The architects handling the planning for the restoration of the Alki Homestead met with the Landmarks Preservation Board’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) on Friday, July 29 to bring the group what was requested in the previous meeting, a report on the condition of the logs and windows in the historic but deteriorating structure.

Alloy Design Group's Mark Haizlip and Greg Squires provided that information and also provided three options for how the restoration might proceed.

But several of the members of the committee confessed to confusion about what was being presented and expressed concerns about how the evaluation was done. The architects pointed out that they had been working closely with engineer Todd Perbix, an acknowledged expert and had previously presented their conclusions regarding the roof and foundation requiring replacement but this too was met with confusion, and skepticism.

The meeting began with the windows and logs review.

Squires spoke about the windows first, noting that the upstairs windows are historic from 1904 or '05 and "structurally sound enough to be refurbished," but that the downstairs windows were from a later time since they concluded from the style of them, construction permits from that time and the fact that the original Fir Lodge was enclosed circa "1950 to 60 when it became a restaurant, we're most likely replaced in the 70's or 80's."

He pointed out that 50% of these windows were broken or cracked by the fire that damaged the Homestead in 2008. Squires noted that the damage to the casement window frames was, "mostly on the surface level," and suggested they could be restored or replaced. "They all seem to have been operable casements at some point," meaning they could have all been opened, but at some point they were painted shut. The doors inside are "grid between glass" that "match in character," the windows but that they are, "nothing to write home about."

Moving on to the condition of the logs Squires said, "A lot of the existing log work was documented quite well with the Levengood Report (a engineering study conducted in October, 2010), but not specifically the stacked log work so they focused on their condition, "log by log," said Haizlip. They examined them in association with Perbix, using an awl looking for,"smoke damage, crushing and charring" (checking for its depth). This process resulted in giving each log a rating of good, fair or poor. The survey identified each wall, 1 through 8 and alphabetized the log stack from the top down. He summarized the log report by saying, "The top three courses tend to be in good condition," due to the overhangs that protect them. "The lower courses there is a lot of exposure to the weather over the last hundred years," and where, "You are seeing a lot of the rotting, a lot of the crushing."

The more protected interior walls, "tend not to have as much rotting or crushing," Haizlip said, "but they clearly were the closest to the fire. That's where there is a lot smoke damage (...) and charring. The most damaged of these is the wall next to the fireplace which is, "beyond any sort of restoration."

Haizlip explained that as they considered various restoration plans it made sense to them to break the sections down into component parts: Roof, Core and Foundation.

"The roof is an element that everyone seems to be in agreement simply needs to be replaced," said Haizlip, a comment that drew raised eyebrows from the committee. "And the same with the foundation. We know it has deteriorated to the point that it needs to be replaced and from talking with engineers and builders the common agreement is that with the various options we're proposing the foundation would be the same in each of them."

"The big unknown is obviously the core. That's what the log survey itemizes."

Squires then explained the three restoration options that Alloy has developed "trying to simplify a complex animal here (...) we're considering the roof and foundation as somewhat static but the treatment of that core where the majority of the historical fabric exists will be where the approach is different."

In each of the options presented the roof would be removed, and replaced.

Here are the options as presented:

Option 1 LOG BY LOG
The existing Roof will be removed, exposing the top log of the Core. The Core will be taken apart in separate pieces from top to bottom. Each log removed will be cataloged, tagged and documented. The logs will most likely be stored and protected on site while the new Foundation is poured. Once the new Foundation is completed, the restoration of the Core will begin with the replacement of all perimeter logs. Working from the bottom up, the Core will be restored log by log. If any of the original legwork is determined to be compromised beyond reasonable use, it will be replaced with a new log that matches in size and character. Once the Core is completed the Roof will be reconstructed.

OPTION 2 - SUPPORT, STRAP, LIFT & LOWER
The existing Roof will be removed, exposing the top log of the Core. A large steel support structure will be constructed underneath the existing headers of all window openings in the Core. This structure will span the entire length of the Homestead. The existing Core logs beneath the headers will be hung from the steel support beams, underneath the log walls and back up to the steel beams. Once the core is completely strapped, the steel support structure will be raised via hydraulic jacks. The existing Foundation will be removed and a new Foundation will be poured. Logs at the base of the Core will then be examined to determine if they are structurally compromised beyond reasonable use. Any of the original legwork that must be replaced will be done so with a new log that matches in size and character. With the new log work in place, the Core will be lowered onto the new Foundation. After the Core has been successfully secured to the Foundation, the Roof will be reconstructed.

OPTION 3 - SHORE UP & SPAN OVER
The existing Roof will be removed, exposing the top log of the Core. Shoring will be constructed underneath all existing log walls and the existing foundation will be removed. The new Foundation will be excavated and poured while the Core is supported by shoring above. Once the new Foundation is complete it will support the existing logs and shoring can be removed. At this time a new steel structure will be erected around the existing walls. The new steel structure will span above the top of the Core, and function to support both the original Core that are structurally unstable as well as the new Roof structure. Once the steel structure and the Core is secured to the new Foundation, the Roof will be reconstructed.

The architects acknowledged that the most likely plan going forward would be a hybrid but that the "restoration solution was somewhere within those options."

The evaluation of the log condition drew questions from committee member Steve Savage, who asked who does that work. Squires replied, "It is an engineer and a log builder specialist." He added that options 1 and 2 mean that the logs have a structural capacity. That means they must support weight and be able to handle lateral stresses such as wind load or seismic activity. Option 3 would render many of the logs more decorative since the structural strength would come from a steel structure. Haizlip added that "We're not going to have huge surprises," after doing their survey, "We know the ones that are severely damaged." Savage inquired about how any of the damaged logs might be treated or restored. Squires explained that a criteria for treatment would be established.

The different approaches require slightly different criteria. Some logs for example under one option would remain on site and be treated on site. In another scenario even logs with minor charring might be, since interior color is so dark, sealed or concealed.

Squires called Option 2 the most aggressive but that strapping the logs beneath the headers together and suspending them on site would allow for the new foundation to be constructed and to remove the logs "that no longer serve a structural capacity."

The "more creative" Option 3 in Squires opinion creates a steel skeleton that would allow the attachment of a new roof and a new foundation around the existing core. "It's kind of like earthquake retrofitting," Squires said. "Why this option is on the table is that if the logs do not serve a structural capacity anymore then they can stay even if they are somewhat deteriorated. They can be restored in place but because they don't need to serve a structural function, the most fabric existing could potentially remain."

Each option has to be weighed on its merits. "The log by log option potentially means the most damage to individual logs as they are taken apart," said Squires, noting that, "these logs look like they are pegged together in a staggering fashion." But Haizlip added there is no way to know where all the pegs might be.
"The more we try to keep this thing intact, the better it might be for the overall restoration," Squires said.

Haizlip then explained that Perbix had developed some preliminary schemes for Option 3. He asked the committee if "there's an option we seem to be missing."

Meredith Wirsching from the committee then said she wanted to "take a step back ," saying, "I have questions and other board members do as well. Did you guys do the survey yourselves? Or did you have an engineer?" Squires and Haizlip acknowledged that they did do the survey themselves but in association with log expert Todd Perbix. "Why are they not listed on here?" asked Wirsching. "Who set these definitions? Who told you what good fair and poor is or how did you come up with that definition? It's not clear in my mind how you say what is poor condition is a standard poor condition. I think that type of information really needs to be provided in the survey."

Wirsching acknowledged that "We've seen this project many times," but did not recall previous reports about the condition of the roof or foundation despite having had access to two extensive reports on the structures from Leavengood and Perbix. Squires explained that the condition of those two elements has been discussed in previous meetings but explained that they are "building quite a document," that would be more comprehensive in its scope. "We present these things in pieces but there is an overall plan," said Squires. Haizlip echoed that these matters have been discussed and explained and that the reports could be
brought in again and added to a larger presentation.

Wirsching said,"I think it would be good because personally I'm getting kind of confused. I can see all these little pieces but I'm not seeing the big picture (...) not having all the pieces together makes it really difficult."

Haizlip explained that in previous meetings there seemed to be a consensus that the roof would need to be replaced. "All reports say that it has to be totally replaced," said Squires.

Recognizing that the committee had specifically requested that this meeting focus on the condition of the logs and windows, another board member said, "To be fair we didn't ask them to talk about all these other items."

"We have discussed it," Squires said, " the last time we were here we described the perimeter foundation and that it needs to be totally replaced. We described that the roof, built out of 2x4's is completely charred underneath. There's no structural integrity to it at all. The roof, from the outside, in terms of it's profile is historic but the structure underneath that profile is not, the second floor is not considered historic. To bring it to code it's got to be 2 x 12's and it's got to be stick framed new. Anyone who's seen it in person knows it is totally gone. The fire wrecked the entire inside of the roof. It might come as a shock but we have discussed this before. This is the reality of what's there. The roof has to be replaced. The foundation has to be replaced."

While explaining that the log survey was completed by themselves and Perbix Squires pointed out that even one in poor condition, "does not mean that log is going away." In Option 3, the log condition does not matter since it would only have a cosmetic function.

Both architects agreed however that a larger report is in the process.

Savage asked if any meetings had taken place with the Department of Planning and Development regarding code enforcement, given that substantial reconstruction was obvious. He asked about how DPD felt about it seismically and whether their plans had good lateral support. Haizlip explained that they had spoken with DPD previously in pre-submittal meetings. He pointed out that because the building has a historic landmark designation, "the word 'trumped' was actually used in those meetings saying that the Landmarks Preservation Board 'trumps' some of the issues they might have." Savage pressed specifically on the seismic question saying it, "could have a big impact on what you do that's visible." Squires said that Perbix would be the one to engineer that aspect and said that he had done some initial thinking about it. "He's in the process of engineering that requirement," said Squires.

Savage asked for a summary of what they are agreeing to with the DPD.

Haizlip explained that when a more solid restoration option is determined they will be able to establish that.

In terms of the final visual effect, the intended goal is to, "See what you see now," said Squires.

As far as evaluating and replacing logs, some discussion was about how much of a log renders it unusable. The architects said that it was an averaged evaluation but that if a section was unusable that would mean the entire log was likely not usable since mixing new and old logs on the same course can create an imbalance in the final building. "We will have an established 'datum point' (a reference point of known coordinates from which measurements may be taken) to get it under control. "The hope is to establish a criteria for treating these things individually," said Squires.

Wirsching said, "I don't feel comfortable commenting on any of the options. I think it might be clear in your minds what needs to be done but when we've met with you it's always been couched in terms of maybe and it hasn't been very definitive. I think I would feel more comfortable with Todd Perbix coming in and talking about the foundation and what needs to be done with the roof, whether it has to be rebuilt. I know you have concerns about options but we're only a portion of the (LPB)."

"We need to understand better from Todd what is going to be done seismically," said another committee member.

Haizlip said, "If his presence is required, we can make that happen."

Savage asked that in the next meeting the architects show how a new framing system would fit into their preferred option. Since they had presented three options with no clear framing or seismic plan "It's the chicken and the egg right now," said Savage.

Wirsching concluded the meeting by asking that at the next meeting they bring Todd Perbix along to answer their more pointed questions regarding the roof and foundation, questions about log evaluation and that a more comprehensive set of documents be included.

The next meeting could be as soon as six weeks.