HomeMy WebLinkAbout34-90 RESOLUTION1
•
PESOLIITTON NO. 34-90
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT £ETWEEN
CBAFTON, TULL ft ASSOCIATES AND THE C:T'i OF
FAYETTEVILLE FOR RENOVATION OF THE YOUTH
CENTER SWIMMING POOL.
RE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
VAYETTEVTLLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby
authorized and directed to execute a contract between Crafton.
Tull Et Associates and the City of Fayetteville for the renovation
of the Youth Center swimming pool. A copy of the contract
authorized for execution hereby is attached hereto marked Exhibit
"A" and made a part hereof.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 6th day of March , :990
ATTEST:
hf
By: ��i
City C
4/. l
,APPROVED:
Bv:
Mayor
•
ADDENDUM TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
OWNER AND ARCHITECT
Addendum made as of the 6th Day of March in the Year of
Nineteen Hundred Ninety in reference to the agreement between
the Owner:
and the Architect:
The City of Fayetteville
City Administration Building
113 West Mountain St.
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
Architects and Engineers
P. 0. Drawer 549 / 2800 N. 2nd St.
Rogers, Arkansas 72757-0549
dated the 27th day of June in 1989, for the following project:
Renovations to:
The Fayetteville Youth Center Pool
California Road
Fayetteville, Arkansas
CTA Project No. 89111.00
This Addendum, when executed, forms part os the original Agreement and alters
the original Agreement as specified herein.
In reference to ARTICLE II - BASIS OF COMPENSATION, Paragraph 11.2.1, and more
specifically to Exhibit "B" cited there; Phases 1 and 2 specified there have
been completed and submitted to the Owner as Fayetteville Youth Center Indoor
Pool Facility - Part One, "Report on Existing Conditions", dated 18 August 1989;
and Part Two, "Estimate Of Probable Construction Costs", dated 8 September 1989.
On the basis of these Reports, the Revised Cope of Work Proposal as approved by
the Youth Center Board and City Parks Commission on January 15, 1990 (Exhibit
"D" attached), and in accordance with our statements listed under Phase 2, Page
B/2 of Exhibit "B", we have established a new fee proposal for architectural
services as outlined for Part 1 - Phase 3, Part II and Part III of this project.
BASIS OF COMPENSATION:
PART 1 - PHASE 3
Preparation of Construction Documents for
demolition, renovation and additions suitable
for bidding and based on the Scope of Work
outlined on Exhibit "D" $ 39,100.00
PART 2
Bidding and Negotiation and recommendations
for awarding contracts $ 3,500.00
PART 3
Construction Management of the project
outlined; to include site observations
(estimated at two observations per week
for 18 weeks), Field Reports, Shop Drawings
and approvals. See Article 2.6, AIA
Document B141 $ 12,000.00
Total fee for Basic Services $ 54,600.00
In reference to Article II, Paragraph 11.3.1.,
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Record "As -Built" mylar documents
charged hourly (see Exhibit "C") with
maximum limit of $ 5,000.00
This Addendum to the Agreement is hereby accepted as modifying the original
Agreement as stated.
OWNER
ARCHITECT
fraarefa
"Ptirter6-
David C. Swearingen, AIA, Vice -President
Title
1
•
EXHIBIT "D"
REVISED SCOPE OF WORK OUTLINE
AS PROPOSED BY
FAYETTEVILLE PARKS COMMISSION
AND THE
FAYETTEVILLE YOUTH CENTER BOARD
15 JANUARY 90
1) Structural Repairs:
Demolition (Less Asbestos Removal)
Roof Structural Repair
Building Repair 6 Renovation
2) HVAC Replacement (Including Dehumidify)
3) Electrical Replacement
4) Pool Filter System (Replacement
5) Addition of Dressing Rooms;
New Construction
Equipment (Lockers, Benches, Etc.)
Existing Building Tie -In
6) PVC Matting (Not Recommended):
New Concrete Slab Around Pool
1 x 1 Ceramic Tile Around Pool
7) Underwater Lights
8) Starting Platforms 6
Diving Board
Sub -Total
ADDITIONAL WORK: (As Determined By Client)
9) Handicap Lift or Ramp for Pool
10) "Delifol" Vinyl Pool Liner
Construction Direct Cost
Soils Testing
General Conditions (Division 1 Costs)
Subtotal
Inflation (3%)
Contractor Overhead and Profit (8%)
Project Contingency (10%)
22,000.00
63,000.00
22,840.00
45,000.00
36,000.00
75,000.00
188,600.00
8,200.00
22,840.00
22,500.00
24,750.00
2,800.00
5,500.00
3,000.00
$ 542,030.00
Probable Total Project Cost
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE WORK TO BE CONSIDERED:
11) Perimeter Pool Gutter System
12) Steam Room
WORK NOT IN CONTRACT: (Owner Provided)
Asbestos Removal
Boundary and Topo Survey
5,000.00
62,450.00
609,480.00
5,000.00
65,948.00
680,428.00
20,412.00
54,434.00
68,042.00
823,316.00
$ 8,000.00
$ 3,500.00
•
•
ADDENDUM TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
OWNER AND ARCHITECT
Addendum made as of the 6th Day of March in the Year of
Nineteen Hundred Ninety
the Owner:
and the Architect:
in reference to the agreement between
The City of Fayetteville
City Administration Building
113 West Mountain St.
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Crafton, Tull b Associates, Inc.
Architects and Engineers
P. 0. Drawer 549 / 2800 N. 2nd St.
Rogers, Arkansas 72757-0549
dated the 27th day of June in 1989, for the following project:
Renovations to:
The Fayetteville Youth Center Pool
California Road
Fayetteville, Arkansas
CTA Project No. 89111.00
This Addendum, when executed, forms part os the original Agreement and alters
the original Agreement as specified herein.
In reference to ARTICLE II - BASIS OF COMPENSATION, Paragraph 11.2.1, and more
specifically to Exhibit "B" cited there; Phases 1 and 2 specified there have
been completed and submitted to the Owner as Fayetteville Youth Center Indoor
Pool Facility - Part One, "Report on Existing Conditions", dated 18 August 1989;
and Part Two, "Estimate Of Probable Construction Costs", dated 8 September 1989.
On the basis of these Reports, the Revised Cope of Work Proposal as approved by
the Youth Center Board and City Parks Commission on January 15, 1990 (Exhibit
"D" attached), and in accordance with our statements listed under Phase 2, Page
B/2 of Exhibit "B", we have established a new fee proposal for architectural
services as outlined for Part 1 - Phase 3, Part II and Part III of this project.
•
•
BASIS OF COMPENSATION:
PART 1 - PHASE 3
•
Preparation of Construction Documents for
demolition, renovation and additions suitable
for bidding and based on the Scope of Work
outlined on Exhibit "D" $ 39,100.00
PART 2
Bidding and Negotiation and recommendations
for awarding contracts $ 3,500.00
PART 3
Construction Management of the project
outlined; to include site observations
(estimated at two observations per week
for 18 weeks), Field Reports, Shop Drawings
and approvals. See Article 2.6, AIA
Document B141 $ 12,000.00
Total fee for Basic Services
In reference to Article II, Paragraph 11.3.1.,
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
$ 54,600.00
Record "As -Built" mylar documents
charged hourly (see Exhibit "C") with
maximum limit of $ 5,000.00
This Addendum to the Agreement is hereby accepted as modifying the original
Agreement as stated.
OWNER
°A-nd G(22rosz/
7ttei
ARCHITECT
do fiwa.
David C. Swearingen, AIA, ice -President
Title
•
EXHIBIT "D"
REVISED SCOPE OF WORK OUTLINE
AS PROPOSED BY
FAYETTEVILLE PARKS COMMISSION
AND THE
FAYETTEVILLE YOUTH CENTER BOARD
15 JANUARY 90
1) Structural Repairs:
Demolition (Less Asbestos Removal)
Roof Structural Repair
Building Repair & Renovation
2) HVAC Replacement (Including Dehumidify)
3) Electrical Replacement
4) Pool Filter System (Replacement
5) Addition of Dressing Rooms;
New Construction
Equipment (Lockers, Benches, Etc.)
Existing Building Tie -In
6) PVC Matting (Not Recommended):
New Concrete Slab Around Pool
1 x 1 Ceramic Tile Around Pool
7) Underwater Lights
8) Starting Platforms &
Diving Board
Sub -Total
ADDITIONAL WORK: (As Determined By Client)
9) Handicap Lift or Ramp for Pool
10) "Delifol" Vinyl Pool Liner
Construction Direct Cost
Soils Testing
General Conditions (Division 1 Costs)
Subtotal
Inflation (3%)
Contractor Overhead and Profit (8%)
Project Contingency (10%)
22,000.00
63,000.00
22,840.00
45,000.00
36,000.00
75,000.00
188,600.00
8,200.00
22,840.00
$ 22,500.00
$ 24,750.00
$ 2,800.00
$ 5,500.00
$ 3,000.00
$
542,030.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 62,450.00
$ 609,480.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 65,948.00
$ 680,428.00
$ 20,412.00
$ 54,434.00
$ 68,042.00
Probable Total Project Cost
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE WORK TO BE CONSIDERED:
11) Perimeter Pool Gutter System
12) Steam Room
WORK NOT IN CONTRACT: (Owner Provided)
Asbestos Removal
Boundary and Topo Survey
$ 823,316.00
$ 8,000.00
$ 3,500.00
•
FAYETTEVILLE' .
114E CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
2.O1A
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Fayetteville City Board of Directors
Scott C. Linebaugh, Assistant City Manager
Bob H. Kelly, Public Works Director 0—
March 2, 1990
Youth Center Pool Line Item Review Reauested by the City
Dcard
At my direction, my
requested by the City
review was conducted
Recreation Division.
staff has completed the line item review
Board on the Youth Center Pool project. This
on Monday, February 26, at the Parks and
Those present were:
Gary Ryel, Architect for Crafton, Tull, and Associates
David Cox, Transportation Manager
Don Bunn, City Engineer
Dale Clark, Parks and Recreation Director
Connie Edmonston, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director
Rodney Ramsey, Aquatics Director
John McNair, Chairman of Youth Center Facilities Committee
The line item review produced a reduction in the estimated
construction cost of $55,100.98, with a new estimate of
$755,884.40, see Attachment A. The items eliminated were;
replacing the brick pilasters around the existing columns
($10,000), architectural finishes in the new dressing rooms,
($840), PVC matting new floor and non skid treatment ($24,000),
starting blocks ($5,000), and using a handicapped ramp instead of
a handicapped lift ($1,500). The remainder of the reduction is
accounted for by percentage reductions of General Conditions,
inflation, contractor profit, and project contingency. The
details of this review are enclosed as Attachment B.
In a strict sense, the project still exceeds the minimum
requirements of the applicable building codes. The purpose of
building codes is to protect the public's life, health, and welfare
in the built environment. For the most part, it does not address
the suitability of materials for a given use, other than the effect
they might have upon life, health and safety. Thus, the codes do
not require such things as paint for walls, floor finishes, ceiling
finishes, and low maintenance/long life cycle materials.
•
•
It would be acceptable, by code, to construct wood stud and gypsum
board walls in the dressing rooms, but the effects of the wet
environment would create an unacceptable maintenance situation.
Therefore concrete block walls, are planned. It would be
acceptable (by code) to leave these walls unpainted, but again,
this is viewed as an unacceptable condition.
The greatest cost item currently planned in the project is the
$18,200 painting of the pool interior. This is not required by
code, but it needs to be done as a maintenance item. Including
this item in the construction program, when the pool is closed for
construction, is the lease expensive and disruptive way to address
this need.
It is obvious that the city has not been able to properly maintain
the pool structure, and that much greater maintenance costs should
have been incurred. The continued deterioration of the structure
would require that if the improvements are not made as part of the
capital improvements program that the budget for maintenance of
this structure would need to be expanded several times over. In
the planning and review process the annual maintenance requirements
of the proposal from the architect has been considered, and a
balance of the maintenance costs with the initial costs has been
made.
During the line item review, each item was scrutinized for its
requirement by code or for practical reasons. This review is
listed in Attachment B.
A comparison of needs cited in the Northwest Engineers Study and
the Crafton, Tull and Associates study is contained in Attachment
C.
David Cox, Transportation Manager, had a discussion with Director
Green regarding his particular concerns. His three concerns
addressed the need to include starting blocks; the type of ceiling
that was planned for the building, and whether it would prevent
corrosion from moisture condensation; and the need for new non skid
ceramic tile around the pool.
Each of these items was addressed in the line item review. As
mentioned above the starting blocks and new tile around the pool
have been eliminated. The planned ceiling is to be built of
insulated panels mounted on painted purlins, the roof deck will be
of galvanized steel. This is a system that has been developed
specifically for pool construction, and presents a vapor barrier
which would significantly reduce any potential condensation on the
underside of the roof deck. To complete isolate the roof deck from
any potential condensation would require a suspended ceiling, and
a seamless membrane to be installed between the roof deck and the
ceiling. It was the opinion of the architect that the cost of this
system would be significantly greater than the currently planned
ceiling.
2.01E ;
•
Regarding any further reductions in the scope of this project, it
is the opinion of the architect and my staff that the line items
now planned for this project cannot be reduced any further. Refer
to Attachment D. Of course when the project is bid, individual
line item costs may be less than anticipated.
On the remaining question of the location of the dressing room
expansion, reference is made to Attachment E. My staff is prepared
to further present this issue at the board meeting if the board
desires.
DSC/dsc
attachments
cc: Dale Clark, Don Bunn
2.O1C
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT A - Line Item Costs of Youth Center Pool Project
WORK NORTHWEST
Structural repairs
Demolition
Architectural
HVAC Repairs
Lighting Electrical repairs
Filtering System repair
Renovation Dressing Rooms
New Dressing Rooms
Equipment
Architectural
Non skid flooring
PVC Matting
New Floor
Non skid treatment
Underwater Lights
Platforms Diving Boards
104000.00
72500.00
26300.00
29500.00
5000.00
15400.00
500.00
8600.00
CTA
63000.00
22000.00
12840.00
45000.00
36000.00
75000.00
188600.00
8200.00
22000.00
O .00
O .00
2800.00
3500.00
Subtotal
Additional Work
Handicapped Ramp
Paint Pool Interior
261800.00
478940.00
3500.00
18200.00
Direct Construction Cost
Soils Testing
General Conditions
Subtotal
Inflation (3%)
Contractor Profit (8%)
Project Contingency (10%)
Total Construction Cost
261800.00
261800.00
261800.00
500640.00
5000.00
50000.00
555640.00
16669.20
44451.20
55564.00
672324.40
Work Not In Contract
Asbestos Removal
Site Survey
Architects Fees
Paid to date
Revised fee for Construction Documents
Bidding and Construction Management
As builts
Total Project Cost
8000.00
3500.00
12460.00
54600.00
5000.00
755884.40
CIP Budget
Difference
867500.00
111615.60
2.010;
•
•
•
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT B - Line Item Review of Youth Center Pool
1. Structural Repairs ($63,000) - the existing roof will be
replaced with new purlins, bracing, and standing seam metal roof.
The metal roof would be painted to prevent corrosion. Both the
Northwest study and the CTA study listed these items.
Demolition ($22,000) - this item covers the removal of the
existing roof, metal deck, and purlins.
Architectural ($12,840) - this covers repairs required to the
exterior of the building including cleaning, repainting,
lintel repair and tuckpointing of brick. Replacing the brick
pilasters around the columns has been eliminated from this
area resulting in a $10,000 reduction. The exterior surface
of the columns will be painted. This will result in a higher
maintenance cost of these items.
The combined cost of Structural Repairs, Demolition and
Architectural work is $97,840.
2. HVAC Repairs ($45,000) - the HVAC system is over twenty five
years old and is not operating now. Both studies called for a
replacement of the HVAC system. Sheet metal box ducts will be
fabricated locally. This is the least expensive duct system
available. As per the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) Rules
and Regulations for Swimming Pools, Section V. Paragraph E.
Ventilation and lighting which states:"A11 indoor pool enclosures
must be properly vented to prevent the accumulation of moisture"
ventilation and a dehumidifier is included in this project.
3. Lighting Electrical Repairs (36,000) - There is currently a
variety of different fixtures used in the building. Most are in
need of repair, and in some cases the fixture is hanging by the
electrical connections. Conduit throughout the building is
corroded and needs to be replaced. The current light fixtures do
not meet the code requirements for 20 lamp lumens per square foot
of light area. (ADH V. E) All planned light fixtures will produce
only the minimum lighting levels required by code.
4. Filtering System Repair ($75,000) - The existing system is
antiquated and does not meet the provisions of ADH Section VI.
RECIRCULATION SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCE. Three types of filtering
systems have been evaluated, an ozone system, an ionization system,
and a two stage, low rate, sand filter system. The planned two
stage, low rate, sand filter system is 10-12 thousand dollars less
than any other system.
2.01E.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT B - Line Item Review of Youth Center Pool (cont)
5. New Dressing Rooms ($188,600) - US Dept of Health and Human
Services Code for Swimming Pools defines the capacity of the Youth
Center Pool as 284 persons. ADH Section VII. BATHER PREPARATION
FACILITIES AND APPURTENANCES Paragraphs B and C. List minimum
requirements of lavatories, water closets, urinals and showers.
The planned level of 5 showers, 3 WCs for women, 2 WCs for men, 2
urinals for men, and three lavatories each, is the minimum required
by the code. The changing areas have been planned to allow 50
linear feet of locker space and appropriate area for benches. This
item includes the cost of the structure to contain the dressing
rooms.
Equipment ($8,200) - New lockers and extruded aluminum
changing benches for each dressing room.
Architectural ($22,000) - This item includes painted walls,
ceiling tiles, plumbing fixtures, lighting fixtures, and a non
skid floor finish. After close scrutiny is was reduced by
$840. Painted walls, ceiling tiles, a non skid floor, and
lighting fixtures are not required by code, but it is felt
that unpainted concrete block walls, no ceiling, bare light
bulbs, and unpainted concrete floors would be unacceptable.
6. PVC Matting
New Floor (eliminated) - After reevaluating the existing floor
around the floor it was determined that it did not absolutely
have to be replaced. This eliminated $22,500.
Non skid treatment (eliminated) - This treatment was planned
for the new floor. This eliminated $1,500.
7. Underwater Lights ($2,800) - ADH Section V. E. Requires
underwater lights provide 10 lamp lumens per square foot of water
surface. The present underwater lights are inoperable and are
planned to be replaced.
8. Platforms Diving Boards ($3,500) - Platforms, diving boards,
and starting blocks are not required by code, but are necessary for
the pool activities. After further evaluation it was determined
that the existing starting blocks could be retained, but the diving
platform was found to be unsafe. This eliminated $5,000.
9. Handicapped Ramp ($3,500) - A portable handicapped ramp was
selected instead of a handicapped lift. This eliminated $1,500.
10. Paint Pool Interior ($18,200) - This is not required by code,
but as a practical matter, it needs to be done. Completing this
work during the pool building renovation will result in a pool that
is brought up to the same level of the building.
2.01F
•
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT C - Difference In Needs Between Northwest Engineers
Study and CTA Study
1. Needs listed in both Northwest Engineers Study and Crafton, Tull
Study:
Structural repairs, HVAC repairs, lighting repairs,
electrical repairs, filtering system repairs, underwater
lights, platforms and diving boards.
2. Needs listed in Northwest Engineers Study not listed in
Crafton, Tull Study:
Renovation of dressing rooms, non skid flooring.
3. Needs listed in Crafton, Tull Study not listed in Northwest
Engineers Study:
New dressing rooms, equipment, architectural finishes,
*PVC matting new floor with non skid treatment,
*handicapped lift, paint pool interior, soils testing,
general conditions, inflation, contractor profit, project
contingency, asbestos removal, site survey, architects
fees, and as built drawings.
* modified after line item review (see above).
2.01G
•
•
Principals
Everett L Balk, P.E.
Bob H. Crofton, P.E.
Thomas E. Hopper, P.E.
R.E. Reece, P.E.
rowan= D
Lemuel H. Tull, P.E.
February 27, 1990
Mr. David Cox,
Transportation Director
The City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
Architects & Engineers
RE: Youth Center Pool
CTA Project No. 89111.00
Dear David:
Associates
Danny L. Brown, P.E.
James L. ' Jim" Burke, P.E.
D.E. "Chappie" Chapman, P.E.
Jim Kooistra, A.IA.
Rick G. Rose, R.LS.
Gary Wain Rye!, A.I.A.
James P. Swearingen, A.I.A
As requested yesterday, I have reviewed the probable cost opinions in a couple
of areas and, as I reported to you on the phone, I believe we can reduce the
total project cost to $755,884. I don't feel that, at this preliminary point in
the project, we can go any lower and retain a satisfactory project. I would
also like to emphasize the preliminary form of this opinion of probable costs.
Many assumptions are made to compile these figures and they will be revised HE
or down as Construction Documents are developed.
Also, as requested, I checked into alternate sanitation systems for the pool
water equipment. I polled two pool equipment companies with national reputation
and who sell and service all the types of equipment mentioned. Generally, the
consensus of opinion was as follows:
Ozone Water Treatment
Initial Cost - Additional $15,000
Operating Cost - Lower than chlorine
Maintenance Cost - Higher than chlorine
Note: Still must use chlorine to meet Health Department (10% of
usuel amount)
P. 0. Drawer 549 / 2800 North 2nd Street / Rogers, Arkansas 72757-0549 / (501) 636-4838 / FAX (501) 631-6224
2.0111,
1
•
•
•
Altee*MONIC D
David Cox
FebARMUIQj
Page - 2 -
Ionization Water Treatment
Initial Cost - Additional $10,000 t: $12,000
Operating Cost - Lower than chlorine
Maintenance Cost - Highest of any system (Highly corrosive)
Note: Still must use chlorine to meet Health Department (5-lO% of
usual amount)
Chlorine Water Treatment
Initial Cost - $75,000 (lowest of three)
Operating cost - Highest of three
Maintenance Cost - Lowest of three
Note: Draw backs to chlorine - High cost, "Burning", etc.
Our recommendation of the basic 2 -stage sand filter and chlorine water treatment
remains our choice.
One other point I would like to address is additional fees. We did not
anticipate the large number of meetings that have occurred in getting this
through the City. I propose that, if the project is not approved by the City at
this point, we must request additional fees for continued meetings. To date,
the extra time spent on this Phase cuts into our allotment for design time which
in turn hinders our abilities in that respect. We cannot afford to limit our
design time any further and feel it's our responsibility to the City of
Fayetteville to provide the best service. Therefore, if the project is not
approved by the next City Council submission, we will revise our fee proposal
accordingly.
Here's hoping we can wrap this up and get down to design .... I'm ready to go!
Thanks for your help, David!
Sincerely,
CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Gary W. Ryel, A.I.A.
GWR/sc
2.01I
•
•
PdrIODaia
Eisen L. Banc, P.E.
Bob H. Crehon, P.E.
Thomas E. Hopper, P.E.
R.E. Reece, P.E.
David Swearingen, A.IA.
Lemuel H. Tull, P.E.
February 28, 1990
Mr. David Cox,
Transportation Director
The City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
Architects & Engineers
Associates
Danny L Brown, P.E.
James L ' Jim" Burke, P.E.
D.E. "Choppily" Chapman, P.E.
Jim Kooistra, MA
Rick G. Rose, R.LS.
Gary Wain Rye!, A.I.A.
James P. Swearingen, A.I.A.
RE: Youth Center Pool
CTA Project No. 89111.00
Dear David:
As you requested on the phone a few minutes ago, I will address once more the
issue of locating the Dressing Room Addition.
If I might ask, please refer to the photographs in part One of our Report to the
City and, in particular, to Figure 3, page 6 and to Figure 4, page 8. Generally
speaking, the Dressing Rooms should be at the same level at the pool, and
footings for structural bearing must be well founded in the natural grade.
Thus, the closer the natural grade is to the pool level, the shorter (and less
expensive) the foundation wall. Keeping this in mind, the north (Figure 5, page
8) and the east sides are obviously better choices.
In addition, the south side is hampered by the proximity (16 feet) of the
existing street and underground utilities. The west side, above the High School
Dressing Room, was considered, but the existing structure was likely not
designed for a second floor load and verification of that would be difficult and
expensive.
It is our opinion then, that the north and east sides are the best viable
options. Also, the east side offers distance advantages considering the
location of parking, interior traffic flow, staff supervision, and re -use of
existing mechanical equipment spaces.
If I may be of further assistance, please call.
GRAFTON, TULL 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
Gary W. Rye1 .A.
GWR/sc
P. 0. Drawer 549 / 2800 North 2nd Street / Rogers, Arkansas 72757-0549 / (501) 636-4838 / FAX (501) 631-6224
2.01J