villa louis fur trade building evaluation villa louis...

Villa Louis Fur Trade Building Evaluation Villa Louis, Prairie du Chien

DSF Project No. 06K4L

May 26, 2009

FOR THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF STATE FACILITIES

STATE OF WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - 7TH FLOOR 101 EAST WILSON STREET - P.O. BOX 7866

MADISON, WISCONSIN 53707

By

Architect River Architects, Inc. 740 7th Street North

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 (608) 785-2217

Structural Consultant Arnold & O'Sheridan, Inc.

1111 Deming Way Suite 200

Madison, WI 53717 (608) 821-8500

Mechanical and Electrical Consultant

Galileo Consulting Group, LLC 2920 East Avenue South

La Crosse, WI 54601 (608) 787-9106



SUMMARY OF REPORT CONTENTS Part A - Introduction Pages 2-3

Describes the purpose of this report, identifies the report project team, and

describes the methodology used to obtain the information included.

Part B - Architectural Pages 4-24

An evaluation of the building's condition and recommended actions.

Part C - Structural Pages 25-35

An evaluation of the building’s structural issues and recommended actions.

Part D - Mechanical & Electrical Systems Pages 36-50

An evaluation of the building’s mechanical and electrical systems and

recommended actions.

Part E - Code Analysis Pages 51-59

An analysis of the code implications of the recommended actions.

Part F - Summary of Recommendations Pages 60-62

Part G - Opinion of Probable Cost Pages 63-65

The Opinion of Probable Cost for the work described in the Summary of

Recommendations.

Disclaimer Page 66

Appendix #1 - Historic Photographs Page 67-68

Appendix #2 - WUFI-ORNL Dewpoint Analysis Page 69-71 (Cooling Mode - Exterior Masonry Wall)

1



Part A: Introduction PURPOSE

In June of 2006 three Historic Sites Division staff inspected the building and

noted the early stages of structural failure in the basement support for the first

floor. The primary impetus for the preparation of this report is the structural

issues with the basement supports and the first floor framing. The report

addresses needed facility work in order to stabilize the building and prevent

further deterioration. Additional facility work to improve the safety and

functionality of the building’s mechanical and electrical systems is discussed.

The implementation of all recommended work should comply with The Secretary

of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

PROJECT TEAM

The Structural section was prepared by Robert B. Corey, P.E. of Arnold &

O'Sheridan, Inc., Madison, WI.

The Mechanical and Electrical Systems section was prepared by Chris C. Olson,

P.E. of Galileo Consulting Group, LLC, La Crosse, WI.

The report was prepared by River Architects, Inc.:

Peter Zirbel AIA

Valentine J. Schute AIA - Project Principal

METHODOLOGY

The analysis contained in this report is based on visual observation of accessible

spaces. There was no observation and investigation of concealed conditions. We

did not obtain access to the roof, or enter into the attic space.

2



We received copies of the building plans from the "Restoration & Remodeling-

Astor Fur Warehouse" Project 7004-20 dated 1 -17-1972 by Kratt -Lachecki

Architects, La Crosse, WI. Villa Louis Site Director Michael Douglass provided

copies of two historic photographs which are included in Appendix #1.

The scope of this report does not include observation of or testing for hazardous

materials including but not limited to: asbestos, radon, PCBs, mold, indoor air

quality (IAQ), and lead based paint.

Lead Based Paint- Given the age of the building it is possible that it will contain

some lead based paint. The Site Director indicates that the building has not been

tested for lead based paint. We recommend having the building tested for lead

based paint. It would be prudent to take necessary precautions when working

with or removing existing paint, unless testing shows that it does not contain

lead.

3



Part B: Architectural

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

(Provided By Wisconsin Historical Society)

The Astor Fur Warehouse at Villa Louis is one of only 39 National Historic

Landmarks in Wisconsin. In 1960 it was among the first five historic properties

in the State (all located in Prairie du Chien) to be so designated. The land on

which the building rests has a long and storied history that includes fur trading

activities that date back as early as the 1790s, involvement relative to the War of

1812, and use by various fur trade companies from the early 1800s through 1850.

The stone building itself is more properly identified as the Brisbois Store. It was

constructed in 1851 (possibly completed in 1852) by B. W. Brisbois. He referred

to the new structure as a “Stone Ware-House.” Thereafter, Brisbois operated a

dry goods store in the building, and he also used it as a location to store furs that

he traded for goods to be sold in his store.

The Wisconsin Historical Society acquired the property in 1970. It has been used

for many years as the location of the Villa Louis Fur Trade Museum.

OVERVIEW

The building has three levels. Rectangular in shape, the building footprint is

approximately 26' by 54', 1404 gross square feet. The basement is partially

exposed. The basement is not occupied or used. Entrance to the basement is via

a sliding door reached by descending sloped grade from the east. The basement

wood columns and some deteriorated first floor joists were replaced as part of the

1972 project. The 1972 project also removed the existing first floor columns and

installed 3 wood columns on both the first and second floors. These columns are

located directly above the basement columns.

4



The main first floor entry is via a ramp from the east and contains the museum.

There are also exterior doors to an exterior landing and steps on the west side.

The first floor is used as a fur trade museum.

The second floor is reached by 2 open interior stairs added during the 1972

remodeling. The previous north exterior stair visible in the historic photographs

was removed as part of the 1972 work. The second floor is currently used as a

group meeting area, and also contains mechanical and storage rooms.

A partial attic is above the west portion of the building. In 1972 the existing

second floor ceiling finish was removed and nominal 1x4 boards were placed on

top of the existing ceiling joists to create the attic. The east portion of the

building was left open to the roof deck to expose an existing wooden hoist wheel.

Plans indicate that the 1972 remodeling removed the plaster from the interior

stone walls. The wood framing and interior stone surfaces on the first and second

floor were sandblasted. The west chimney visible in the historic photographs was

removed in 1972.

Most exterior doors date from the 1972 remodeling. At that time, the window

sashes were repaired. The second floor windows on the north and east have been

replaced with barn sash. The 1972 plans called for the repair of the existing

stucco finish on the east gable. This finish was later removed in the mid 1990’s.

The exterior of the building was repointed in 1972.

The roof was metal in the historic photographs and the 1972 plans. It was

replaced with cedar shingles in 1995.

The building does not have a sprinkler system or other fire suppression systems.

5



SITE AND PAVING

There is a limited amount of gravel parking on the north east side of the building

near the ramp. A small amount of gravel separates the building from the road to

the west.

There are some areas that may benefit from re-grading to get positive drainage

away from the building. However, the site is relatively flat and the feasibility of

re-grading would need to be verified with adjacent site elevations.

There are no designated handicapped parking spaces. The sloped grass lawn from

the gravel parking area to the east ramp does not meet the Americans With

Disabilities Act’s requirement that accessible routes be “stable, firm, and slip

resistant.”

ROOF

Access to the main roof was not obtained. The roof was observed from ground

level with binoculars and camera zoom lenses. Villa Louis staff indicated that the

cedar shingle roof was installed in 1995 and did not mention that there were any

roof leaks. The roof is showing some signs of cupping and curling. Ken White of

Villa Louis mentioned that the shingles were installed directly on the roofing felt.

If this is the case, it doesn't allow the shingles to dry evenly after receiving

precipitation and can cause cupping and curling and premature deterioration.

Traditionally, the even drying of wood shingles was achieved by installing them

over spaced wood boards; a modern cedar breather type of underlayment

performs the same function. Since the roof is currently weather tight, it can

remain in place until it starts to leak. We don't see any benefit in applying sealers

or other products to attempt to extend the life of the shingles. When it is replaced,

we would recommend that a cedar breather underlayment be installed.

6



Photo 1.01 - Roof

From the ground, the chimney appears to be properly flashed and counter

flashed. Close examination of the historic photograph indicates that the chimney

was originally higher with a simple corbelled detail at the top. We do not know if

the chimney was capped with a sheet metal cover or remains open; from the

photos we suspect the latter. We recommend restoring the original corbelled

termination detail and capping the opening.

Photo 1.02 - Chimney

From the outside it is

evident that the roof

has sagged in the

7



middle. This is apparent at the ridge line and has also caused the middle of the

roof edge to bow outward and upward. Since this condition is evident on the

1920's historic photograph it not a recent development and would not need

remedial action unless it worsens. This same condition has caused a gap between

the soffit and the top of the wall. We recommend closing this gap with a

paintable sealant and monitoring it over time to see if the gap widens and opens

back up.

Photo 1.04 - Roof sag

and bowed soffit and

fascia.

Photo 1.05 - Gap

between soffit and wall

at north wall

8



The paint at the wood soffit and fascia and moldings is in poor condition and

these areas should be repainted.

Photo 1.06 - Flaking

paint at roof fascia and

soffit.

EXTERIOR WALLS

The 1972 plans indicate the stone masonry walls are approximately 24" wide at

the basement and 18" wide above the first floor framing. The walls appear to be

relatively plumb and in good condition. Most of the previous repointing seems to

have taken place on the lower portion of the wall below a projecting stone belt

course. The repointing mortar is darker and has a finer aggregate than what is

assumed to be the original mortar above.

Photo 2.01 -Darker repointing mortar below projecting belt course

9



There are small areas scattered throughout the wall where the mortar should be

repointed with compatible mortar. The mortar should be sufficiently soft to

prevent future damage to the stonework. Unless mortar analysis reveals that the

original mortar is unusually hard, the building should be repointed using mortar

that is no harder than ASTM, Type O, which consists of 1 part Portland cement,

2 parts hydrated lime, and 9 parts sand.

The area above the southeast basement window has deflected and cracked. Refer

to structural section for recommendations for the repair of lintel and the repair

of the masonry above.

Photo 2.02 - Crack

above southeast

basement window

The holes left over when the north exterior stairs were removed (Photo 2.03)

were called out to be patched with matching masonry on the 1972 plans but this

was never done. These holes should be patched with compatible masonry and

mortar in a way that does not completely obscure the joist pockets in the

masonry. The visitor should be able to “read” the evidence of the previous joist

pocket’s size and location.

10



Photo 2.03 - Holes in

masonry after removal of

north exterior stairs.

The first floor west wood trim installed in 1972 is generally sound with the paint

in good condition. There are shutters in the closed position installed over the

second floor west windows, one of the shutters is damaged and should be

repaired.

The north stone sill at the west elevation is cracked and this may be allowing

moisture in and hastening the damage to the wood header over the basement

window. (A similar crack exists at the east entry door.) The cracked stone sills

should be repaired with compatible mortar.

Photo 2.04 - Crack in

west sill at first floor

doors.

11



There is some yellow paint on the north wall (potentially from vandals?) that

should be removed with paint/graffiti remover compatible with historic masonry.

EXTERIOR WEST STAIRS

The west stairs have 7 1/2" treads and open 8" risers. There is a handrail on one

side but it is not graspable. The top landing is located below the stone sill and is

2'10" to grade. The guardrail is 42" high but has 15" openings. The wood stair is

in poor condition and should be replaced with a new wood stair. The new

landing should be flush with the top of the existing stone sill so there is not a step

down immediately after exiting door. The new stair should be of a historically

sensitive design that meets current code requirements, including tread, riser,

handrail, and guardrail configuration. Discussions with Wisconsin Historical

Society representatives indicated that since this façade is the historic “front” of

the building, and because of the near proximity to the road and railroad tracks,

this stair should not be replaced with a ramp.

Photo 3.01 - West stair

EXTERIOR EAST RAMP

The east ramp has a 1 in 12 slope, a 41" painted wood high guardrail with 13"

openings and a painted wood ramp surface. The paint is in average condition

except for the ramp surface, where most of the paint has worn off. The 1972

12



plans do not indicate if the ramp walk surface was constructed of pressure treated

or decay resistant wood, but we are not recommending repainting the walk

surface. From a maintenance standpoint it is easier to maintain an unpainted

ramp surface and the natural weathering enhances the surface grip. In addition,

prolonged exposure to UV light has likely degraded the ramp surface to the point

where the service life of a new paint coating in a high traffic location would be

limited.

Although not required to be made compliant with current code, to improve safety

and reduce potential liability we recommend upgrading the guardrails to meet

current code and installing code compliant graspable handrails on each side.

Photo 4.01 - East

ramp and sliding door

to basement.

EXTERIOR DOORS

The east first floor doors are 1 7/8" thick with a 12 lite single glazed true divided

lite. The doors are glazed with exterior wood stops. This is normally a glazing

method that has a relatively short lifespan but here it seems to be holding up

pretty well. The door can be hooked open to the ramp rail when the building is

open. The doors have knobs which should be replaced with levers for

accessibility. One replacement muntin is not painted and should be painted. The

13



threshold is damaged and has a gap of about an inch to the floor. This is a

potential "tripper" and should be replaced with an ADA compliant wood

threshold.

Photo 5.01 - Threshold

at east door.

The west first floor doors are similar in construction to the east doors noted

above. There was a strong wind on one of our visits and it was noted that the

doors seem fairly drafty. New copper weather stripping should be installed. The

doors have knobs which should be replaced with levers for accessibility. Exiting

out this door requires lifting a bar for the lower stop and pulling a chain for the

upper stop. In a fire panic situation this will be problematic and should be

replaced with code compliant exit hardware. This threshold has a 2" gap and is

also a potential "tripper" and should be replaced with an ADA compliant wood

threshold.

The 3 pairs of west first floor doors appear to have some years left in them, and

we do not recommend replacing them at this time. When these doors are replaced

in the future, they should be designed to more closely match available historic

images.

14



Photo 5.02 - East

basement door.

The east sliding door to the basement is balky and hard to operate. It does have

openings for ventilation. The lintel above this opening is made up of railroad

tracks. The rust should be wire brushed from these and they should be primed

and painted. There is a desire that this door be replaced with one that is easier to

operate, more rodent proof, and more vandal resistant.

We recommend that the sliding door be replaced with new double swinging

doors. This will require some new framing at the existing masonry opening. The

doors should have screened openings for ventilation. The door should be

installed above a new raised concrete sill. The new sill should be installed above

a gravel footing. Since a small amount of surface water will now collect outside

the raised sill instead of flowing into the basement, we recommend installing a

small level gravel pad at the bottom of the grass slope.

WINDOWS

All of the window exterior frames need to be repainted. In some cases, the

sealant or mortar joint between the window frame and the masonry has failed

and should be replaced.

15



The basement windows are wood, fixed, true divided lights with 3 panes of non-

insulated glass. One pane of glass is broken at the west basement window and

should be replaced. The remaining putty should be replaced. The wood lintels

above the windows should be painted. The windows are right at grade and rain

splashed dirt covers the windows. We recommend placing about a 1' strip of

washed river rock over weed barrier fabric at these locations to keep the dirt off

the exposed basement louver and window.

Photo 6.00 - West

basement window.

One of the windows on the west side was replaced with a homemade wood

louver for ventilation. The louver is not screened; consequently birds and small

mammals can enter into basement. The louver should be replaced with a louver

screened inside to keep mice out. We recommend replacing the east basement

window with a louver to improve basement ventilation (see structural section of

report.)

Photo 6.01 - West louver

16



The second floor windows on the north and east walls are lightweight single

glazed barn sash, 6 over 6 lites. The interior of the sash are unpainted inside and

should be painted, the exterior needs repainting, the exterior putty needs

replacing. The top of sash are 1 1/8" square, and there are no locks, hardware,

counterbalances or weather stripping. The upper sash is fixed with a piece of

wood below. The lower sash operates but there is no parting stop so the sash are

a loose fit and quite drafty. Some of the windows are opened with screened vents

below to provide ventilation. Although the wood seems sound, these window

sashes are probably at a decision point whether they should be re-glazed and

repainted or replaced.

Photo 6.02 - Exterior of

second floor east window

showing missing putty.

Since these sashes are not historic, we recommend their replacement. Since the

west second floor sash are of an older vintage (how old is not clear) we would

use them as a guide for the replacement sash. We would not advocate removing

the existing frames unless they are beyond repair. The old growth wood of the

frames is typically quite durable and if kept painted will likely outlast any

modern replacement.

We are not recommending the installation of new exterior storm windows. The

existing frames appear narrower than would be required to fit typical wood storm

17



windows. In addition, the flush exterior appearance of a storm window removes

some of the visual interest of the double hung window set back in the frame. The

storm window’s function of protecting historic sash and glass is not a factor in

this building. Finally, this is a seasonal use building, not heated in the winter, and

the thermal benefits of storm windows would be quite modest.

The second floor west windows are covered by closed shutters on the outside and

insulation board on the inside. We could see part of one of these windows and the

sash look to be of an older vintage than the sash on the east side of the building.

Photo 6.03 - 2nd floor

west window

The sole first floor window has a piece of wood trim installed on the sill outside

the sash. This is a bad detail as it serves to trap water and may hasten damage of

the sill and sash. This trim piece should be removed. This window does have a

parting stop and sash lock.

18



Photo6.04 - East 1st

floor window exterior

showing putty and

perimeter sealant in

need of replacement,

paint in poor condition,

and warped wood trim

at sill that should be

removed.

ATTIC

This area was observed from the hatch only; we did not enter. On the first visit

there were a lot of bats flying around in the attic. There is a fair amount of guano

in the attic. The photos show that the visible joists do not appear to be damaged.

The attic is insulated; we did not remove the guano covered insulation to see if

there is a vapor barrier below. The attic does not appear to be ventilated, but on

the very windy day we visited there seems to be a good amount of air movement,

probably from various gaps and cracks.

Photo7.01 - Attic

19



The current code would require the attic to be ventilated, but it would be

problematic to retrofit ventilation in a way that would not be visible. In addition,

attic ventilation is less of an issue in a building that is typically unoccupied and

unheated in the winter. Furthermore, the half of the building without an attic has

the roof structure exposed with no thermal insulation. We recommend removing

the bat population and closing off their means of entry.

INTERIOR- GENERAL

There is evidence of mice infestation in the building. It may be difficult to keep

mice out of an old building but it would be a worthy goal to reduce or eliminate

the building's mouse population. In addition to improving the visitor experience

it would reduce the chance of damage to the building's displays. When other

means of infestation are closed off, the outside door would probably not be able

to be kept open. As befitting a fur trade museum, there may need to be a trap line

maintained to control the mouse population.

2ND FLOOR INTERIOR

The second floor chimney is jogged and corbelled. The jog would have been

originally concealed above the 2nd floor ceiling. This is a quirky detail of the sort

that makes old buildings interesting. Unfortunately it is also structurally unsafe

and needs to be addressed immediately to remove the potential for sudden failure

(see structural section for recommendation.)

Photo8.01 - 2nd floor

chimney

20



Photo 8.01 also shows pink fiberglass batt insulation stuffed in gaps between the

roof and the stone wall. Exposed fiberglass insulation is also visible in the

roof/wall juncture at the eaves (Photo 8.02). It is not the best case scenario to

have fiberglass exposed to the building interior. Apart from the appearance, some

sources have expressed concern about airborne fiberglass being a health hazard

(there seems to be a wide range of opinions, from no health hazard to potential

carcinogen). We recommend covering the exposed fiberglass batt insulation with

wood boards where possible.

Photo8.02 - Exposed

insulation at eaves.

The exposed stone masonry walls appear to be in good condition. The wall base

is a wood board with the uneven gap back to the stone wall filled by mortar on a

foam backer rod. This detail was installed to cover the original condition that

had a 2 inch gap between the floor boards and the stone wall (still visible in

furnace room.) Most of the base is in good condition but there are areas where

the board has tipped out and the mortar is cracked and loose. These areas should

be repaired.

21



Photo 8.03 - 2nd floor

baseboard tipping out,

with loose mortar.

The floor is 1" x 5 1/2" tongue and groove wood. There is some wear and

unevenness, but not to the point of being a tripping hazard.

Photo8.04 - 2nd floor

flooring.

There is an opening in the 2nd floor below a roof mounted rope hoist wheel. The

guardrail at this opening is 48" high with a 3" maximum opening which more

than complies with current code.

STAIRS

There are 2 unenclosed stairs between the first and 2nd floors. The guardrails at

these openings are also 48" high with a 3" maximum opening which more than

complies with current code. Both stairs are identical with 2'- 11 1/2" between

22



stringers, open risers 7 1/2" high and 9 3/8" treads. There is no handrail on the

stone side; a non-graspable handrail on the other side is 2'-8" high with a 9"

opening below handrail.

The handrails, treads, risers, guardrails on this stair do not comply with the

current code, but the code does not require retroactive compliance.

Unfortunately, the stair width does not comply with the code in effect in 1972.

Please see the code related discussion on page 54 for a summary of options

relating to the stairs. Without totally replacing the stairs it would be possible to

perform the following upgrades to improve the safety and reduce potential

liability:

A. Install a handrail on the stone side and a graspable handrail on the opposite

side.

B. Install additional members on open side of stair to create a 4" max. opening.

C. Retrofit closed risers.

D. Apply contrasting color non slip paint or tape to the front 2" of treads to

improve the contrast for the visually impaired. (Refer to ANSI A117.1-504.5)

E. Replace glass alongside south stair with safety glazing.

Photo8.05 - North stair

23



1ST FLOOR INTERIOR

The masonry chimney is supported by heavy wood planks below. A modern

cedar door has been added to the face of the planks to create an enclosed storage

cabinet. Supporting masonry on wood is contrary to current construction

practices, but this appears to have functioned well over the years.

Photo 9.01 - Cabinet

below chimney.

The construction and condition of the stone masonry walls and wall base is

similar to what was noted on the 2nd floor. The 1x4 nominal tongue and groove

wood flooring was installed over the existing (original?) floor in 1972. This

flooring is in average condition. The floor has deflected substantially, to the point

where there is a substantial gap between the top of the mid-span columns and the

second floor beams above.

BASEMENT INTERIOR

Please see the structural section of this report for a description of the condition of

the basement interior and recommended repairs. At the meeting on site June 26,

2007 Brian McCormick of the Wisconsin Historical Society indicated that he

didn't think that the structural repairs to the wood framing in the basement

needed to match the appearance of the existing framing.

24



A R N O L D & O ’ S H E R I D A N , I N C . | C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s

Part C: Structural

Report on the Structural Evaluation of the Brisbois Store. Villa Louis Historic

site. Prairie du Chien, WI.

The site visit was made 9/11/07. The purpose of the visit was to make structural

observations and evaluations of the building structure. We had available to us the

memo from Greg Parkinson dated 6/30/06 and the Kratt Lachecki Architects

restoration/remodeling plans from 1972. The difficulties of the site include the

water table level relative to the building elevation, intermittent flooding of the

building and the adjacent railroad tracks. It is felt the structure needs to be

upgraded as noted in the report to protect the building frame and the general

public which visits the building.

1) First Floor Framing

a) Wood floor joists spanning east/west. Real 2x12 wood floor joists

spanning east/west at 16” oc. A floor opening in the southeast corner has

been in-filled as part of the 1972 work. Some of the joists have been

replaced due to rot. The original joists frame to beams with mortise/tenon

type joints. Joists that have been replaced have used what appears to be

home made metal strap anchors for attachment. The original wood

species for beam and joist are identified by US Forest Product

Laboratory as white pine.

25



The joists are in relatively good condition. Where they bear in the

basement walls they do not appear to be rotted. One joist in the east span

is split off the tenon joint. We propose replacement of this floor joist.

b) Wood beams-three thus spanning north/south. The beams are one piece

the full width of the building and are 14 x 12 ½” in size. The beams are

supported at midspan with a wood column below, and in turn support the

second floor column above.

The west and central beams are rotted to the point of having limited

carrying capacity remaining. The center beam is rotted where the wood

column above bears. The column above has thus settled down and no

longer serves as support for the second floor. The east beam is in the best

condition of the three with no observable rot. See photos one thru four.

The west and central floor beams are judged in need of replacement. The

condition of these beams endangers the stability of the first floor but also

compromises the condition of the second floor above. It is proposed to

remove these two first floor beams in pieces after shoring of the

structure. The shoring would be placed around the beams to be removed

and extend up to also support the second floor. The beams would be

replaced with treated parallel strand lumber beams. These new beams

would be placed by creating a hole in the basement wall and sliding the

beam in place. The floor joist would be notched to bear on the ledger.

See the following detail.

26



We have proposed to replace the beams rather than providing added steel

pieces beside them. The beams are rotted in the area of the upper tier

column bearing. Adding steel side pieces would not resolve this problem.

Thus we come to the proposal to replace the beams in their entirety. We

do propose saving the east beam; thus retaining the fabric of the original

building.

c) Wood columns in the basement are not original to the building. They

bear on a stone footing and` seem to be in reasonable condition. Their

small size and the rotted condition of the beam has causing them to

punch into the beam above allowing settlement in the floor.

We propose to replace the present basement columns when replacing the

beams. They would be replaced with preservative treated lumber or

treated parallel strand lumber of a size equal to the beam width. A new

concrete footing and concrete pier extending 2 feet above soil level

would be constructed at the base of the column to keep the end grain out

of the moisture as best as possible.

27



d) There are three, 4 foot wide basement windows-two on the west wall and

one on the east wall. The masonry over the windows is supported on a

wood lintel.

The lintel supporting the masonry and the lintel supporting the floor joist

are both rotted and in need of replacement on both west wall windows

and at the east wall window. The lintel over the sliding door appears to

be acceptable. See photos five and six.

The replacement of these lintels would again be proposed to be done

with treated parallel strand lumber for dimensional stability. It is always

difficult with today’s lumber to find suitable replacements to support

masonry. The parallel strand lumber is judged the best candidate. The

masonry and floor joists will have to be shored for this operation. The

stone masonry will have to be rebuilt over the openings reusing the

original stones. Access to the west window openings is complicated by

the walkway. See photo seven.

e) Floor of the basement. This level is presently constructed of pea gravel

on soil. The difficulty is how to limit moisture from coming up into the

space and yet allow flood waters out when they occur.

It is the writer’s opinion that the present system for the money is a good

compromise. We do not propose a drain tile and sump system for the

building in the belief they would be damaged in a flood situation. We do

not propose adding a plastic sheet due to the difficulty in preserving

drainage in a flood. It is the writer’s opinion that the pea gravel offers a

bit of a capillary break from the moist soil below. Moisture meter

readings taken the day of this visit show values in the framing lumber to

be in the range of 11-13%. These readings were taken on a fall day in

28



relatively dry weather. These numbers while high are below the

threshold for rot and indicate at least at the time that there was not an

unreasonable amount of moisture present.

f) Ventilation of the basement. Presently the area is ventilated with a louver

in the original window hole on the south end of the west wall. There is

also ventilation caused by the poorly fitting overhead door at the east

side. Replacement of the overhead door with a tighter fitting unit will

cause a reduction in ventilation. It is proposed the east side window

opening be changed out to a louver. This would encourage west to east

air flow. The west louver needs to be replaced as it has deteriorated.

With the present air flow, it is deemed that the placement of powered

ventilation would not be recommended. The air flow at present seems

reasonable and there would be concern that a powered fan would be

damaged in a flood.

g) Basement walls. These are constructed of stone with presumably

sand/lime mortar, and presumably a stone footing underneath.

Mortar is deteriorating in the lower two or three feet on the inside surface

of the wall. This condition is caused by moisture wicking up through the

wall from below. As presently observed, there are no stones falling out of

the wall.

The proposed repair would be to re-point the wall in the inner surface

with a mortar to match the composition of the original. A piece of

existing mortar would need to be analyzed to confirm its composition. To

solve the rising damp problem would require metal flashings be placed

horizontally in the wall to cut off upward moisture flow. This is a labor

intensive process. It is the writer’s opinion that this process should not be

29



considered until stones begin falling from the wall. At that point the

lower sections of the wall will need to be rebuilt and the flashing can be

installed at that time.

2) Second Floor Framing

a) The floor framing appears to be in good condition. The wood joists and

beams are sand blasted and exposed. Joists measure 1 5/8” x 11 7/8” at

16” oc. Beams are 9x 10 ¾”. The structural capacity of this floor is

calculated at 60 psf live load. This seems a reasonable value for the

usage. The loss of support for the central column is causing significant

deflection in the beams at this level. This deflection in turn is causing the

tenon joint at the joists to open up. The structural concern is that this

joint could open far enough to allow the tenon to slip out. This is another

reason for the need to replace the first floor beams. It is believed that

with the replacement of the first floor beam that the first and second

floors could be jacked up to level. This is believed to be acceptable

because there are no interior partitions in the spaces. Any jacking process

does need to be undertaken with care and done slowly always observing

for distressed connections.

3) Chimney

a) The chimney at the east wall was built on about a 30 degree skew to

vertical as it extends to the roof. The masonry portion of the chimney

stops about 6 feet above first floor level and is supported on a wood

chimney closet. See photos eight and nine.

The tilted portion of the chimney is braced by wood structure to the

adjacent ceiling joists. The chimney is cracking at the point where it is

corbelled and the tilted construction begins. A brick has fallen out of the

corbel to the floor. The chimney is also cracking higher up in the tilted

30



portion. The wood lateral supports are showing signs of structural

distress.

It is the writer’s opinion that the tilted portion of the chimney could

collapse at any time and is probably the most important element in the

building to resolve. We understand it is not the owner’s desire to

straighten out the chimney and alter the location of the roof penetration.

To brace the chimney in place, we would propose two options for

consideration. One would be to bracket the upper part of the chimney off

the existing stone exterior wall with a piece of steel under the corbel and

epoxy anchors back to the existing stone wall. The chimney may have

originally been supported off this wall by bearing on since removed

ceiling joists. We do wish to note that to the writer’s recollection this

section of exterior wall bears down on a door opening below. The

lintel/header for this door would have to absorb this additional weight

from the chimney and still maintain its position. We take the chimney

weight to be supported at roughly 4000#. The existing stone wall would

have to carry the twisting accompanying the use of the bracket. We have

not verified this concept by calculation but it remains a possibility.

Another option may be the installation of a steel armature within the

unused chimney flue. This would involve removing and rebuilding a

portion of the chimney. The armature might be a bent piece of steel tube

grouted into the flue to provide internal stiffness to the chimney. Again

we have made no calculation to verify this concept but propose it for

consideration.

4) Cost Estimate

31



A. Reestablish the basement framing as noted in report including the

replacement of two beams/columns, jack floors to level.

$24,000

B. Repair one window louver, install one louver, repair lintel-three

windows; this done as part of a larger job.

$5,000

C. Stabilize the chimney with a bracket to the stone wall.

$6,000

D. Stabilize the chimney with a steel armature inside the flue.

$12,000

32



Figure 1 – First floor framing. Showing shoring of west beam.

Figure 2 – First floor framing. Showing deterioration of mortise in the beam at the juncture of the joist.

Figure 3 – First floor framing. This picture shows the juncture of the first floor beam and column below. The column above does not appear in the picture. The column below is pushing up into the beam allowing floor settlement.

33



Figure 4 – Second floor framing. This photo shows the settlement of the column from the floor beam above. This is allowing settlement of the second floor.

Figure 6 – First floor framing. This photo shows the construction of the header over the window.

Figure 5 – This photo shows shoring in place at the west wall of the first floor framing. The header over the window is rotted.

34



Figure 9 – The ceiling joists adjacent to the chimney. The splintered wood is caused by the sideways push of the chimney. The wood joists are giving way under the load.

Figure 8 – This photo shows the construction of the chimney along the east wall. The arrow points to a vertical crack in the masonry caused by the offset construction. At the base of the offset the bricks are falling off.

Figure 7 – This photo is the basement window at the east wall. The wood masonry header is rotted allowing the masonry to crack.

35



Part D: Mechanical & Electrical Systems

PLUMBING SYSTEMS

There are no plumbing systems installed or extended to this building, including

water supply, sanitary sewer nor storm sewer. There are no toilet facilities or

service fixtures installed in the building.

Rain water falls off the roof directly onto grade. There are no building gutters or

downspouts. Although the grass is depressed where rainwater falls off the roof,

there are no indications of soil erosion or rainwater damage.

HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC)

SYSTEMS

The building was remodeled and fitted with new HVAC systems in 1972. These

systems are still installed and still operating (for general ventilation and heating

duty only). With a single exception, there appears to be no modifications to that

1972 installation, and all of the 1972 ductwork and equipment remain.

A single “vertical self-contained” air conditioning unit provides single zone

heating and ventilation for the building. The unit is a Carrier-brand piece of

equipment. The unit is installed on the second floor in a dedicated mechanical

room, although the room has no fire-rating. At the time of installation, one

window was removed and replaced with a louver. Ventilation air and air for

cooling the condensing coil is obtained through this louver. No equipment is

visible from the exterior of the building.

The “hot air” from the discharge side of the condensing coil was originally

ducted to a “gooseneck” hood on the roof. During the 1995 re-roofing, this hood

has been removed. Consequently, the air conditioning features of this vertical

36



self-contained air conditioning unit are not available as there is no path to reject

the heat from the condensing unit. Villa Louis is aware of this condition and has

chosen not to provide mechanical cooling in this building to date.

The unit is of (nominal) 7.5 ton capacity and appears to have two stages of

cooling. Heat is provided by a duct-mounted electric heating coil. A low

voltage, “residential” thermostat, WITHOUT night setback capabilities, controls

the system. (See Photo M1)

Photo M1

At the time of our observations, the unit was “turned off”. The electrical

disconnects for both the air conditioning unit and the electric heating coil were

manually turned off. An access panel on the air conditioning unit was removed

and laying on the floor – exposing the contactors and related controls. Nothing

appeared to be non-functional. (See Photo M2) We energized the unit and

confirmed that the evaporator fan operated correctly. Mechanical cooling is no

longer functional, and therefore not tested. The electric heat was not tested, but

reportedly does work.

37



Photo M2

All of the supply ductwork is located on

the second floor. The ductwork is routed

through the attic trusses. Five slot

diffusers and one large register distribute

air evenly across the second floor. There

is a single return grille on the second floor

and a single return “duct” at the ceiling of

the 1st floor. It appears that the intent was

for supply air to “fall down” the two open

stairwells and old “elevator shaft” by

gravity and then return to the air

conditioning unit via the single return air duct. The duct on the 1st floor is just an

open duct with a manual volume damper. No grille is installed (and no grille was

specified in the 1972 Construction Documents).

A new room has been added on the 2nd floor adjacent to the Mechanical Room.

The wall built to construct this room is located in the center of one of the slot

diffusers. No mechanical revisions were made to accommodate this wall – the

wall is built against the center of slot diffuser, making removal of the diffuser

impossible. (See Photo M3)

Photo M3

38



This new wall also blocked the return air path on the 2nd floor, but a transfer

grille was cut into the new wall. No ductwork was installed. (See Photos M4

and M5)

Photo M4

Photo M5

39



In general, the 1972 HVAC system seems to have held up well and continues to

be functional, except for the mechanical cooling function. To date, Villa Louis

has elected to operate this building without mechanical cooling or humidity

control. Villa Louis would prefer to have mechanical cooling available and

would like to have some humidity control in this building.

The existing air conditioning unit is 35 years old and should be replaced – rather

than restored to original condition. Presently, the second floor is used sparsely

and the major displays are located on the first floor. Replacement with two

separate, smaller systems, with each serving a floor, would provide better

control, better operating efficiency, and some redundancy in case of equipment

failure.

Given the building size, and the fact that both floors are open to each other, it

would be possible to use a single furnace for both floors. However, a two

furnace solution is proposed for the following reasons:

1. If the lower level remains a “low usage” museum space and the upper

level becomes a frequent use meeting room, it would not be able to

satisfy both spaces with a common furnace.

2. Serving the entire building with a single furnace likely would result in a

greater than 5-ton cooling load. (The air conditioning unit that was

installed in the 1972 Kratt project was a 7.5 ton unit.) To comply with

State Code (although a variance may be possible), we would need to

provide an “economizer” cycle. This means (2) new openings in the

building – 6-7 square feet each. Two smaller units eliminate the

economizer issue and eliminate the need for new openings in the

building.

40



There is natural gas on the Villa Louis site, so it would probably make sense to

convert the heating fuel source to gas in lieu of electricity. Each floor is only

900 square feet, so replacement with two (2) “residential” gas furnaces and

matching air conditioning units would seem an appropriate and cost-effective

choice.

HVAC SYSTEM - WINTER OPERATION OPTIONS

There are 3 options regarding use of the heating systems during winter months:

1. The current situation is that the heating system is run just enough to take

the chill off on the very rare occasions when the building is used in the

winter. This is essentially the same as no heating at all and is unlikely to

create any condensation related issues with the building fabric.

2. If the building is used more extensively for meetings in the winter

months, occasional heating (on one day- off the next) has the potential to

create condensation in the building structure. This condensation could

then repeatedly freeze and thaw, damaging the building. We do not

recommend this option.

3. The building could be heated continually to 65-70 degrees all winter.

Continual heating of uninsulated masonry mass wall buildings was the

historic status quo. The continual heat flow through the uninsulated

masonry wall would tend to dry out the masonry wall and reduce

freeze/thaw deterioration. We do not recommend providing

humidification, as it would likely create condensation and damage

the building. In addition to the added energy costs, continual heating

could also create issues in the insulated but unventilated attic.

We recommend Option #1, maintaining the status quo. The current situation

where the building is naturally ventilated during fall visiting hours allows the

summer humidity to be removed from the structure, thus limiting early winter

condensation. While Option #3 is a proven strategy for maintaining masonry

41



walls in historic buildings, we find it hard to justify the cost of heating an unused

building the entire winter for the potential benefits to the masonry wall.

HVAC SYSTEM - SUMMER OPERATION OPTIONS

In the summer months, the current situation where the building is naturally

ventilated with outside air circulation is probably the best case for the longevity

of the structure. However, Villa Louis staff have indicated that they would like

the building to be air conditioned during the hot and humid days of summer for

visitor comfort and to avoid damage to the exhibits.

In order to determine if summer air conditioning has the potential to create

condensation within the exterior masonry wall, the wall was modeled in the

computer program WUFI-ORNL. The nearest climate data was from Madison.

The interior moisture generation modeled was a 1 bedroom living unit, which

would have higher moisture generation than is the case in the Fur Trade Building,

which is usually unoccupied and has no plants, indoor plumbing, etc.

During the cooling season, the north elevation had the highest dewpoint

temperatures inside the wall, probably because it didn’t have the sun striking it to

heat up the wall. The model looked at the north wall temperature at the inside

face, and 1” and 2.25” inside the inside face. The dewpoints get lower as you go

further into the wall. (The WUFI-ORNL temperature and dewpoint charts are

included in Appendix #2.)

In no cases do the dewpoints come close to the temperature in the wall. With a

cooling set point temperature of 75 deg. F the WUFI-ORNL model shows no

risk of air conditioning causing condensation inside the masonry wall

construction.

42



ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

Electric Service: With exception of a couple minor concerns, the electrical

service is in good condition and suitable for continued use, even considering that

the equipment is 35 years old.

The service is rated at 225 amp and is 240/120 VAC, 3 phase, 4 wire

configuration. The 1972 remodel Construction Documents indicate that this is a

“Delta” service. We did not confirm nor verify this while on site, but it seems

likely that the service is “Delta-wired”.

The service enters the building underground in a single steel conduit. A 225 amp

circuit breaker, in a separate enclosure, services as the main disconnecting

means. There are two (2) fused disconnect switches and one panelboard

comprising the distribution system. (See Photo E1)

Photo E1

One of the 100 amp fused disconnect switches serves the air conditioning unit.

The second fused disconnect switch serves the electric duct coil. Both switches

are fused at 100 amps and are 3-wire switches without neutral bars.

43



The panelboard is a 30 space panel with a 100 amp branch breaker serving as a

“main breaker”. All remaining branch circuits are powered from this panelboard.

Most of the lighting is also switched, via circuit breakers, in this panelboard.

There are two items of concern with the electrical service. First, all the visible

conductors are aluminum. (See Photo E2) The conductors visible in the

disconnect switches were clearly observed to be aluminum. The service entrance

conductors at the overhead mast appear to be aluminum. We did not remove any

equipment covers to inspect the remaining conductors, but most likely they are

aluminum also. The wiring does not appear to be deficient, nor show any signs

of over-heating, but normally aluminum wire is not allowed in State-owned

properties.

Photo E2 Photo E3

Second, there are three (3) single pole “openings” in the panelboard without any

filler plates. (See Photo E3) It would be very easy to contact the bus bars in this

panelboard. The fact that most of the lights are switched on and off at this

location make the condition even more concerning. Blank filler plates should be

purchased and installed soon to resolve this problem.

44



Lighting: Lighting is entirely track-mounted fixtures with two different types of

fixture heads. (See Photos E4 and E5) All lamps are incandescent (and probably

should remain so.)

Photo E4

Photo E5

The lighting appears to be fully functional and in acceptable condition. The

overall lighting levels seem “low”, but the displays are adequately lit. The track

lighting is “modern” in appearance and not in “historic character”, but

appropriate for museum lighting.

45



Although the lighting appears to be in acceptable condition, this is incandescent

lighting with 35 years of use. Heat from the lamps is undoubtedly deteriorating

the lamp sockets, wiring, and perhaps the mechanical heads and tracks.

Replacement of these lighting systems should be included in a new program.

There are no automatic lighting controls in this building. Most of the lighting is

controlled directly from the panelboard. Individual manual toggles control

lighting to the few small rooms. The manual switch in the basement/crawl space

is broken and should be replaced. All other switches should probably be

replaced as a matter of routine maintenance.

There is one exterior lighting fixture over the main entrance. This is a “modern-

looking” fixture – originally specified to be mercury vapor. (See Photo E6)

Although the fixture appears to be in very good condition, it should probably be

replaced with something more historic in nature. (Architect comment- I admit I

never noticed this fixture before. I think the case can be made that an unobtrusive

modern fixture like this is preferable to a more noticeable "historic" fixture.)

Photo E6

46



Branch circuit wiring and convenience power: Receptacles are fairly minimal in

the building and generally limited to locations on the interior columns. All

receptacles mounted on the interior columns are installed with surface raceway

(Wiremold #500 metallic). (See Photo E7) The receptacles appear to be in

acceptable condition. Since there were installed in 1972, there are 3-wire

receptacles with grounding conductors.

Photo E7

The 1972 branch circuit wiring was all

installed in EMT conduit. That conduit

remains and is in very good condition.

No deficiencies were observed in that

1972 work. A few additions and

modifications have been made in more

recent years. All “new” work was

performed using NM cable surface-

mounted to structural members. This

work should be removed and replaced

with a permanent raceway system. This

is a “museum” occupancy and NM cable should not be used. (See Photo E8)

Photo E8

47



The need for additional receptacles and branch circuit wiring must be

coordinated with the proposed new program for this building.

Life Safety Systems: Although the building is very small, life safety systems are

remarkably absent in the building. Exit lights are installed, as required by Code

in 1972, but none have battery back-up power supplies. (See Photo E9) They

are circuited from a separate branch circuit tapped upstream of the building main

disconnect switch, but this provides no value during a utility power outage.

Photo E9

There is no emergency egress lighting anywhere in the building.

There are a few low voltage smoke detectors installed in the building; however,

these appear to be connected to Villa Louis’ campus security system and are not

a true fire alarm system for the building. No fire alarm notification devices are

installed. These smoke detectors are designed to warn Villa Louis of a potential

building fire with the intent of saving the building and the furnishings – not

(necessarily) the occupants.

No other life safety systems were observed.

48



Telecommunications: There is telephone service to the building and a couple

single line “station cable” phone jacks are located on the first floor. No other

communication systems were observed in the building.

End of Systems Condition Report

Corrective Work Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates

Plumbing Items:

1. (None)

HVAC Items:

1. Remove the existing vertical self contained air conditioning unit and

provide new HVAC equipment for the building. The replacement system

will consist of two (2) separate HVAC units. One unit will serve the

Second Floor and one unit will serve the First Floor. Residential

furnaces, using natural gas as a fuel, will be used as the central part of

each system. All new equipment will be located in the existing Second

Floor Mechanical Room. A new duct system will be required for the

First Floor as nothing currently exists. Most of the existing duct system

on the Second Floor will be salvaged and re-used. “Residential-type”

air conditioning units, located on grade and screened with natural

plantings, will be included to provide air conditioning. Temperature

Controls will consist of a 7-day programmable thermostat for each unit.

Estimated Cost $25,200.00.

49



Electrical Items:

1. Replace all aluminum wire “feeders” and large branch circuit wiring

with copper. Replacement of the service entrance conductors are NOT

included at this time. This estimate also assumes that the HVAC

equipment will be replaced and the (2) 100 amp feeders to the existing

HVAC equipment will be removed – not replaced. Estimated Cost

$525.00.

2. Remove all NM cable and related wiring. Replace with a fixed metallic

conduit system where necessary. Estimated Cost $4,200.00.

3. Provide and install “plugs” in all openings in the existing Panelboard.

Estimated Cost $100.00.

4. Replace all exit lights with new LED exit lights with integral emergency

battery back-up power. Provide additional exit lights as appropriate.


5. Provide and install emergency egress lighting throughout the building

with battery-powered “unit” egress lights. Estimated Cost $0.00. (The

new exit lights proposed above will be provided with integral emergency

lighting so no additional fixtures or installation will be required.)

6. Add additional lighting switches, with “good” labeling, to eliminate the

need for Villa Louis staff to switch lighting in the Panelboard.


7. Replace all fixed track lighting with new track lighting. For estimating

purposes, “equal” replacement has been assumed. Estimated Cost

$25,200.00.

8. Replace the single exterior lighting fixture with a “historically-sensitive”

fixture. Estimated Cost $800.00.

End

50



Part C: Code Analysis

OVERVIEW The documents for implementation of the recommended actions would need to

be submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Commerce, Safety and Buildings

Division for the appropriate reviews.

APPLICABLE CODE

The applicable code is the 2006 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) as

modified by Wisconsin Comm Chapter 66. This building is a qualified historic

building, and as such would fall under IEBC Chapter 11.

USE

The building is currently used as an A-3 assembly occupancy (museum.) The

recommended actions in this report would not constitute a change of use.

CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY

The recommended actions in this report would not constitute a change of

occupancy.

Compliance Method

Comm 66.0101 (4)(a) allows the applicant to select one of 2 compliance

methods: Compliance with IEBC Chapters 4-12 or Compliance with IEBC

Chapter 13.

Compliance with IEBC Chapters 4-12

CLASSIFICATION OF WORK

IEBC Section 402 REPAIRS

402.1 Scope. Repairs, as defined in Chapter 2, include the patching or

restoration or replacement of damaged materials, elements, equipment or

51



fixtures for the purpose of maintaining such components in good or sound

condition with respect to existing loads or performance requirements.

403.2 Application. Repairs shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 5.

The Repairs classification would cover all the structural recommendations and

most of the architectural recommendations (with exceptions noted below.) The

#3 electrical recommendation would also be considered a repair.

IEBC Section 403 ALTERATION-LEVEL 1

403.1 Scope. Level 1 alterations include the removal and replacement or the

covering of existing materials, elements, equipment, or fixtures using new

materials, elements, equipment, or fixtures that serve the same purpose.

403.2 Application. Level 1 alterations shall comply with the provisions of

Chapter 6.

The Alteration-Level 1 classification would include: Architectural

recommendations #10 (replace west stair), #15 (replace basement door), #22

(replace basement louvers), #23 (replace sash at north and east 2nd floor

windows) and electrical recommendations #1,2,7,8.


404.1 Scope. Level 2 alterations include the reconfiguration of space, the

addition or elimination of any door or window, the reconfiguration or extension

of any system, or the installation of any additional equipment.


Chapter 6 for Level 1 alterations as well as the provisions of Chapter 7.

The Alteration-Level 2 classification would include the mechanical system

recommendation, and electrical recommendations #4,5,6. The installation of the

52



exterior stair or the rebuilding of the inter stairs (discussed below) would also fall

under this classification.


405.1 Scope. Level 3 alterations apply where the work area exceeds 50 percent

of the aggregate area of the building.


Chapter 6 and 7 for Level 1 and 2 alterations, respectively, as well as the

provisions of Chapter 8.

The recommended work of this report would not fall under Alteration-Level 3.

CHAPTER 5- REPAIRS

In general, the requirements of this chapter state that the repairs should not make

the building any less conforming than it was before the repair was undertaken.

This chapter applies to historic buildings unless as modified by Chapter 11.

Section 502.2 of this chapter requires replacement glazing in hazardous locations

to comply with the safety glazing requirements of the International Building

Code (IBC). This section of the IBC would apply to any glazing in the doors.

CHAPTER 6- ALTERATIONS-LEVEL 1

This chapter applies to historic buildings unless as modified by Chapter 11.

Accessibility -Section 6.05

IEBC 605.1.11 Thresholds. The maximum height of thresholds at doorways shall

be 3/4". Such thresholds shall have beveled edges on each side.

This would apply to previous comments about exterior doors.

53



IEBC 605.2 Alterations. Where an alteration affects the accessibility to a, or

contains an area of, primary function, the route to the primary function area

shall be accessible. The accessible route to the primary function shall include

toilet facilities or drinking fountains serving the area of primary function.

Exceptions:

1. The costs of providing the accessible route are not required to exceed 20

percent of the costs of the alteration affecting the area of primary function.

2. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to windows,

hardware, operating controls, electrical outlets and signs.

3. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to mechanical

systems, electrical systems, installation or alteration of fire protection systems

and abatement of hazardous materials.

4. This provision does not apply to alterations undertaken for the primary

purpose of increasing the accessibility of and existing building, facility or

element.

This section requires accessibility in altered buildings unless it is technically

infeasible. Most of the Level 1 and Level 2 alterations recommended in this

report seem to fall under exceptions 2,3 and 4 above. The new basement door

does not fall into these exceptions, but the basement does not impact an area of

primary function. The option to construct an exterior stair (discussed below)

would not fall under these exceptions.

See the Chapter 11 Historic Building section below for additional discussion of

accessibility.

Comm 66.0607- Energy conservation requirements

Substitute the following wording for the requirements in IEBC section 607.1:

(1) ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS, RENOVATIONS OR REPAIRS. Except as

specified in sub(2), additions, alterations, renovations, or repairs to an existing

54



building, building system or portion thereof shall conform to the provisions of

IECC (International Energy Conservation Code) as they relate to new

construction without requiring the unaltered portions of the existing building or

building system to comply with the IECC. Additions, alterations, renovations, or

repairs shall not create an unsafe or hazardous condition or overload existing

building systems.

(2) EXCEPTIONS. All of the following need not comply provided the energy use

of the building is not increased:

(a) Storm windows installed over existing fenestration.

(b) Glass only replacements in an existing sash and frame

(c) Existing ceiling, wall or floor cavities exposed during construction provided

that these cavities are filled with insulation.

(d) Construction where the existing roof, wall, or floor cavity is not exposed.

Under this code the new basement door and the 2nd floor replacement window

sash would need to comply with the IECC. This would not be possible for a door

with screened openings for ventilation. Compliance would also be problematic

for the single glazed replacement sash. Jon Molzahn, plan reviewer for historic

buildings at the La Crosse Safety and Buildings office said that the code

definition of a seasonal use building is one that is in use from May 15th to

September 15th. We recommend obtaining a variance during the implementation

phase so these items would not have to comply with the IECC.


This chapter would apply to mechanical system recommendations and some

electrical recommendations. The Comm 66.0607 energy conservation

requirements discussed above also apply to this chapter.


Does not apply to the recommended work.

55



CHAPTER 9- CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY


CHAPTER 10- ADDITIONS


CHAPTER 11- HISTORIC BUILDINGS

We have been asked to determine the maximum number of people the code

would allow to attend meetings on the 2nd floor.

IEBC 1103.6 Stairway enclosure. In buildings of 3 stories or less, exit enclosure

construction shall limit the spread of smoke by use of tight fitting doors and solid

elements. Such elements are not required to have a fire resistance rating.

This language isn't really clear if it is referring to existing exit enclosures or

requiring exit enclosures where none currently exist.

On June 18, 2008 we discussed this with Jon Molzahn, plan reviewer for historic

buildings at the La Crosse Safety and Buildings office. He said the capacity

would be determined by the 1972 code in effect when the stairs where

constructed. We do not have access to a 1972 code, but Mr. Molzahn looked it

up in his copy during our meeting. The 1972 code did not require enclosed exit

stairs, but did require exit stairs to be 3’-8” minimum wide. The existing stairs

are 3’-0” wide and not compliant with the code in effect when they were

constructed. The current IBC code allows 3’-0” wide stairs, but would require

one stair to be enclosed, or the building to be sprinklered, or the upstairs

occupancy limited to 10 persons (IBC Section 1020.1).

56



Summary of stair options:

A. If the current stairs stay as is, the capacity of the second floor should be

limited to 10 people. Perform the stair safety upgrades noted on page 23.

B. If both interior stairs would be reconstructed to 3’-8” wide and meet

current code tread, riser, and handrail and guardrail requirements, the

amount of people on the second floor would be limited by structural

carrying capacity, estimated at around 150 persons. The stairs would

take up more space on the interior, being 8” wider and 4’-0” longer.

This may require reconfiguration of some exhibits.

C. Recreate the exterior stair to meet current code requirements. Perform

the interior stair safety upgrades noted on page 23. In this scenario the

capacity of the 2nd floor would be limited to 49 persons. It should be

noted that a stair meeting current code requirements will look very much

different than the stair shown on the historic photographs.

IEBC sections 1103.9 and 1103.10 would allow existing stair handrails and

guards to remain, provided they are not structurally dangerous. However, as

previously mentioned on Page 23, we recommend upgrading these to comply

with current code to increase user safety and reduce potential liability.

Section 1104.1 - Accessibility requirements. The provisions of Section 605 shall

apply to buildings or facilities designated as historic structures that undergo

alterations, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with the

requirements for accessible routes, entrances, or toilet facilities would threaten

or destroy the historic significance of the building or facility, as determined by

the code official, the alternative requirements of Sections 1104.1.1 through

1104.1.4 for that element shall be permitted.

1104.1.1 Site arrival points. At least one main entrance shall be accessible.

57



1104.1.2 Multilevel buildings and facilities. An accessible route from an

accessible entrance to public spaces on the level of the accessible entrance shall

be provided.

1104.1.3 Entrances. At least one main entrance shall be accessible.

1104.1.4 Toilet and bathing facilities. Where toilet rooms are provided, at least

one accessible toilet room shall be provided for each sex, or a unisex toilet room

complying with Section 1109.2.1 of the International Building Code shall be

provided.

Accessibility related improvements would be required (up to 20% of the cost) if

the exterior stairs were recreated. The creation of paved designated accessible

parking spaces and a paved accessible route from the parking area to the east

ramp (see page 6) should be the first accessibility upgrades that should be

undertaken.

CHAPTER 12- RELOCATED OR MOVED BUILDINGS


Compliance with IEBC Chapter 13- Performance Compliance Methods

The building as it exists fails under all 3 categories of the Performance

Compliance methods. The building with the proposed recommendations has an

approved score over the existing building, but still fails in all 3 categories.

Installing a full fire alarm system with pull stations, emergency voice/alarm

communication system controls, and fire department communication system

controls and a new hvac system with no ductwork serving more than one level

(which would require a mechanical room on the first floor) would get the

building close to compliance. Unless compliance with Chapters 4-12 becomes

58



problematic during implementation, we do not recommend attempting to achieve

compliance under Chapter 13.

1301.2.5 Accessibility requirements. All portions of the buildings proposed for

change of occupancy shall conform to the accessibility provisions of Chapter 11

of the International Building Code. Taken at face value, this would not require

accessibility related improvements regardless of the scope of alterations as long

as the occupancy would not change. Jon Molzahn, plan reviewer for historic

buildings at the La Crosse Safety and Buildings office, thinks that is an omission

in the code language and told us that accessibility requirements would still be

required.

59



Part F: Summary of Recommendations

The implementation of all recommended work should comply with The Secretary

of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Drawings for the implementation

of the recommended work should be submitted to the Wisconsin Historical

Society for review and comment.

Architectural Recommendations Page Discussed

#1 Test building for lead based paint. Page 3

#2 Repair chimney corbel and cap. Page 7

#3 Seal gap between roof soffit and masonry. Page 8

#4 Paint roof soffit, fascia and moldings. Page 9

#5 Repoint limited areas of the exterior masonry wall Page 10

#6 Patch masonry joist pockets where north stair was removed. Page 10,11

#7 Repair damaged west shutter. Page 11

#8 Repair cracked stone sills at doors. Page 11

#9 Remove yellow paint from north masonry wall exterior. Page 12

#10 Replace west exterior stair. Page 12

#11 Upgrade handrails and guardrails at east ramp. Page 13

#12 Replace exterior door hardware. Page 13,14

#13 Paint door muntin. Page 13

#14 Replace exterior door thresholds. Page 13,14

#15 Install weather-stripping at exterior doors. Page 14

#16 Paint railroad track lintel at east basement door. Page 15

#17 Replace basement door. Page 15

#18 Paint window exteriors, fix seal between frame and masonry. Page 15

#19 Repair glass and putty at west basement window. Page 16

#20 Paint wood lintels above basement windows/louvers. Page 16

#21 Install river rock/weed barrier at basement window/louvers. Page 16

#22 Install new louver at east & west basement window openings. Page 16

60



Architectural Recommendations, continued Page Discussed

#23 Replace sash at north and east second floor windows. Page 17

#24 Repair first floor window. Page 18

#25 Bat proof attic. Page 19,20

#26 Cover exposed fiberglass batt insulation with wood boards. Page 21

#27 Repair damaged interior wall base. Page 21,22

#28 Interior stair safety upgrades. (Page 57 Option A) Page 23

OR

#29 Enlarge & reconstruct interior stairs. (Page 57 Option B) Page 57

OR

#30 Construct north exterior stair. (Page 57 Option C) Page 57

#31 Accessible parking and paved path to east ramp. Page 6,58

Structural Recommendations Page Discussed

#1 Replace first floor joist with split tenon. Page 25

#2 Replace west and center floor beams, jack floor to level. Page 26

#3 Replace basement columns, install new conc. footing & pier. Page 27

#4 Repair 3 basement window lintels and masonry above. Page 28

#5 Repair west basement louver, replace east basement Page 29

window with louver.

#6 Repoint interior of basement masonry wall. Page 29,30

#7 Stabilize and repair masonry chimney. Page 31

Mechanical Systems Recommendations Page Discussed

#1 Remove existing HVAC equipment and install a new Page 40,41,49

HVAC system.

Electrical Systems Recommendations Page Discussed

#1 Replace aluminum wire wiring with copper. Page 44,50

#2 Replace NM cable with metallic conduit system. Page 47,50

61



Electrical Systems Recommendations, continued Page Discussed

#3 Install plugs in all openings in the existing panelboard. Page 44,50

#4 Replace exit lights, and install additional where required. Page 48,50

#5 New exit lights will incorporate emergency egress lighting. Page 48,50

#6 Add additional lighting switches. Page 46,50

#7 Replace track lighting. Page 46,50

#8 Replace exterior light fixture. Page 46,50

62



Part F: Opinion of Probable Cost

The Opinion of Probable Cost is based on information obtained from:

construction cost guides, and the judgment of the authors. It is not a bid, and it is

possible that actual bid results may vary considerably from this Opinion of

Probable Cost. Rapidly changing construction materials prices may not be

reflected in construction cost guides.

In addition, it is difficult to anticipate the cost impact of concealed existing

conditions. Other complicating factors include: working with small quantities so

there are not economies of scale, wage rates, DSF requirements, and specialized

requirements for working with National Historic Landmarks. These factors will

likely increase costs above what is given in the construction cost guides.

Therefore the following is at best an educated guess.

63

Villa Louis Fur Trade Building

Prairie du Chien


OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PAGE 1 OF 2

DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL

ARCHITECTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS

#1 Test building for lead based paint. see below

#2 Repair chimney corbel and cap. mason hours 32 $65 $2,080

#3 Seal gap between roof soffit and masonry. person hours 8 $50 $400

#4 Paint roof soffit, fascia and moldings. person hours 80 $50 $4,000

#5 Repoint limited areas of the exterior masonry wall mason hours 60 $65 $3,900

#6 Patch masonry joist pockets where north stair was removed. mason hours 10 $65 $650

#7 Repair damaged west shutter. allowance 1 $100 $100

#8 Repair cracked stone sills at doors. mason hours 10 $65 $650

#9 Remove yellow paint from north masonry wall exterior. allowance 1 $400 $400

#10 Replace west exterior stair. allowance 1 $7,000 $7,000

#11 Upgrade handrails and guardrails at east ramp. allowance 1 $2,500 $2,500

#12 Replace exterior door hardware. each 6 $250 $1,500

#13 Paint door muntin. person hours 1 $50 $50

#14 Replace exterior door thresholds. each 2 $1,000 $2,000

QUANTITY

#15 Install weatherstripping at exterior doors. allowance 1 $600 $600

#16 Paint railroad track lintel at east basement door. person hours 6 $50 $300

#17 Replace basement door. allowance 1 $10,000 $10,000 includes related work

#18 Paint window exteriors, fix seal between frame and masonry. per window 10 $400 $4,000

#19 Repair glass and putty at west basement window. person hours 4 $50 $200

#20 Paint wood lintels above basement windows/louvers. person hours 6 $50 $300

#21 Install river rock/weed barrier at basement window/louvers. allowance 1 $400 $400

#22 Install new louver at east & west basement window openings. inc. in structural #4

#23 Replace sash at north and east second floor windows. opening 5 $800 $4,000

#24 Repair first floor window. opening 1 $500 $500

#25 Bat proof attic. allowance 1 $2,500 $2,500

#26 Cover exposed fiberglass batt insulation with wood boards. allowance 1 $4,000 $4,000

#27 Repair damaged interior wall base. allowance 1 $2,000 $2,000

#28 Interior stair safety upgrades. (Page 55 Option A) allowance 2 $3,000 $6,000 included as part of Option C

#29 Enlarge and reconstruct interior stairs. (Page 55 Option B) each 2 $13,500 $27,000 not included in total

#30 Construct north exterior stair. (Page 55 Option C) Steel grate tread allowance 1 $17,000 $23,000 This also includes cost for Option A

#31 Accessible parking and paved path to east ramp. allowance 1 $5,000 $5,000

SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE $82,030

64

Villa Louis Fur Trade Building

Prairie du Chien


OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PAGE 2 OF 2

STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS

#1 Replace first floor joist with split tenon. included in #2

#2 Replace west and center floor beams, jack floor to level. allowance 1 $24,000 $24,000

#3 Replace basement columns, install new concrete footing/pier. included in #2

#4 Repair 3 basement window lintels and masonry above. allowance 1 $5,000 $5,000

#5 Repair west basement louver, replace east basement wdw. w/louver included in #4

#6 Repoint interior of basement masonry wall. mason hours 80 $65 $5,200

#7 Stabilize and repair masonry chimney. allowance 1 $12,000 $12,000 most costly of 2 options

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS RECOMMENDATIONS

#1 Remove existing HVAC equipment and install a new HVAC system allowance 1 $25,200 $25,200

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS RECOMMENDATIONS

#1 Replace aluminum wire feeders and branch circuit wiring w/copper allowance 1 $525 $525

#2 Replace NM cable with metallic conduit system. allowance 1 $4,200 $4,200

#3 Provide and install plugs in all openings in the existing panelboard. allowance 1 $100 $100

#4 Replace exit lights, and install additional where required. allowance 1 $1,900 $1,900

#5 New exit lights will incorporate emergency egress lighting. allowance 1 $0 $0

#6 Add additional lighting switches. allowance 1 $1,250 $1,250

#6 Add additional lighting switches. allowance 1 $1,250 $1,250

#7 Replace track lighting. allowance 1 $25,200 $25,200

#8 Replace exterior light fixture allowance 1 $800 $800

SUB-TOTAL $187,405

GENERAL CONDITIONS 10% $18,741

GENERAL CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD & PROFIT 15% $28,111

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $234,256

(If construction delayed, costs must be adjusted for inflation.)

CONTINGENCY 15% $35,138SUB-TOTAL $269,395

FURNISHINGS & EQUIPMENT $0

A/E FEE ESTIMATE 16% $43,103DSF FEE 4% $10,776

PLAN REVIEW, PERMITS ALLOWANCE $1,000

LEAD PAINT TESTING ALLOWANCE $1,000TOTAL PROJECT COST $325,274

65



Disclaimer

This Report represents the Report Team's (River Architects Inc., Arnold

& O'Sheridan, Inc., Galileo Consulting Group, LLC) professional

opinion based upon information currently available and arrived at in

accordance with generally accepted professional standards. This Report

is based upon the tasks performed consistent with the scope of work

requested by the client.

Short of complete deconstruction to examine every element at every

location, no assessment can reveal all conditions which may exist.

Further testing, assessment, or demolition, may uncover conditions

which would make it necessary to modify our conclusions and

recommendations.

This Report has been prepared for the purpose described in our

Agreement and for the exclusive use by those to whom the report is

addressed. The Report Team will not and cannot be held liable for the

unauthorized reliance upon this Report by a third party.

Other than as contained in this paragraph, The Report Team makes no

express or implied warranty as to the contents of this Report.

66



Appendix #1 - Historic Photographs

67



68



Appendix #2 - WUFI-ORNL Dewpoint Analysis (Cooling Mode - Exterior Masonry Wall)

69



70



71