Floodplain 416.5 BFE vs 418.3 Structure Bob Brecknock Sprinkler - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Items Researched

Floodplain 416.5’ BFE vs 418.3’ Structure Bob Brecknock Sprinkler Eric D / Mike Franklin Septic Kevin Leonard Market Value Doug Martin Stormwater Roger Dignard Fire Inspection Eric Dubowik Safety Committee Support the Upgrades Drains/runoff Nothing to Report

Resources Used

• Bob Todd

Bob Todd Land Use Consultants Floodplain Surveyor

• Bob Brecknock

SWC Engineering PA Inc. Structural Engineer

• Kevin Leonard

NorthPoint Engineering LLC Principal Engineer, Civil Eng., NB Engineer

• Doug Martin

Collier International Inc. Vice President, Commercial Real Estate

• Jennifer Gilbert

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Representative for New Boston

• Roger Dignard

Dignard Architectural Services Architect

• Matt Beaulieu

Milestone Engineering and Construction Superintendent, Project Manager

• Mike Franklin

John L. Carter Sprinkler Company Inc. Service Manager

• Fred Hayes

NB CIP Committee, NBCS School Board

• Eric Dubowik

NB Fire Inspector, Safety Committee Member

From: Gilbert, Jennifer [mailto:Jennifer.Gilbert@nh.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:40 PM To: 'Roger Dignard'; Wayne Blassberg Subject: RE: New Boston Fire Station Roger, The lowest floor elevation of the fire station should reference NAVD 88 since the BFE on the map is referenced to NAVD 88. In your email below, you note the floor elevation as 418.29 ft. If this elevation is referenced to NAVD 88 then that is the number to use. By adding the conversion factor of 0.68 ft to the NAVD 88 elevation you are converting the elevation to NGVD 29. Again, all elevations need to reference the same vertical datum as the BFE. Since the fire station is located very near cross section O, I looked at the Hillsborough County Flood Insurance Study (Vol 1) and used the floodway data table to determine the BFE at cross section O is 416.4 ft NAVD 88. Therefore, if you were to round the floor elevation and the BFE to a whole number, the lowest floor is located 2 ft above the BFE. FYI - The town’s floodplain ordinance states that all new construction or substantial improvements of non- residential structures must either have the structure’s lowest floor elevated at or above BFE or the structure’s lowest floor can be below BFE but must be dry flood-proofed up to the BFE. However, the state building code (IBC 2009, which references ASCE-24-05 – Flood Resistant Design and Construction) requires new or substantially improved fire stations (and like facilities in Structure Category IV) to either have the structure’s lowest floor elevated 2 feet above BFE or the structure’s lowest floor can be below BFE but the structure must be dry flood-proofed 2 feet above BFE. Jennifer

Floodplain of Rte 13 site (+10’)

• Mr. Roger Dignard, RA, NCARB

Dignard Architectural Services 124 Bedford Center Road, Unit E Bedford, New Hampshire 03110 Re: New Boston Firehouse Preliminary Inspection In response to your request SW&C performed a preliminary partial inspection of existing framing at the referenced facility on Friday, 3 June 2016. Results of this effort are summarized below. 1) Existing roof truss diagonals at two locations in every truss require lateral bracing. 2) Hurricane ties at the end of every roof truss are required. 3) Truss steel connection plates appear to be smaller than in current roof truss designs and should be analyzed to determine if reinforcement is required. 4) New steel portal frames are required in the front wall to resist wind/seismic lateral loads. 5) All exterior studs supporting roof trusses need to be reinforced. 6) Reinforcement of top plates under roof trusses is required if the plates are double ply. 7) Roof truss member sizes are otherwise adequate. 8) Reinforcement of the triple 2x12 beam in the interior section of the building is required. 9) The 2x10 floor joists and columns in the interior section of the building are okay. It is SW&C’s opinion that an in-depth analysis of the complete building, including seismic and wind loading, will likely result in multiple additional requirements for reinforcement. Please call if you have questions or need additional information.

From: Robert Brecknock [mailto:swcengineering@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 1:02 PM To: Wayne Blassberg Subject: ...Response to query... Currently required snow loads, roof and ceiling dead loads and a 5 psf collateral load (for overhead doors, piping, heating units, the future exhaust system and other miscellaneous items) over the entire ceiling area were used in the analysis.

Response to a question I asked to ensure he included hanging weight.

Sprinkler Concerns

Fire Inspector Dubowik, I looked at what remains of our original paperwork related to the Transfer Station, Fire Station, and Town Hall sprinkler systems. What I have found is that when we were asked to quote the installations for these buildings the town specified use of non-listed and undersized water supplies for the sprinkler systems. Presumably because installing code compliant water supplies was too costly. The town specified what size pumps to use. The specified pumps are not listed fire pumps and do not have the capacity to supply the sprinkler system to NFPA 13 standards – so these systems have never been NFPA 13 compliant systems. The piping was installed to NFPA 13 pipe schedule standards. The Transfer Station Piping was designed for Ordinary Hazard Group 2, pipe schedule, the pump installed was rated at 80 GPM @ 69PSI. The Fire Station Piping was designed for Light and Ordinary Hazard Group 2, pipe schedule, the pump installed was rated at 80 GPM @ 69PSI. The Town Hall Piping was designed for as a light hazard pipe schedule system and the pump installed was rated at 100 GPM @ 70PSI. We do not have any information on the library as we were not the installing contractor. The town may have this information filed somewhere I think it was built around 2010. Mike Franklin Service Manager John L. Carter Cell 603-520-1068 Phone: 603-224-5438 Fax: 603-224-6481

Fire Inspection / Safety Committee Findings

• 1. Emergency light above the side exit door is open and does not work. NFPA 101
• 2. Sprinkler system an approved NFPA 13 system with proper design for buildings classification?

Need proof that its adequate. NFPA 13

• 3. Water tank level gauge for the sprinkler system needs to be repaired to show it is full. NFPA 13
• 4. Lockout devices are needed for breakers # 31 and # 1 in the fire alarm panel room. NFPA 72
• 5. Electrical panel needs to be fully labeled. NFPA 70

6. 1 hour fire rating is required for the apparatus bay in the addition below the place of assembly NFPA 101:6.1.14.4.1

• 7. All flammable liquids need to be stored in approved containers and in cabinets.

8. Both exit paths need to be access directly outside and meet a 1 hour rating. Both exits currently go through hazardous areas as well. Front exit goes through a vehicle bay, 2nd exit goes through an electrical service area. NFPA 101:7.1.3.2.1 Note: Per Eric, the Safety Committee supports our moving forward with mitigating our safety concerns noted here as well as our air quality concerns and hazardous conditions.

Septic Findings

Floodplain

• 1. As the topography suggests and your photos document in recent history the village is

subject to flooding including the property behind the existing Fire Station. Obviously if you were to build in this area you would want to be sure to construct the building above the

• floodplain. However even with a building built at the same elevation as the existing station

the facility is subject to being flooded around. This is not a great characteristic in siting a emergency services facility. What happens in a larger storm event? I would think the threat

• f flooding would be a factor used to evaluate sites. I am sure this has been discussed by

the committee.

• 2. Related to the above, in order to build on the property behind the station you will

need to fill in the existing depression to raise the elevation of the pad site. By doing this you are filling flood storage and should really be considering compensatory storage in the

• vicinity. This may not be easy to achieve given the scarcity of land in the area.

Septic (Placement, Sizing, Etc.)

• 3. Location of existing wells in all directions will be desired to plan an expansion at this
• site. Being a historical village area there are a lot of non-conforming pre-existing conditions,

which the state will take into consideration. I looked up the church and it is NHDES Public Water Supply, which the state monitors. I would expect they would be encouraged if a new system was installed.

• 4. Ideally the system for a facility like this would be above the floodplain so it functioned

in flood conditions. Some towns would require this, but I am unaware of any local septic requirements in New Boston.

• 5. Sizing:
• a. Fire Stations by themselves do not have a large septic demand (5 GPD per

person -assuming no full-time employees & no food prep.). However to properly accommodate facilities for food preparation the design flow will jump

• significantly. I am not up to speed with the exact programing for this facility but

my recollection was that the kitchen was used for food service of groups (pancake breakfasts & the like).

• b. Does the long term planning not anticipate full-time staff? That’s my

recollection, but wanted to be sure.

• 6. Ultimately I think you would want to sit down with NHDES to review the

conditions and proposed use and see how receptive they were to the proposal. This is something I could help do with some support by the committee. Obviously the station is there now and is not entirely conforming to NHDES convention. It comes down to what is perceived as expansion of use. From my perspective the washer machines and onsite showers would have minimal use and could be justified. Obviously any expansion would improve the existing facilities to the extent possible.

Holding Tank

• 7. Floor drain flows and decontamination waste water (when municipal sewer is not

available) would be plumbed to holding tank that was registered with NHDES. Waste would be hauled offsite as needed and would not connect to septic system. http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/dwgb/documents/dwgb

• 22-8.pdf

The short answer is I think you can make something work here from a septic perspective if it is intended to remain a volunteer department. I don’t know what level

• f assessment you are trying to do now. Septic is one hurdle to expand here, but it

seems like there would be other deficiencies or conditions at this site that would weigh in as well. Kevin Kevin M. Leonard, P.E. Principal Engineer Northpoint Engineering, LLC

Market Value

Prior to review of this letter I do want to note that my wife and I reside in the town of New Boston and I am a current member of the New Boston Zoning Board. I have been asked to give my opinion on the market value of the property given my 12 year history as an active commercial Realtor in the southern New Hampshire market. The most notable elements playing a role in this evaluation include, but are not limited to, location, overall condition of the building/property, current condition of market, comparable sales, as well as current comparable properties actively on the market for sale. Per the town assessor’s card, the subject property consists of a 3,188+/- SF building

• riginally built in 1973 that is currently in use as an active fire station. It is located on .35

acres of in the center of town and immediately across from Town Hall. There is minimal

• n-site parking, however there are municipal spaces across the street. It is understood that

the property currently shares a septic system with the neighboring church property and the fresh water supply for the building is shared with the Town Hall property via an underground pipe system fed from a well. It is zoned RA, which allows for very few commercial uses, however does allow for a variety of municipal uses. (see attached) I have visited the site and have also reviewed the existing site and floor plans for the

• property. In an effort to derive “market value” I have also reviewed the assessor’s card

noting an assessed value of $216,000. When comparing the assessed value to the equalization ratio of 94.1% (2015) the equalized value is approximately $229,543 or $72 per square foot.

As another exercise to help determine “market value” I have also looked for some recent comparable sales of existing buildings that may relate to the subject Property. Given the unique nature of the property I have expanded the search for comparable sales back to 2011. This is a difficult property to “comp out” as a number of these types of properties are either preserved for their historical significance to the town or razed and redeveloped as part of a larger town need. I also consulted with a few appraisers in the hopes of locating more comparable sales. Please see below. 1) 18 N Mast Road, Goffstown, NH 2,180 SF on .22 Acres Sale Price $90,000 of $41.28/SF Sold on 3/21/2011 Church property sold to another religious user. 2) 29 King Street, Auburn, NH 4,396 SF on 3.691 Acres Sale Price $340,000 or $77.34/SF Sold on 2/7/12 Maintenance building on a larger lot with 2 maintenance bays. 3) 18 Hollow Oak Lane, Milford, NH 7,050 SF on 2 Acres Sale Price $350,000 or $49.65/SF Sold on 11/27/12 Industrial/Garage property with 1 drive in bay in a small industrial park off 101. 4) 50 Raymond Road, Auburn, NH 2,595 SF on .792 Acres Currently on Market (see attached) Asking price $219,000 or $84.39 per square foot Former Auburn fire station. There have been a few offers below asking price, although the building has been vacant for a few years and is in likely need of upgrades.

If I were to list this property in today’s market I would suggest a list price of: $225,000 - $240,000 or approximately $70 - $75/SF. As you are aware, each potential buyer will have a different idea of overall value dependent upon their specific business structure. A big question for the end value of this property rests with the eventual user. If sold to a 3rd party buyer not related to a town use, shared well and septic concerns may arise along with a parking concern and the potential need for zoning and/or planning approvals and code upgrades. All of these items can have an effect

• n the final sale price.

This analysis is intended to give you a snapshot of the current market conditions and how they compare to the subject property’s overall market value. Per this evaluation, I am assuming that the site is in line with current town regulations regarding occupancy and use permits and that there are no major environmental issues that would hurt the overall value of the property. I look forward to discussing this analysis with you and answering any questions you may have regarding its content. Please let me know if we can be of any service in the future. Sincerely, Douglas W. Martin Senior Associate

Other Concerns

• Floor Drains, no water / oil separator. $$
• Stormwater runoff, how to handle? $$
• Exceed 50% of MV, the building will need to be

brought up to the current ADA requirements including an $80k elevator and 3 ph. power. $$

• This lot will be difficult if not impossible to

expand in the future.

• Adding truck traffic on Mill St?
• Center of town disadvantage in 20-30 yrs?

Financials

• The following (4) drawings done by Dignard

Architectural Services were distributed to selected vendors by Matt Beaulieu from Milestone Engineering LLC and used to produce the costing spreadsheet for the proposed Rte. 13 station.

Financial Summary

• $2,738,761.45 / 11,000 SF = $250 / SF
• 10,225 SF * $250 = $2,556,250
• Move generator from current station $50k
• Use money from Revolving fund $100k
• All quotes received were very conservative and

getting competitive bids based on a full set of engineered drawings will lower all quotes.

• Target price between $2.25 and $2.45 mil

Estimated Tax Impact

Open Excel Spreadsheet

What will a new fire station cost me?