Building inspector: Single Hill buildings may be salvageable but need structural review and costly repairs

Ted Hansen, Kodiak Island Borough building inspector, briefed the assembly on a site inspection of the abatement and demolition project at Single Hill and recommended an engineered structural review before deciding whether to renovate or demolish the buildings.

Hansen said the affected buildings were built in the late 1960s and are balloon‑framed with 2x4 construction. On initial walk‑throughs he found overloaded second‑floor joists and numerous notches and cuts in framing members. “The buildings are out of 2 by 4 construction…there's a lot of framing that has been notched out, cut out, that would have to be replaced if you wanted to do something with the building,” Hansen said.

Hansen noted the buildings’ narrow‑long aspect ratio gives them poor lateral shear resistance in a seismic or high‑wind event and that they lack interior shear walls. He said the foundations generally appear sound — crews could not break apart a recent mechanical foundation without a jackhammer — but that the north building has localized rot and mold in a west wall where a unit was unoccupied. The south building “actually looks pretty good” but still requires extensive work if reused.

Hansen commented on options for preserving the structures: converting the insulation strategy to an exterior (remote) wall insulation system to avoid reducing interior dimensions; adding structural sheathing (or engineered shear walls); and modifying stairways and headroom to meet current code. He also said a change in occupancy back to residential would require sprinklering the buildings because they would exceed state fire‑marshal thresholds for unit counts.

When asked for a recommendation, Hansen said he could not responsibly recommend renovation or demolition without an engineer’s review and a cost estimate. He warned that renovation in many cases is more expensive than new construction. Assembly members raised questions about construction costs; Hansen said borough permit valuation figures (used for permit fee calculations) assume about $238 per square foot for new residential valuation, but actual construction costs can be higher.

Hansen’s final assessment left the borough with choices: commission a structural engineer and detailed cost estimate to determine feasibility of reuse, or proceed toward demolition and reuse of the site.

No formal decision was taken at this work session; the inspector’s report was presented for the assembly’s consideration.