serving the arts community. • Reviewing drawings of the existing building and its opportunities and constraints. ■ Testing the program elements on the existing building plans, and modifying accordingly. The more detailed Program Outline included in the report summarizes the programming process and results. Conceptual Schemes "A" and "B" The intent in creating plan alternatives A and B was to demonstrate graphically how the Program for the Arts Center might fit within the existing Armory building, and how the limitations of the Building and Site affect the Program. Two Conceptual Schemes were developed to illustrate a wider range of options. Scheme A is a simpler proposal that utilizes more of the existing building and does not connect directly to the adjacent proposed Parking Structure, while Scheme B shows the possibilities of a direct connection and more extensive remodeling. The two different schemes show how most of the Prooram can be accommodated in the building, and how the proposed adjacent parking structure might affect the layout of the Arts Center building and site. Conclusion An Arts Center can greatly contribute to the quality of life in Stillwater, as a community center for performances, exhibits and learning. The existing Armory building's site is an ideal location for an Arts Center. With extensive renovation, the 31,000 sf building can accommodate a program of performance, classroom, meeting and office spaces that are sorely needed in both the arts community and the community at large. The ArtReach Alliance, a viable and well - organized arts association, can help organize the groups that will use and perhaps run this Center. Multiple uses for the upper level of the parking structure in conjunction with Arts Center programs increases the value to the City of both structures. Combined with the adjacent parking structure, exciting opportunities are created to form a strong civic presence and much - needed public space along the street in this important location. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Stillwater EXISTING BUILDING ANALYSIS Site / Context Exterior Envelope and Structure Interior Spaces and Materials Environmental Concerns Mechanical and Electrical Summary Existing Building Analysis Summary Structural, Mechanical and Electrical Systems Report Photos of Existing Conditions Existing Building Plans and Elevations ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Existing Building Analysis: Assets and Liabilities 1. Site/ Context The existing Armory Building's prominent and central location at Third and Chestnut near the heart of Stillwater's Business District is a key asset. Although this busy intersection will have considerably less traffic when the anticipated new bridge is built, Third Street will remain a major circulation street for entering and leaving Stillwater. Its corner location gives the building considerable visibility from Third Street and Chestnut, and to a lesser degree, from Myrtle Street and Main Street. Maintaining and enhancing the building's visibility from Main Street is an important design consideration. It is an advantage both in terms of access and function that the Armory/ Proposed Arts Center is located in the central business district, but not on Main Street, where the additional parking problems and vehicular circulation congestion would be a liability. Its location places it within easy walking distance from other businesses, hotels and B&B's, restaurants and the river, and is located less than two blocks from Main street. Site and Context Assets: • Prominent Central Business District location • Vehicular access/egress is excellent; close to Main Street, Myrtle and Third. • Walking distance from downtown businesses, restaurants and hotel/B &B's. • Walking distance from river. • Part of adjoining property on block is undeveloped parking lot. • The site's flat parking area to the west is close to the first floor level and could be used for accessible entrance and /or service areas Site and Context Liabilities: • Steep sloping site and adjacent streets (Chestnut and Olive) make areas immediately outside building difficult for access. • South edge of site is lower than adjacent property, and faces unsightly retaining walUparking. • Other existing buildings on block are not assets, visually or functionally. • Very limited on -site parking • Access is limited to Chestnut Street. 2. Exterior Envelope and Structure The existing Armory Building's exterior envelope is in relatively good condition, and overall can be considered an asset. The armory was originally designed and built in 1922, a three -story masonry and wood structure with both gabled shingled roof (over the main Gymnasium /Assembly Hall) and flat roof areas. The structural system consists of masonry exterior bearing walls and a series of wood timber and steel columns, bearing walls and steel beams supporting mostly wood - framed floors. Few significant changes have been made to the building except for periodic maintenance, and these include: The once - exposed roof truss structure has been concealed and enclosed by a ceiling with insulation above, the second -floor open gallery overlooking the gymnasium has been enclosed for office space, and in the mid- 1960's, a large garage was constructed at the east end of the original building, with sheet metal pilings at the property line creating a site transition to the considerably lower adjacent lot to the east. The building has a newer roof, and the brick exterior is in relatively good condition. New windows are also in good condition and do not need to be replaced. Exterior water infiltration, especially along the building south side and exterior light wells at the lower level, needs to be addressed. Following an analysis of interior Spaces and Environmental Concerns, a more detailed analysis of Structural, Mechanical and Electrical Systems can be found in a separate report below, along with Photos of Existing Conditions illustrating some of the building's assets and liabilities. Exterior Envelope and Structure Assets: • Brick exterior is a quality, low maintenance material, and is in relatively good condition. Mortar joints have been repaired in many locations. • With the exception of the garage addition, the building appears to have aged well and no significant settling of the main structure is noted. • The gabled/shingled roof and flashing, along with updated built -up roofs in the flat areas are relatively new. Water damage from roof leaks along the south wall has been stopped. • The existing roof structure, consisting of steel trusses and purlins supporting wood framed decking, is well preserved and could be a great asset if opened up and exposed to the interior. • Relatively new insulated aluminum window units are in place. Exterior Envelope and Structure Liabilities: • Some brick tuckpointing and repair is necessary, especially at window sills and tops of pliasters. • The existing garage at the east end of the building has structural foundation settling that needs to be addressed (see November 2000 Structural Study Report in separate Supplemental Appendix). • The front steps and entry are deteriorated and currently do not meet code • Structurally, some wood floor joist framing may need to be replaced due to required new assembly loads and building codes. (See Structural Report below). A more detailed building code analysis is needed to determine if occupancies required by the building program can be accommodated by the partially wood framed structure, even in a fire sprinklered building. If noncombustible construction is required, much of the existing floor framing may need to be replaced. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3. Interior Space and Materials The interior spaces of the existing Armory building are mostly small offices and storage rooms, except for the gymnasium and a larger meeting room at the second level. The interior is mostly wood framed, with painted wood and plaster finishes. With the exception of the potential exposing of the roof trusses and wood ceiling at the gymnasium, and the newly refinished hardwood floor at the gymnasium, few interior details or materials are of high quality or worth preserving. As noted above, the wood framed structure of the floors require multiple columns at the lower level, and would likely need to be replaced or heavily reinforced if they remained (see Structural Report below).. Depending on final occupancies and uses, the wood framing and columns may also need to be replaced for fire- resistive considerations, or heavily fireproofed. Existing floor- to floor heights of about 11 feet limit ceiling heights at every level result in potentially low ceiling spaces: 8' -0" in locations with ductwork, and 9'-08 with only lighting and sprinkler. Some water damage has occurred In the building, especially along the south wall at the lower level Some of this was from a leaking roof condition that has been repaired, but much appears to be from the area light wells for lower level windows. Despite the partial covering of these wells, water appears to have infiltrated the walls at and below grade, with extensive plaster damage and mold evident. Excavation and waterproofing and drain tiling the foundation would be required, as well as dealing with surface water in this low, narrow area between the Armory and the adjacent raised parking lot to the South. Interior Building Assets: • The large gymnasium provides a clear -space space suitable for large performing arts functions. • Existing steel trusses and wood roof decking at the gymnasium are in good condition and visually attractive. • Existing hardwood floor at the gymnasium has been recently refinished. • Existing hallway space, following structure lines, is large enough to accommodate anticipated occupancies. • The existing hot water boiler can likely be used. Interior Building Liabilities: • The lower level of the building is partially below grade for most of its perimeter and has limited windows and natural light. • Floor- to Floor heights of about 11 feet limit ceiling heights at every level. • A new HVAC system is needed. Mechanical ductwork will need to be accommodated in tight spaces and with limited ceiling heights. • Floor structure will likely not accommodate large assembly occupancies and will need extensive replacing or reinforcing. • Depending on final occupancy types, fireproofing or replacement of wood structure may be needed. • interior finishes at many exterior walls need to be removed and replaced due to water damage and deterioration. • The existing exterior wall system has no insulation, and will need to be furred out to accommodate new insulation, electrical and new finishes. 4. Environmental Concerns An asbestos inspection and report was completed in August 2000 and is included in the Supplemental Appendix. The report, by PSI Environmental, addresses asbestos - bearing materials in the building. The only significant friable asbestos appears to be on hot water insulation pipes and jackets. According to staff on site, the friable asbestos insulation has been removed and replaced since this report was issued. 5. Mechanical and Electrical Systems Summary The existing mechanical system consists of an updated boiler, and hot water radiation system only — there are no existing ventilation, ductwork or air conditioning systems (see Mechanical Report below). The renovated building requires a completely new HVAC system: mechanical heating, cooling and ventilation, as well as water main and fire sprinkler systems. Finding space for air - handling equipment and ductwork in the interior of the building will be a key problem in the design of the renovation, as well as finding space on site or on the building roof for air - cooled condensing units. Electrical systems are dated and will need building -wide extensive upgrading and replacement (see Electrical Report below) including a new service to the building. • A completely new HVAC system is needed. Mechanical ductwork will need to be accommodated in tight spaces, both in building section and in plan. • Electrical systems will need a new building service, and building-wide replacement. Very little of existing system will be salvaged. • A new water service is needed. • A new fire sprinkler system is needed. • The existing hot water boiler can likely be used, but will need to be supplemented. 6. Existing Building Analysis Summary The existing Armory Building's site location is its strongest asset, nearly ideal for the proposed Arts Center use. Its lack of parking space is its greatest liability. The building's exterior structure, character and materials are assets worth preserving in an adaptive re-use of the building. Given the limitations of the interior structure, mechanical and electrical systems and finishes, it seems that most of the interior of the building would likely need to be removed to accommodate the new program uses and building systems. By making a clean sweep of the interior and starting renovation with essentially a building shell, construction phasing and sequencing would be greatly enhanced, and in the end, this benefit would likely offset any cost savings from keeping interior materials. . . . . . • • • . . . . . . . . , . • • • • • . • • . • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Paulson & Clark Engineering, Inc. 2352 East County Road J White Bear Lake Minnesota 55110 Phone 651/407 -6056 Fax 651/407 -6476 REPORT OF FINDINGS Issued: May 21, 2004 Project: Stillwater National Guard Armory — (Comm #4514.00) To: Brian Larson — Larson Brenner Architects From: John Paul Gille, P.E. Copied: Steve Olson — Paulson & Clark Engineering Jake Strum, P.E. - Paulson & Clark Engineering Re: Condition Survey Report I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Per your authorization we have performed a limited condition survey of the mechanical, electrical, and structural building systems at the Stillwater National Guard Armory located on East Chestnut Street. B. The original Armory building was constructed in the mid 1920's. In the 1960's a garage addition was built on the east side of the original building. C. The City of Stillwater may at some time in the future be interested in purchasing the Armory building and converting it to a Community Cultural Art Center. The purpose of our limited condition survey was to draw attention to the general condition of the building systems to assist the City of Stillwater in their future actions with respect to any purchase. II. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION A. Information used: 1. Original building drawings No. 1 -10, prepared by Lang, Rangland & Lewis Architects- Engineers, dated June 1922. 2. Building documentation drawings Al, A3 and A4, prepared by the Department of Military Affairs, dated January 2001. T:1Larson Brenner\Stillwater N.G. Armory \Report of Findings.doc Page 1 of 9 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3. Heating Improvements drawing 1 of 2, prepared under the direction of the Camp Ripley Construction Engineer, dated November 1960. 4. Structural Study (of Garage Floor Settlement), prepared by Howard R. Green Company, dated November 2000. B. Methods and techniques: 1. Our methods consisted of a limited review of the referenced building documentation and a building walk through conducted on April 28, 2004. C. Data collected: 1. We took digital photographs of items observed during our walk through visit. III. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS A. Building Electrical Systems 1. Exterior a. Building mounted incandescent lamp type light fixtures. Lighting appeared to be in fair condition, but lighting was not witnessed in the on position. 2. Interior a. Service and Distribution i. Service is a 120/240 volt, 1 phase, 3 wire system which terminates in a 400 amp service entrance disconnect switch. The service entrance main disconnect switch feeds a 400 amp switchboard. Switchboard is a single section for secondary distribution and there appears to be no spaces available to add switches for future loads. Switchboard was manufactured by Square D and is in fair condition, of older vintage, and appears to have been well maintained. ii. Branch circuit panelboards located throughout the building are screw fused and circuit breaker type. Panelboards observed appeared to be in fair condition, with very limited space for future loads. b. Lighting i. Most finished office areas within the building have fluorescent type light fixtures utilizing T12 fluorescent lamps. Light fixtures are older style surface pendant Page 2 of 9 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• wraparound with some recessed lens troffers in upper level offices. Lighting appeared adequate in most areas but will not meet 1ES lighting standards. ii. Mechanical space has been retrofitted with industrial style fixtures and T8 fluorescent lamps. iii. Storage spaces have porcelain socket bare lamp incandescent style lighting. iv. Hallway lighting was 1' x 4' (2) T12 fluorescent lamp pendant mounted industrial fixtures with cord plugged into retrofit porcelain socket provided with electrical outlets. v. Locker Room/Shower area has a combination 2' x 4' recessed parabolic fixtures with (4) T12 lamps and pendant 1' x 4' wraparound fixture with (2) T8 fluorescent lamps. vi. Gymnasium lighting utilizes recessed incandescent light fixtures combined with porcelain socket bare lamp incandescent fixtures at the perimeter of the space. vii. Garage space consisted of porcelain socket bare lamp incandescent fixtures on one side of the garage and 1' x 4' (2) T12 fluorescent lamp industrial style fixtures on the other side. viii. Exit lighting appeared to be in good condition and generally providing adequate coverage, with supplemental lighting likely required in some areas. ix. Emergency egress lighting was provided via combination (self contained) exit light battery pack units with dual heads. Fixtures were generally providing inadequate coverage and will require supplemental fixtures in most areas. c. Technologies i. The incoming telecommunication service is located in the basement level. The facilities data network appeared to extend to all areas of the building and to be in relatively good condition. The cabling is routed throughout the facility either in surface raceways or in cable trays. There is a conduit raceway system which routes the cabling from the lower level to the main Telecommunication Hub located on the upper level. The main Telecommunication Rack is of newer design and appeared to be in good condition. No UPS emergency back -up power for the system was observed. ii. No Security System was observed within this facility. iii. No Fire Alarm System was observed within this facility. iv. No central master clock system was observed within this facility. v. No building wide Television/Video system is currently in place within the facility, but a satellite dish was observed on the roof. 3, Summary Electrical Observations a. In order to use the building as a Cultural Arts Center we anticipate the following work would be required, as a minimum: Page 3 of 9 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• i. Upgrade the Electrical Service to support new mechanical equipment and lighting upgrades. ii. Replace existing branch circuit panelboards and new branch circuit wiring for upgraded power and lighting devices. iii. Upgrade interior and exterior lighting to meet IES lighting recommendations. Provide emergency battery assemblies integral with new light fixtures to meet code requirements. iv. Provide a new Fire Alarm System as required for revision to building occupancy and to be compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). v. Evaluate Owner's requirement for Security and Intrusion Detection and provide as needed. B. Building Mechanical Systems 1. The existing building has no mechanical ventilation and is conditioned by heating only. 2. Ventilation is only through operable windows. Many of the basement level rooms have a very musty smell due to the lack of space ventilation or cooling. 3. The building currently does not have a fire protection sprinkler system. 4. Building Heating: a. Heat to building is provided by a gas fired steam boiler located in the basement level. The boiler has an output of 1800 MBH and looks to be in good condition. b. The steam condensate receiver and pumps are also in the basement level near the boiler and look to be in good condition. c. Heat is provided to individual offices /rooms through perimeter exposed steam radiators. These radiators look to be in fair condition. Some of the occupants expressed discomfort with the control of the radiators. d. The steam, condensate, sanitary and domestic water piping is running exposed in the basement level. Head room issues and routing of any new ductwork and/or piping may be of concern. 5. Plumbing System: a. The main water supply (1 -1/2 ") enters the building at the basement level on the west end. b. The building's domestic heating water is served by (1) 80 gallon and (1) 91 gallon gas fired water heater. The system also has a small circulation pump. All components look to be in good condition. c. The plumbing fixtures throughout the building look to be in poor to fair condition and should be replaced. d. Exposed waste piping that was visible looked to be in fair condition. Page 4 of 9 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6. Exhaust System: a. The existing kitchen area has an exhaust hood over the range with a sidewall exhaust fan. No dedicated make -up -air was observed for the kitchen area. The fan looks to be in fair condition. b. The toilet rooms and shower rooms are served by small ceiling mounted exhaust fans. These fans look to be in poor to fair condition. 7. Gas Service: a. The main gas meter is located on the east side street level of the existing building. The current meter indicates a 60 psi service with 2000 CuFt/hr at 2 "w.c. 8. Summary Mechanical Observations a. In order to use the building as a Cultural Arts Center we anticipate the following work would be required, as a minimum: i. Installation of a new mechanical ventilation system (heating and cooling) to serve seating and stage areas. ii. Installation of a new mechanical ventilation system (heating and cooling) to serve the existing office areas. iii. Possible addition of a second (hot water) boiler, dependant on the size and capacity of the new stage and seating areas. iv. Installation of a new water service main to serve the building as well as a new water main to serve a new fire protection system. v. Installation of a new fire protection (sprinkler) system. C. Building Structural Systems 1. Building Exterior a. The exterior of both the Main and Garage buildings is brick masonry. Significant deterioration of the mortar joints was observed in localized regions of the Main building north and west facades, and tuckpointing of the mortar joints will be required at some point in the future. The south facade of the Main building appears to have been tuckpointed in the recent past. The Garage building brick appeared in relatively good condition, with the exception of some cracking near the southeast corner which appears to be settlement related. Reference the H.R. Green report for additional information. b. The concrete stairs on grade leading to the Main building main entrance on Chestnut Street are damaged and will require repair or replacement at some point in the future. Page 5 of 9 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2. Floor Framing Systems a. Main Building First floor framing consists of: (a) ... dimension lumber spanning to steel beams and wood or masonry walls. Based on some spot check calculations using the drawings referenced above it appears that the framing can support a live load on the order of 40-60 psf For reference, the Minnesota State Building Code requires a 60 psf live load for fixed seating areas; 100 psf for movable seating areas and lobbies; and 125 psf for stages and platforms. Therefore, it is likely that the floor will require reinforcement in some areas to meet current building code requirements. (b) ... reinforced one -way concrete slab spanning from the west foundation wall (South Third Street) to an interior concrete wall. It is likely that the concrete slab would be capable of supporting a uniform live load of 100 psf. (c) ... reinforced pan and joist concrete framing with tile infill spanning to concrete walls along the east end of the original Main building. It is likely that the pan and joist slab would be capable of supporting a uniform live load of 100 psf. Second Floor Framing consists of: (a) ... dimension lumber presumably (not shown clearly on existing drawings) spanning to wood bearing walls. See conclusions per item 1.a.i.(a), above. dimension lumber spanning to steel beams hung from roof trusses at the balcony area overlooking the Drill Hall. See conclusions per item 1.a.i.(a), above for dimension lumber. To determine the load carrying capacity of the steel trusses a detailed structural analysis will be required when the exact proposed new loading conditions have been identified. (b) 3. Roof Framing a. Main Building i. Framing consists of: (a) ... structural steel trusses spaced at approximately 19 feet on center and supporting wood roof decking. The trusses support the roof over the Drill Hall. See conclusion under item 2.a.ii.(b), above, noting that it is likely that the trusses are Page 6 of 9 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• capable of supporting code imposed snow loading based on their performance without perceived distress for the life of the building to date. (b) Wood framing over the front (Chestnut Street) portion of the building. The condition of the wood framing was not observed and no determination regarding its likely structural suitability can be made, other than to note that it has apparently performed well over the life of the building. b, Garage i. Framing consists of: (a) ... 24 inch deep steel bar joists supporting metal decking and spanning to masonry walls. 4. Foundation & Perimeter Bearing Wall Systems a. Main Building i. Based on the referenced drawings the foundation systeniconsists of spread footings under columns and continuous footings under bearing walls. No significant signs of settlement were observed during the walk through. b. Garage i. Based on the referenced H.R. Green report the foundation system consists of continuous footings under masonry bearing walls. Several instances of efflorescence were noted on the interior east wall indicating possible moisture intrusion conditions. Also observed were several cracks in masonry walls in the vicinity of steel beam bearing locations. See the H.R. Green report for further information on slab on grade and bearing wall foundation settlement. Some investment in structural repairs should be planned for. 5. Summary Structural Observations a. In order to use the building as a Cultural Arts Center we anticipate the following work would be required, as a minimum: i. Detailed investigation into the suitability of the largely wood framed structural floor system (from a fire resistive standpoint). ii. Select modification and/or strengthening of the wood framed floor systems to support new loading configurations. iii. Repair items relative to the Garage building settlement issues. iv. Maintenance of the building exterior envelope (Brick tuckpointing, stair on grade replacement, etcetera. Page 7 of 9 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••00001000 IV. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS A. In addition to the items listed above we recommend the following course of action: I. The existing or proposed Owner should retain a testing agency specializing in indoor air quality testing to investigate and make recommendations regarding the condition of the existing building with respect to mold, bacteria, etcetera. 2. The existing or proposed Owner should retain a testing agency specializing in hazardous materials to investigate and make recommendations regarding the condition of the existing building with respect to asbestos, lead paint, etcetera. V. DISCLAIMERS A. This report does not express or imply any warranty of the structure but only addresses the condition of the portion which was readily accessible and observable at the time of inspection. B. It should be noted that the above report is based on visual observations and that there is no claim, either stated or implied, that all conditions were observed. C. The opinions stated in this report are based on limited visual observations only. No physical testing was performed and no calculations have been made to determine the adequacy of any building systems or their compliance with accepted building code requirements. D. The following services and responsibilities are specifically excluded from this report: I. Discovery, testing, monitoring, clean -up or neutralization of pollutants and hazardous substances. 2. Discovery, testing, monitoring or remediation of mold or mold causing conditions. 3. Determinations or advisement related to the existence or proportion of asbestos or lead paint, or the modification, installation, abatement, or removal of any product, material, or process containing asbestos or lead paint. Page 8 of 9 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4. The Engineer shall not be responsible for the means, methods, procedures, techniques, or sequences of construction, nor for safety on the job site, nor shall the Engineer be responsible for the Contractor's failure to carry out the work in accordance with the contract documents. If you have any questions concerning the above information, or if we may be of any further assistance to you, please contact us. Page 9 of 9 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• SOUTH SIDE OF ARMORY SHOWING COVERED LIGHT WELLS NORTH SIDE AND ENTRANCE TO ARMORY ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• EXISTING GYMNASIUM LOOKING SOUTHWEST EXISTING GYMNASIUM LOOKING WEST ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 R US'S AND FURLIN DETAIL SHOWING WOOD FINISH IN GOOD CONDITION ATTIC SPACE SHOWING STEEL STRUCTURE ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• WATER AND MOLD DAMAGE AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOWER LEVEL TYPICAL WATER AND MOLD DAMAGE AT SOUTH WALL OF LOWER LEVEL •••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••• 8 0 STILLWATER ARMORY FEASIBILITY STUDY- EXISTING LOWER FLOOR PLAN • • • • . • r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • V • ASSEMBLY 14A11. 2 MIMES 0 • • • • ID • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I:1: is I: 1:1: I NORTH ELEVATION SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 NORTH ELEVATION STILLWATER ARMORY FEASIBILITY STUDY- *DRAWING PROVIDED BY MINNESOTA NATIONAL G ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• SOUTH ELEVATION gri d1 0 0 ni SEPTEMBER SOUTH ELEVATION FEASIBILITY STUDY- STILLWATER ARMORY *DRAWING PROVIDED BY MINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • p 1;1; 1 1.1 ;' 111 111 Illll Ill l;l;t III It1,1 1,; 11 I;I; I I I I I I,I, I I l II Ilil I Ill 1111 I i I1 ll Il 11 it 11 ll 1,1,1 1 1 ll ill Il it it 11; 1 1 I li il;l; 1;1 1,1, 1 1 1 ll llil ill 1 1 111;1;1;1 111 .. I;IiIiiII 1l1 L EAST ELEVATION SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 STILLWATER ARMORY FEASIBILITY STUDY- EAST ELEVATION *DRAWING PROVIDED BY MINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD •••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 '-.....11111111111111111 111111111111111 I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1�1l�fd�M.7:711I IIIIIIIIII IIIIIilllll IIII�iE➢aGillllllll I IIII I I I Ilf II IIII I IIII i11111111IiII lI I I I6Zil� I IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I II II IIII \�� I���ri� l p/ ry��f% IIIIIIiIIIiIiI1111IIt111lilll? ili�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi11111iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIitfllllll��S�C! WEST ELEVATION 1 d 1L i JJ STILLWATER ARMORY FEASIBILITY STUDY- WEST ELEVATION SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 *DRAWING PROVIDED BY MINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Stillwater PROGRAM FOR ARTS CENTER Process Project Directory Final Program Outline Meeting Agendas and Notes ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Program for Arts Center The intent for developing a Feasibility Program was to establish and prioritize a list of spaces responding to needs of the Arts Community of Stillwater and the St. Croix Valley. Though by no means final, this preliminary program was then translated into spaces, and overlaid on the existing Armory building plan to help inform and determine how the building accommodates these needs. The limits of the existing building in turn affected the program, demonstrating that certain spaces can be accommodated better than others. Process The Programming Process for the Arts Center began with an informal meeting with Jammi Hansen Blair, the Executive Director of ArtReach Alliance, formerly the River Valley Arts Council. Several members of this organization have met over the past years to discuss the possibility of and Arts Center in Stillwater, and some of these people also became involved in this programming process for the Armory building site. The process started with identifying and inviting people and groups involved in the arts to attend a meeting to discuss the wants and needs of the arts community in the St. Croix valley. Jammi provided an initial list of "stakeholders" which were invited to the first meeting (this list is included in the appendix at the end of the report). The people invited represented a broad cross - section of the arts community, including performing arts, choral and instrumental groups, dance and theater groups, and individuals representing visual and literary arts. Our first meeting on 4.22.04 identified the goals of this programming process, and the feasibility study to follow. • Explained the purpose of the feasibility study vs. actual building design. • Created a laundry list" of needs and wants for spaces serving the arts community. • Modified this list; prioritized and discussed which types of spaces are most needed. • Discussed the types of performing arts spaces needed in detail, since this has a larger impact on the building and other spaces. • Reviewed drawings of the existing building, and discussed its opportunities and constraints. In our second meeting on 5.13.04, we met at the Armory and reviewed the Program developed at the first meeting and modified it. Conceptual plan alternatives were discussed. • The Program to date was reviewed. • The conflict between a level-floored multipurpose space with stage vs. a tiered performing -arts only space (only one can be accommodated) was discussed. • Four Parking Ramp /Site Design concepts were reviewed. • Three Building Plan/Theater Design concepts were discussed • As program elements were conceptually overlaid on the existing Armory building plan, they were adjusted and modified. In our third meeting meeting on 9.02.04, we again met at the Armory and reviewed the Program as it evolved from our first meeting. The final report format was discussed. Two design options were selected which incorporated the program. • The Program was reviewed and finalized. • The conflicting level - floored multipurpose space, and a tiered performing -arts space were incorporated in different schemes. • Two different Parking Ramp concepts were incorporated. • One scheme had a unique program element a new Entrance Structure linking the Armory to the Parking ramp Following in this section: • Project Directory identifying key people invited to and attending meetings • Program Outline describing desired spaces and adjacencies in more detail • Aaendas and some notes for the three meetings ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Description Project Directory Stillwater Armory Arts Center Feasibility Study 5.15.04 Company Name and Address Contact Person/Phone Owner City of Stillwater 216 N. 4* Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Cindy Shiltz — Building Official 651-430-8827 Stu Glasser —Fire Chief —351 -4951 Steve Russell* — Community Development Director 651 - 430 -8821 srusseti@ci. stiliwater. m n. us Sue Fitzgerald* — Planning — 430 -8822 Ktayton Eckles - City Engineer 651- 430 - 8831 651- 430 -8810 fax Architect Larson Brenner Architects 807 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Brian Larson* or Ron Brenner 651- 430 -0056 651 -439 -1179 fax larsonbrenner@aot.com John Paul Glile 651 - 407 -6056 651- 407 -6476 fax jo illerlapaulsondark.co n Steve Koenes 651 -659 -1304 651- 659 -1347 Structural, Mechanical, Electrical Engineering Paulsen and Clark Engineers 2352 E. County Road J White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Testing American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55114 Stillwater Armory Building Stillwater Armory Building 107 East Chestnut Stillwater, MN 55082 Major Ken Wode Sam Hunt (walk -thru) 275 -4334, 275 -4333 Minnesota National Guard Minnesota Army National Guard Facilities Management Office 15000 Highway 115 Little Falls, MN 56345-4173 Lt. Col. Jaima Davidson Tom Vesely (arch /design/construction) Pat Rolf (design — main contact) 320-632 -7315 (direct — 320 -632 -7312) Arts Community Contacts ArtReach Alliance Washington County Historic Courthouse 101 West Pine Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Jamml Hansen Blair* 651 -439 -1465 651- 238 -2519 c 651- 439 -1560 fax ArtReach Board Chair Kari Aaro* 651- 439 -1465 ArtReach Board , District 834 Comm. Ed Adult Enrichment Coordinator Lori Olson* 651- 351 -8322 olsonl©stiliwater.k12.mn.us Randy Raduenz* 651 -275 -1372 ArtReach Board , Stillwater Art Guild Gallery Stillwater Public Library Lynne Bertalmio* 651- 439 -1675 x18 lynnesbewashington.lib.mn. us Theater Associates, Stillwater Chamber of Commerce Historic District Commission Member Norman Steers* 651 -439 -1981 nusteere@aol.com Mary Carlson Jim Heiden St Croix Concert Series Croix Chordsmen, Vallee de Croix Chorus David Llebenow Mac Bartass* 651- 433-0571 Marlys Bronson* 651- 739 -8635 Stillwater Shakespeare David Fox - Brenton Valley Chamber Chorale Katherine Fristad* 651- 430 -0124 Carol Carver* 651- 430 -0631 Stillwater Chamber of Commerce Joci Tilsen * 651- 430 -3385 Blue Boat Music Beth Harrison* 651- 430 -1950 Spotlight Dance Studio Chris Jones* 651 -351 -7321 St Croix Academy for the Arts, Ballet Jubilate CariaBrian Sweeny * attended at least one programming/design meeting Larson Brenner Architects 9.02.04 space Dimension Area Functions Notes Large Theater/ Multipurpose Performing Arts Scheme A Seats 250- 350 - Large Group gathering - Teacher /Childrens' Reading Festival - Dining/Banquet - Choral Events - Dances - Flat Floor - Needs (floor) electrical outlets across space - Choral Events use dining table seating - Movable chairs and tables — needs storage - Fixed stage Large Theater Tiered /Fixed Seating Performing Arts Scheme B Seats 250 - 350 - Dance - Choral Groups/Individuals - Instrumental - Theater - Movable risers for any fixed seat scheme? - Tiered, fixed seating - Main entrance from second floor level Small Theater Seats 120 - Lecture/Classroom - Choral Groups/Individuals - Instrumental - Theater Workshop - Literary/Poetry Readings - FilmNideo - Community Meetings - Movable risers for any fixed seat scheme? - Small raised stage - Scheme B allows this to be used independently of the Arts Center FilmNideoTheater Seats 35-50 - Fixed /sloped seating - Front or rear projection - Film and video projection - Same as small performing arts? - Scheme A and B have this program function as part of the Small Theater Reception/ Gallery - 40 -50 people - Secure Art gallery - Private receptions - Large meeting or lecture space - Dining - Scheme A uses street - facing lower level studios for this space - Scheme B uses existing second floor west meeting room with fireplace for this space - need more gallery space than west meeting room alone. Art Galleries - secured separate space required - part of lobby /circulation for some. - - Scheme B allows upper gallery direct access to Rooftop and connects upper and lower gallery with stair - Lobby /circulation space can be used for a less - secure gallery/exhibit space Kitchen / Food prep - catering /finishing kitchen - - - Serves Scheme A Large Multipurpose performance space or Reception Gallery - Serves Reception Gallery in Scheme B Office Space - Building Staff space/control point - Other offices as space is available - Common shared areas desired - Spaces designated as Office can be Studios, or vice-versa Ticket Sales - Control Point for gallery and performing arts spaces - Maybe same as Staff Office Coffee ! Retail Gift Shop - Near entrance; visible - - staffed by volunteers - Near main lobby /circulation Lobby /Lounge - Entrance/waiting space - Spill-out/intermission space - Art gallery space - - - •••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Classroom space — Lecture /Community education 15-30 - Classroom Studio spaces - Reception/Gallery space - Small theater - - Classroom Space — studio 15 -30 - drawing, painting, printmaking, sculpture, ceramics, photography, Book arts, Fiber arts/dye lab /sewing - Some classroom space connected to studio space - Most space in lower level with limited ceiling height - Studio - Individual studios - Resident artist program - Some studios connected with classroom space - Some tall spaces available at lower level - Limited perimeter /daylight available - Spaces designated as Office can be Studios, or vice-versa Classroom /Studio storage - Individual closets or lockers for multipurpose use of classrooms - mobile carts for each type of class could be moved into classroom from storage Music rehearsal space - Individual - Small group - Large choral Theater /Performing Arts support spaces - Dedicated dressing rooms - Shop /set construction - Loading area - Storage - risers - Green room/lounge - Scheme A uses existing garage as large accessible set construction area and access to backstage. - Scheme B has access to backstage directly from outside Outdoor gathering space — on grade at street - Space for large numbers to gather before and after events. - Arts center visibility to street - Exterior sculpture display - Possible entry courtyard - Scheme A creates outdoor sculpture court in front of glass - fronted gallery space at street level (lower level) - Scheme B creates a series of outdoor terraces along Chestnut , and a raised terrace in place of the original entrance stairs. Outdoor gathering space — rooftop and parking structure - Take advantage of views - rooftop - Exterior sculpture display - Use for art fairs - Link or bridge to roof of parking structure for art fairs - Provide power and rigging for art fairs - Scheme A requires structural reinforcing of existing garage roof - Scheme B connects upper gallery space to the outdoor rooftop terrace Public restrooms _ - Individual Unisex - Large restrooms near performing arts spaces Storage space - Boiler /mechanical room - Electrical/IT room - Elevator - Stairs - Janitor - Parking Structure - Scheme A has a three -level /five level parking structure, with three -level required to the immediate east of the Arts Center to allow views from roof terrace. - Scheme B has a four -level parking structure - Parking Structure is not part of Arts Center design but basic assumptions and parameters are noted here, based on a modified preliminary ramp design dated 1.12.98 by KMR Architects - Parking structure has retail at street level at Second Street Stillwater Armory Arts Center Feasibility Study Larson Brenner Architects 4.22.04 4.22.04 Programming Meeting Agenda 1. Introductions 2. Feasibility Study Purpose: Evaluation of Armory Building • Evaluation of physical condition and building systems • Evaluation as a potential Cultural Arts Center 3. Feasibility Study Process: • Gather information about building and site. • Verify existing conditions; document existing building graphically • Evaluate existing structural, mechanical and electrical systems. ❑ Meet with City and Arts Community: create a Cultural Arts Center Program • Prepare conceptual building /site plan alternatives testing program elements within the existing conditions. ❑ Meet with City and Arts Community: Discuss site and building analysis, program fit; review conceptual plan alternatives • Refine conceptual alternative, prepare preliminary cost estimate ❑ Meet with City and Arts Community: Review Summary Documentation and Final Presentation 4. Cultural Arts Center Programming • Review and modify "laundry list" of potential spaces and functions • Estimate sizes of spaces based on number of people accommodated • Discuss potential large (multipurpose ?) performing arts spaces • Focus and prioritize list • Discuss parking and entrance issues unique to this site • Review existing building floor plans 5. Conclusion • Set next meeting date to discuss site, building and program analysis; review program fit in conceptual alternatives ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Stillwater Armory Arts Center Feasibility Study Larson Brenner Architects 4.22.04 4.22.04 Programming Meeting Notes Discussion began with a list of needs, wants, and ideas for the Armory as an Arts center: Most of these were incorporated in the Arts Center Program Outline, which was modified at each meeting. • A "Civic Center" in Stillwater; a Banquet or Community Hall • Downtown Movie Theaters • Teen Activities Center: a place for Teen Dances or a hands -on Teen Art Night • Retail Arts Gift Shop — possibly staffed by volunteers ■ Coffeeshop • Ticket sales/control point • Offices: likely one full time staff on site; some spaces for lease to Arts- related organizations; possibly several spaces sharing central resources • Exterior electronic signage announcing upcoming events • Large Multipurpose room • Catering Kitchen • Dance class /Studio space? • Performance Spaces: o Choral Groups, Instrumental Groups, Small Vocal Group /Individuals performance o Theater and Dance performance and support spaces o Choral Rehearsal Space o Music Studio /Lessons/Practice space needed Noted that it is difficult to have an ideal combined Theater and Choral space Noted that fixed seating limits multipurpose space available Possible movable risers ■ Visual Arts Spaces: o Gallery spaces o Individual Studio space — Lease or Artist -in Residence program o Photography Studio o Classrooms: Painting /Drawing, Printmaking, Book Arts, Fiber Arts /dye lab, Sculpture, Clay, Stained Glass 0 Steve Russell noted that the City works best with the initiation and capital funding of projects, and would like to see other organizations operate and maintain an Arts Center. • A Parking Structure may be built to the east and south of the armory, and should be considered in at least one planning scheme • If there is a Parking Structure, the entrance to the Arts Center will be affected. A suggested new Link Structure might act as a bridge between Parking Structure and Arts Center, as well as a new entrance to the Arts Center, and possibly provide an observation /gathering space at the top with a view of the City and river. Stillwater Armory Arts Center Feasibility Study Larson Brenner Architects 5.13.04 5.13.04 Meeting Agenda 1. (Re)lntroductions 2. Feasibility Study Purpose /Process Recap: • Evaluation of physical condition and building systems, and as a potential Cultural Arts Center • Gather information about building and site, verify existing conditions • Evaluate existing structural, mechanical and electrical systems. o (4.22.04) Meet with City and Arts Community: create a Cultural Arts Center Program • Prepare conceptual building /site plan alternatives testing program elements within the existing conditions. ❑ (5.13.04) Meet with City and Arts Community: Discuss Program, program fit; review conceptual plan alternatives • Refine conceptual alternative, prepare preliminary cost estimate ❑ Meet with City and Arts Community: Review Summary Documentation and Final Presentation 3. Cultural Arts Center Program • Review and comment on list of potential spaces and functions • Discuss potential conflict of large multipurpose visual arts space and larger performing arts spaces. • Discuss potential for large multipurpose to also be used as a performing arts space • Review existing building floor plans 4. Conceptual Plan Alternatives • Big picture: Site Plan/ Parking Ramp possibilities 1, 2, 3,4 and their effect on the building, entrance and site • Building Plan/Theater Scheme "1" • Building Plan/Theater Scheme "2" • Building Plan/Theater Scheme "3" 5. Conclusion • Set next meeting date to discuss site, building and program conclusions; review Summary Documentation and Final Presentation • Tour Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • . • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . • • . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stillwater Armory Arts Center Feasibility Study Larson Brenner Architects 9.02.04 9.02.04 Meeting Agenda 1. Introductions 2. Feasibility Study Purpose /Process Recap: ❑ First Meeting with City and Arts Community: create a Cultural Arts Center Program • Prepare conceptual building /site plan alternatives testing program elements within the existing conditions. ❑ Second Meeting City and Arts Community: Discuss Program, program fit; review conceptual plan alternatives • Refine conceptual alternative, prepare preliminary cost estimate ❑ Final Meeting with City and Arts Community: Finalize Summary Documentation Presentation ❑ Finalize and Submit Feasibility Study Report to City 3. Feasibility Study Report Summary: 1. Existing Building Analysis: Assets and Liabilities 2. Program for Cultural Arts Center 3. Plan Schemes "A" and "B" 4. Preliminary Cost Estimate and Commentary 5. Appendix 4. Last meeting's feedback: Building Schemes "1 ", "2 ", "3" • Large multipurpose room for art fair not required : idea of fair on adjacent parking roof deck well received. Provide rigging and power. • Flat floor, movable seating, banquet -type large performance space with stage desired by some choral groups. Dances a possibility. Music on Waterfront could be inside in bad weather. • Tiered, fixed seating, large performance space with stage desired by some performing arts groups — seating about 350. • More gallery space needed; on two levels OK. Windows not required. • Small performing arts theater (seats about 120) desired. Black box space or use of large stage space also a possibility. • Possible location of small theater directly south of new entrance link to parking structure. • For final report: Develop a simple scheme and a more ambitious scheme. 5. Final Plan Alternatives "A" and "B" • Scheme "A ": o Existing building entrance and garage remain. o Simpler solutions; flat floor large performance space. o Larger gallery space on upper level o Existing garage is developed into a Gallery with large windows to street and new exterior sculpture court. o Works with or without new parking garage structure. o If there is a new parking structure, it should be three levels to allow rooftop access from Arts Center. • Scheme "B ": o Existing building entrance becomes a raised terrace, and attached garage is removed. o New entrance tower link connects building, street and new parking garage structure: provides visibility, control point, circulation and gathering space. o Large performance space with tiered, fixed seating is shown, accessed from either the main or upper floors. Flat floor, movable seating space (Scheme "A ") could also work. o Parking garage could be four or three levels and allow rooftop access from building. o New tiered small performance space is accessed directly from link; could be used when Arts Center is not open. o Exterior greenspace extends the length of block, stepping down with terraces, adding an important outdoor gathering space. 6. Conclusion ■ Feedback and comments from today's meeting to be incorporated into final report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Stillwater CONCEPTUAL PLAN ALTERNATIVES `A' AND B' Design Process Descriptions of Scheme `A' and Scheme `B' Area Summary; Schemes `A' and `B' Drawings (Plans, Elevations, Sections) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Conceptual Plan Alternatives "A" and "B" The intent in creating plan alternatives A and B was to demonstrate graphically how the Program for the Arts Center might fit within the existing Armory building, and how the limitations of the Building and Site affect the Program , and the entrance, spaces and circulation of a preliminary plan. Following the Desism Process and Scheme A and B Descriptions below are Area Summary: Schemes of A and B , and Drawings A1.0— A10., The Drawings and Plan diagrams are purposefully diagrammatic and are not intended to be fully resolved. Instead, the different schemes show how most of the Program ca i be accommodated in the building, and how the proposed adjacent parking structure might affect the layout of the Arts Center. Design Process The Design Process followed closely the development of the Program (see above). At each meeting, as program elements were discussed, they were located in preliminary plans, and reactions from the group helped inform how spaces were arranged. Steve Russell (Community Development Director, City of Stillwater) indicated from the first meeting that the plans should show an adjacent Parking Structure that would occupy much of the east side of the block from Chestnut to Olive. Existing preliminary plans provided by the City (KMJ Architects, 1.12.98) were used as a rough template for the Parking Structure. Early in the programming and design process, two distinct ideas emerged for the single large performance space that the building could accommodate, and these were developed into plan Schemes "A" and "B ". Both schemes have a permanent raised proscenium stage. Scheme A has a seating area that is a multipurpose space with removable chairs and a flat floor that can be also used for dining tables, dances, small exhibits and other meeting purposes. Scheme B has a tiered structure with fixed theater seating that offers better sightlines for some types of performances. As the rest of the building plans were developed, the rest of the Scheme A plan was Intentionally designed to be simpler in scope of impact in the remodeling of the existing Armory building, and presumably be less expensive. The Scheme B plan shows a more extensive overall scope of remodeling and impact on the building. Their differences are outlined in more detail below. In both schemes, the top level of the Parking Structure directly to the east is connected to a rooftop terrace at the Arts Center, and is intended to provide a large area used on special occasions for art fairs with tents, and other outdoor gatherings. Scheme A Description • Existing Building entrance remains in use. • No direct connection is made between Parking Structure and Arts Center. • Existing Garage structure remains; its roof is utilized as an outdoor terrace accessed from the First floor of the Arts Center. • A courtyard is developed in front of the existing garage to help provide an outdoor link to the parking structure, and a limited outdoor spill -out space from the building, and a sculpture court. • The new all -glass garage doors visually and physically connect gallery studio space to this courtyard and to the street and sidewalk. ■ Parking Structure directly to east is not sloped and must be limiteri to three levels so Arts Center rooftop outdoor terrace can access it directly, and so it does not block views of the Arts Center from the east. • Top level of 3 story Parking Structure is to accommodate Art Fair tents and other gatherings, and will allow views of the downtown area and beyond. • Remaining Parking Structure is shown as 5 -level to compensate for 3- level. ■ Sculpture court and Gallery space with sectional glass doors will allow vehicular access and loading to the large Theater Shop/Storage area. ■ The Large Theater is a multipurpose space with removable chairs and a flat floor that can be also used for dining tables, dances, exhibits and other purposes. • The Small Theater has fixed seating and a tiered structure and is accessed from the Second Level. ■ Except for the Gallery and Theater Shop /Storage area, the Lower Level is similar in both Scheme A and Scheme B. Scheme B Description • Existing Building entrance is no longer used. It is remodeled to become a small outdoor terrace at the First Level, accessed from the inside. ■ A new Entrance Tower becomes a visible new Arts Center Entrance from the street at the Lower Level. Ceremonial Stairs or the adjacent Parking Structure access the Arts Center Main Entrance and Control Point at the First Level. • A direct connection is possible between Parking Structure and Arts Center on every level, though Controlled Entrance is only at the First Level. ■ The Existing Garage structure is removed. The Small Theater, connected to the Entrance Tower and Link, can operate independently from the Arts Center. Its higher roof is utilized as an outdoor rooftop terrace, accessed from the Second Level of the Arts Center instead of the First Level(as in Scheme A). • The Second -Level Gallery space allows direct access to the Rooftop Terrace and top level of the Parking Structure beyond.. • Parking Structure directly to east is not sloped, and, with the adjacent higher level rooftop terrace, can be four levels high, affording better views. Top level of the 4 story Parking Structure is to accommodate Art Fair tents and gatherings. • The Parking Structure is held back from Chestnut Street, allowing more visibility of the Arts Center and Entrance Tower, and creating a terraced green Courtyard the length of the block from Second Street to Third Street. • The Lame Theater has fixed. tiered seating and its main entrance is from the Second Level. The backstage is accessible directly from outside. It does not have the Theater Shop/Storage area that Scheme A has. • The Small Theater also has fixed seating and a tiered structure and is accessed from the Second Level. It has a service/stage corridor that scheme A does not, and is larger. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Stillwater Armory Feasibility Study Area Summary: Schemes "A" and "B" 9.02.04 Space Notes Scheme A (net square feet) Scheme B (net square feet) Large Theater/ Performing Arts Multipurpose/Flat r 5410 0 Large Theater/ Performing Arts Tiered/Fixed Seating 0 5860 Small Theater/ Performing Arts Tiered/Fixed Seating 1800 2100 Reception/ Gallery "A ": lower level "B ": 2nd level 1600 1025 Art Gallery Second floor 755 0 Art Gallery Second floor 755 0 Art Gallery First floor 0 1825 Art Gallery Second floor 0 1165 Kitchen / Food prep First floor 450 425 Coffee / Retail Gift Shop First floor 220 215 Outdoor terrace First floor at entrance ('/ sf). 0 140 Classroom Lower level 450 450 Classroom Lower level 500 500 Classroom Lower level 550 550 Classroom Lower level 1120 1120 Classroom /studio Tall space at lower level 450 450 Studio Lower level 200 200 Studio Lower level 200 200 Studio Lower level 200 200 Studio Lower level 120 120 Studio storage Lower level 180 180 Studio storage Lower level 230 230 Music rehearsal Lower lever existing vault 100 100 Music rehearsal Lower level@ existing vault 100 100 Music rehearsal Lower lever existing vault 115 115 Music rehearsal Lower level@ existing vault 115 115 Theater support space Lower level 225 225 Theater support space Lower level 225 225 Theater support space Lower level 530 530 Theater Shop/Storatie Lower level 2170 820 Storage Lower level 160 160 Storage Lower level 240 240 MechanicaUElectricai Lower level 830 830 Office Space First floor 195 195 Office Space First floor 195 195 Office Space First floor 255 225 Storage First floor 610 425 Roof Terrace Outdoor space; count as 14 sf. "A ": 4045/2 =2025, "8 ": 2600/2 =1300 2025 1300 Office Space Second floor 0 215 Office Space Second floor 0 325 Office Space Second floor 0 150 Storage Second floor 0 135 Entrance Tower Lobby First floor +1/2 second and third 0 1600 Net Area excluding circulation, stairs, elevator, mechanical, electrical, structure 23,280 25,180 Gross Area (approximate} 30,890 31,700 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • s A Wj' <7:7 Ft1 WALL BLO SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" STILLWATER ARMORY FEASIBILITY STUDY- SITE CONTEXT Al .0 SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS RD STREE F. 750 -- EAST CHESTNUT STREET rWC I1PTUNE /GAI.I.RRY P LA - FRIDGE BELOW AT / ' PLAZA TO PARKING MAID ENTR IWF Jc1-' %�✓k;1 FRIDGE FROM ROOT DECK TO PARKING S'TOCCTOWK L r 2` 4.4 R A1N ELEIATOR� ss../ - r III.. ■ RETAIL ROOF L llNI.QN DECK j �J ... EXISTING GARAGE PROPOSED J LECrI, BARRING STRCCTIHE WITH RET41' R111110 RETAIL RTT.ON PROPOSED 0 I.131R1 PARKING ;TRL COI III WITH 111.111. DOLOR RETAIL BELUP PARKING J EXIT immk _ W U crl PARKING ENTRY/EXIT J OLIVE S'I EET L. SCHEME A. PROPOSED 3 & 5 LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE - NO DIRECT CONNECTION TO ARMORY EXISTING EAST GARAGE OF ARMORY TO REMAIN EAST CHESTNUT STREET MAIN ENTRAN E RETAIL FELON ,) I 'ROPOSED 4 LE'E r PAIIXING STRUCTURE, WITH RETAIL 011100 \ RETAIL AELOW I V I R0T410 BELOW OLIVE STREET I PARKING 4RY /RXTT J SCHEME 13: 4 LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE SET BACK FROM CHESTNUT WITH ENTRY TOWER- DIRECT CONNECTION TO ARMORY EAST GARAGE OF ARMORY TO BE DEMOLISHED SCALE: I" = 30' -0" PLAN NORTH STILLWATER ARMORY FEASIBILITY STUDY- SITE PLAN A2.O SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • awrzveft.lonimmamem...m,...r.i; • NIL N 4TO 4 2 40.1 S, — ith5fOct- r-44-1.A4,5 CE CC }Eat/ft* fP49-1404610Y-Xf STILLWATER ARMORY FEASIBILITY STUDY— FLOOR PLAN SCHEME _\ LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS PLAN NORTH :-EPTEMBER 2, 2004 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 'E.VelbEt, • `17, , • 5204kE — — — -r .... _ .. ........ I 1 I -' -- ■- ›.'" `'... -.Y" '''' ... '' ,-,• -_,,, , -, ..... 804964 eLevaielz. • PLAN NORTH STILL\VATER ARMORY FEASIBILITY STUDY- FLOOR PLAN SCHEME A — -- LARSON HRENNER ARCHITECTS A4.0 SEPTENIBER 2, 2004 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 30.888j SEC:CA:: F_4N PLAN NORTH sTILLIV \TER ARMORY FEASIBILITY STUDY— FLOOR PLAN SCHEME A LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS A5.0 SEPTEMHER 2, 2004 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • C•Kert401. mAiNi .C?9,555V._ t 55555,1.555, .5C54544. 10 ,4", =ER 5.06r4 ".555-5-51= 1=71 -Et4rWS- - r it, !LAT ep C4E :LCOR 5:551IA I 5 I 5C STILL WATER ARMORY FEASIDILITY STITDY- FLOOR PLAN SCHEME LARSON BRENNER .\RCIIITECTS 3- I r rfrigHt•i, 64ziket PLAN NORTH ,..‘6,0 SEPTEMBER 2, 2001 • • • • • • • • • II • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * • ,aeu 1111,1,IVATER ARMORY FEASIBILITY STUDY.- FLOOR PLAN SCHEME B LARSON RUNNER ARCHITECTS rtaffiwp A7.0 SEPTEMBEP, 2, 2001 •••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• I 'i R R f M R f R � AA �� ✓i ' 4 P LPFE STILLIVA'fER ARMORY FEASIBILITY STUDY- FLOOR PLAN SCHEME Li LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS PLAN NORTH _A8.0 SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• N- I 1E111 ol RTH OFYOND) ,t1:1(151G 43.• 61.11111111100111i61111114d I.ETAII SECOND STREET ---.0,ruoLoezrkeoerove --ewrio,c~care, SCHEME A: PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE- NO DIRECT CONNECTION TO ARMORY THIRD STREET FOURTH 1 0 4 T1111211 la mai -Irrimiwillmin ,..40alti 1,,4,01111ta.tilitPM ji ilVirt.P. iiMiaBtat4 SECOND STREET THIRD STREET SCHEME 13: PARKING STRUCTURE WITH CIRCULATION TOWER- DIRECT CO\ ACTION TO ARMORY STILLWATER ARMORY FEASIBILITY STUDY LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS UPPER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL BASEMENT LEVEL SEPTFMHEN 2, 2001 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1116 toILDIN6 ,14 141.4 PVITI014 PP#41110 61Reiter ' :,)i'AFosiktog Ip‘f. LO»TUD NAL ZEc5TION;45C44101V1g.kkei lout _j:o .„. TLIti.rYtt.t T. ,r1.0 1 ON 4-A STILLWATER ARMORY FEASIBILITY STUDY- SECTIONS Al 0.0 SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS A R. !V, 0 R, Y A1/4-T fTiLLWATCR,, VINN LA )1(1, R. A l.)(, LAAD 1.6/10. Jttt fP.1441.16 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Stillwater COST ESTIMATE AND APPENDIX Conceptual Cost Estimate Original Armory Building Drawings ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Conceptual Cost Estimate A preliminary Construction Cost estimate at this point in a Feasibility Study is very approximate, being based only on broad square foot cost assumptions. Since the timeframe of Construction is unknown, a cost inflation/acceleration rate should also be factored in to these numbers. Many factors affecting cost are unknown at this time, but several assumptions and considerations are taken into account: • The interior of the Existing Armory building will likely needed to be partially gutted for structural and HVAC considerations. • Very little if any of its electrical system will be re -used or salvaged. • The building will need a new water service and sprinkler system. • The building has no HVAC system; this will be all new. • The existing hot water boiler may be salvaged, but most piping will likely need to be removed or re -routed due to plan and structural considerations. • If trusses are exposed, the building will need a new gabled roof with exterior insulation. As with many renovations of existing structures, the cost savings of retaining and using parts of the existing building are often partially offset by the added cost of working with and around the existing conditions. The square foot costs of renovation then become much closer to new construction costs. Since detailed design work is not yet available, a simple cost per square foot methodology was utilized in determining estimated construction costs. Quality construction materials and techniques are assumed. The following assumptions have been made: • Remodeled building areas - $130 / SF • New building areas - $170 / SF • Roof top paved surface areas - $30 / SF • Ground level landscape development - $20 / SF • Retail areas at parking ramp - $100 / SF • Parking ramp area - $40 / SF Scheme A, which retains the existing Entrance to the Building and garage, and does not link directly to the proposed Parking Structure, will be less expensive than Scheme B, which has additional new construction. Though the Parking Structure was not part of this project's scope of work, an estimate for it is given as well. Please note that the numbers that follow below are Construction Costs only. Additional Prolect Costs should be considered, and may include: Architecture/Engineering Consultants Fees, Soil Borings, Testing Service and Consultants, Survey Work, Attorneys/Legal fees, Property Acquisition Costs, FF&E (Fixtures, furnishings and equipment), and a Project Contingency. Conceptual Construction Cost Estimate Stillwater Armory Arts Center Feasibility Study Scheme A Lower Level Remodeling Exterior Terrace / Plaza First Floor Remodeling Roof Top Terrace Second Floor Remodeling Total Scheme A Scheme B Lower Level Remodeling Lower Level Demolition Lower Level New Addition Exterior Terrace I Plaza First Floor Remodeling First Floor New Building Second Floor Remodeling Second Floor New Building Second Floor Roof Terrace Total Scheme B Parking Structure Retail at Parking Structure Parking Structure Total Parkina Structure Bldg Area Cost / SF 15220 $130 5625 $20 11125 $130 4035 $30 Cost $1,978,600 $112,500 $1,446,250 $121,050 4325 $130 $562,250 11175 4045 4292 9420 11125 2435 6720 960 2715 14320 132036 $130 $20 $170 $20 $4,220.650.00 $1,452,750 $80,900 $729,640 $188,400 $130 $1,446,250 $170 $413,950 $130 $170 $30 $873,600 $163,200 $81,450 $5,430.140.00 $100 $1,432,000 $40 $5,281,440 56,713,440.00 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• h.- s ®t t. .324 '3= 1 „o. a 0 c' S a� -1e it C"".— I feon.a M'DCe. .i �`'�'�a'bi. �a i"�+,.— ,''}'•._ ,. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 111 • 1)7 4 .A4 %LA trti r oeceazimami.-AN7-7,7 1 , . 51,11‘3110 : :0.0. 1,-IIVII—IA.40 I • :001•14-74013 : 20: :17 -• •1 • 7 IA-4 VI '4” :. et .r 4 .z, 4 J - - 4 _ __ ..: _L'., I i 0 4 a • 3 ,„ ••*.LP4 ---- I.::: 0 ; .141731•1110.4 .1-.0•Vbs-1903 ri .1 I... !I.II '0I 41 0 i ° --1--- -?•:- ■ Od • -,,a, ,,Th Z-- --:4-14-- --- 'ily asZ . ..1 .4 0. N 3 —I .9 P--- 31.4 a • 1,47- „5,1.2 .0101 --)F:sr, •es ..vaz to 14t ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• see ?h %.. -w6:L2 ate "K nbIC 4:7z . Wi r &i m4S).u,Z 6;4 012 4,49;8 '!- b•ol 9 m,a - 47:r1- _B i .62 gyp. �: _j(9;C Wyi loneewiml. teah�s ” /t V bed i _ e�eul -2 .vaeraa .a49 •mews ^:.rti •> s. u b'Ili1!12 4 9' • • • d' t ;z- Got k9 4,r „c:eTg94 };a p:z .$i § " ". nx$ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 9lz:t a:11 N :6 .6.a.-. wl:i aril GE .V:9x .. ' — Nz:6 SIS:Y _ z..e g,A1 .'Kc:ir w,z , _11:aa f:z9 u:iu o:s a wi :E:c a:x ±lp:s ys:zvgY,z 3pY'Va ...ve y,s, a4 ..."1-A., %-$,p:x ail i .i> •4 ; ew. .natty` a . 4,x...5,,,5 b ,: B.`L 9 6 1:— fi.4 -7.:.:.ki-Jr..,..r..1... 0-:4-0-....- . k', . a q Z "AI.A,-5i - .Q . V _AS- .O'*Z 4 W i. - -4, . -° y 1 -. :1 9 i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1-- i • autm 0 00 M 0 41 z : t mo-im.40 ••••••••04.0m :5 V (601030 A. •••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • GtN rr CIF D,.,cl rA(re[r ✓roll CATTY go ^f,, Q01Ttt. In .n tll on oil f f In ;m !f on q f/ In, '.on YJIIi It.. rk.t., s @A. ' titer Ne/MW! ? "i'�j+tlY. ital D.. us t ere NYY oqJ` 11. II 1 11 1L nl Ilk kV lu 111111 n In in Il iii 'iii ii eMLiT .PLOO?, LIPt . • -- -'Pcef '0r ✓ 7 11.4 -- t —.__i' ,_ .. Pteretl WALT 'vioa 0 tout! ✓TArt irmir hoop. Ltre liar /Mat An [ Dail F 11, 'Al ILaat. • .£,LYVATION e tit ;+ f -o' III In III Inr nI HI, III nr IJIH ; IIS! Inl of 'fl, ! 4! 0.0.4.1, • \111{11 'MR Ai/ I u:, ]n osoltoil_knoi Non law (?IDt ALI UNTIL!. UNI.t/! ellitTxta: Ma• PAL, Toanetlll aF E. ITy1 iL AA 1- 3t:31.7•:k'L 1 A0••. L. Al. eNA41 _ L• ∎,40&'La Ado Fs; IflL. �J t[.ero PL T0T- LINT. !n1 in in u Tor of JI9tW1lt. tAt 11110 04 PCMeF'f t.AcT IT UTI,T. cr Loy tit. , ILL Ol U All III f�1.. n1 ••rt WALL , cu: r !rapt ■ r- --- ---AIL PYYNYA JtNM Ilaa6 llMt`f += .— —� 4- LLFVATIoN CH -LAir CHEJ?NUT C FLECT 1 ic.1 t}.Fo" LAWN DY o.r.t. CO acted• IA.P. Irertlto t•a.t.rLN, 4.01rt the • kR,MORY AT JTILLWATEK, MINN LANGA,AUQLAN) 1,EIT4I6 Aec81TFF T. - WC IN L$ Mel 11 0' 4100/ ••••••••••••• •••••••1•••••••••41 0••••••••••• 4 ✓1A01 Le 111 111 .111 111 III i��� si�iII, III tit MI_ INI UI Iii UI III . 'noS LNIIIII111NI l%1:■II.lI119- C•'tcore rtooe, Lila 90101 1.1 iiikrtx rtoot, 1.11e riAA� 1L L• r '* O Oatte{ IOILLZ Lee., 11001 .41 —. 1+ i- 4 Auciouvtw • — i•L —. +•— — ._...— ...— y.1- --,- WYfT .'tLivATIOH feAle 4, Ave uxe ` i} oIeYT nee. Ore PkeJ Lxr fyxAOt yi � �'ipTiwxltlluw Floe, Llwt —� NOTE Alt L1omm ., uettrr smug" bleu tU COOtlrr Of W 4,44V1. 000 I- at; ?XI V OR 1.0 A W.10. • 11,11terl. A-9.4%kU LIP I-...4•.• • ,Jra tx III 1/1'. 61.11 'GC /, /Ai1 llll L Y '7: I.!II";.a!1 w111teT,0a.IlLt .. r"'II min9 "ancan "fnnn! 110!0 Pico e. Len l�■�■�■ — Al1�Y (Pxl,trt q.0400 LW. - Wig; pox a £1.0 _-1 ___ I I y .0* * 111r9<t10 O1 LITTO0 — +----- L - - --y I � $.tJe M[Ml, 7LOOU ,LIr L0 —1- J -A; 74 Ate... t LLJ ea 14. rtwt Jt1 Wok 31.ie. cote. Saar •` W1f* Iwo r1Y4r. • LEVATIOR OM. J'OUTff THIT.D J'TtTJT icatt 9t10 bT o.FL. TL1ce/ • exT4. Cleent• 14 6. Agtr TL1 LANcj , KAUq,t,A ND o. C M13 AtcaVOTa 001 t Iq., *IT AikT• OAr . OLO¢• j. Ai1xxLAroeib, MINN. Yne•doie4, I of •••••••••••+• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• njf 5114 bar e4 0e1e 41 0.41 ./0 0[1,Te 00 00 [45501[• .--if MlrquYp Loa -- " -Ik RT+LuL, - fLJT T eep •xl}‘ss+ +L? -t0 e.a. e0$ 0Ie I� w. t•,t, $bc. . PulTtu . CI ( TtettL$4,. LON liTUDI NAL artOTIoN ✓c/Itea—I:o' TT. OTT 0 I (+Plwe Ganra Cakata IC an tsc 9' '�r \ CsaTIYw A /mums �.. s <q'V. herr ¢'Ec NLeI iILAD JAMB ,s0MtxX,L ■'IDE JAMB 4vAtAg11, Dooe.r 1}4L 5004 g0110, 44414[0! 4tYoNHT CYt 4L191 Ls .e -DIKE i'4T1ma in4[st Y. I[er g'.uT }T[ .111 IroeM9oCl1'LE! . 1011 I1IIII IIIII II[ II I'I�� ELEVATION or V E I T I B V LZ DOOR,i fr Y41J1YY 1 Eei L14E • TCA NJ VL ., /i ,rtOTION R -A' Jelttk —Yo• atc�te K4 26 rtooe Gomit• DLTAii. .IC Al.. 34'.110• sL,srY sT at a �s[sTp, > AMC., R.AUC.LAAD 6ir.wl.. Atctrtcsb— ,Ma)NeLzs ELT MLT. NOOK CY•ON- • MINA TPaLl st iiMN. • •••001/0004090000•0011104)•••••••••••••••••••••• Otttc tooM of DD Off t c)v, Zoom Gov xi .t ., :- (I 1MT "'MCP m1,1 5.013 tIG tee, No TS," IN rem% 10,1 TICt. PE sYsM cotztDOV, J. I VI T 1C,K.T4T ODTAlla kJ!! tos14..„.11,tcS.V. I05Q1 Dt,rfsS.I. 14 011111 !GOO C1/1111 st ROOK, MORIN ?LAM. tuosisyss..• tor... Cmopass Too. AOTt.: to save/Tama Gamet se tr.., tau., vas ”toss lsos .eoort %i Itossa.•••Tss.s. lYinott tot 4" 1- Irma 2 Ss; }ewe,. s -NOT .,t,e1e7 Isearst !, it/b./TILE TI. 2",orz' 24,,E5•Jali.r.,. 4 • Lomat s.,12 at. 431 • 1.42•Vestelo:'' ••„; coy 3SRS• 'JON tONaL tot Io,,tittot •t�* •a".1.'1.; • • I al. lienarec • • oti bAt.<.Otti• • ../k.ALb R.0015CR.f MAL TIOOR, t 15A, E. IN Ci.ym. 11.LP TOLL ALL - 01De0 PeT 470011, Ts Os‘tive 0110007 lean " .f°01't sr tepf RILL °seat. 13R A 11334 Pt, 4s,a. „ 1 1 g 44st 5,11:1 1;11 -4611111 41"." so. • Peas L /11t1111ST. s-s1s la=stessr, _ , 1 I 111A - uti" .14. bL r .VA 101 - —SP gnat 111111116 HI 11 P 1.4 tr DVAILi 0 rir,VpLAor. IN GoNIANy . '<&L ALA to/4 OtlIf is Vs. :C... asst.."' wOdt. bAiit WINDOW TItItt wu PLASTER. Mt) OCCORI lint. • *Vs- Loma ' KeRece el JAMB -TILL r..00111 DOOR •• LL ik".ises" ine kso " ./kOritt. le.00* r* SA.111101 'CALL - tie- 3 3 —le 1u ii - /Kos - 2. 1.0- — Ito /Levots sot 011/1V/1.110 11f do aLt 1.30% Ls • T Ito .r.r Tow- AL, Sops Mg. CA U.1) took. mat '4"1 PIZITc.,■:"*" Tot ET ,/lioweR. TA. Is bAniettii - too .rtzt- Altt COO;. I'LtItTIobt OR W/1 3' Lel • els, ell Ac Lisyss C Nil ;Alt_ WOOD Aft. • . TOLL r'ZL AJMO.Y A 1.1.WA;LR., MIMS/ LAN , le.A0c,tAmoiltP/13 kelcar12,1.i.ZeLtAtt CA... 00(1, /111111 , OS 3,105 Ng 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ®1'I�'1'I�Illfll - -J --s • n ;us 1. a • gill HUM �I��ni1r =1� - ....111111J......:111 - 1.I1..:...:Ill_ ti -rZ. "'a f'.f y-; =� '�;�. a' ''.- a 1 �• d a . ( � flfl 01 o F s s �� A 1 � a s r _ 1 ` - e A'sa y 't I. Err MI 1. I` g -t . v a .. 1 41:01 , : 7a=11!w... A a °o ill 1 _ , i Z i r .... I wi v — 4- a.g?.: - --x'-'D D. Il- 1 hY. ii.. 1 .1 I d e d d