Loading...
2006-05-31 Regular Meeting Minutes A. Call to Order Architectural/Engineering Review Board Meetin and Public Presentation ~ ~ ~ fC n 31 May 2006 - 6:00pm ~ u; WI fE ~ i KIB Assembly Chambers , I AUG - 2 2006 I The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 6:05 pm. BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE B. Roll Call ARB Members present were Scott Arndt, Gregg Hacker, Charlie Jerling, Jay Johnston, Reed Oswalt and Brent Watkins. Absent Member was Jerrol Friend. Representing the KIB Engineering and Facilities Department were Bud Cassidy, Ken Smith and Sharon Lea Adinolfi. C. Approval of Agenda It was moved and seconded to approve the Agenda. There was a unanimous affirmative roll call vote. D. Approval of Minutes It was moved and seconded that the Minutes of 23 May 2006 be approved as submitted. There was a unanimous affirmative voice vote. E. Presentation of 35% Pool Schematic Design/Budget S. Arndt turned the meeting over to Terry Hyer for presentation of the 35% schematic design and 35% cost estimate fo; the new pool. Terry introduced the other members of his team: Jae Shin, ECI/Hyer, Project Manager and Project Architect, Boyd Morgenthaler, Principal Mechanical Engineer and Mark Langberg, Senior Mechanical Engineer, both of AMC Engineers. T. Hyer explained the steps in the process [for the design] beginning with a preliminary schematic design and initial cost estimates. The next set of drawings will become more defined and costs will be refined. Construction documents would then be generated - these are drawings that could be used by a contractor for bidding purposes. T. Hyer turned the presentation over to j ae Shin. J. Shin began by going through the amenities of the pool - the Program Summary. He reviewed the Site Plan, the main level floor plan, aerial views of the pool, outside materials, natatorium wall assembly and the details of the interior of the building. \ \dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\Minutes ARB 31 May 2006.doc Page 1 of8 The next set of slides on his power point presentation showed the different types of pool construction - concrete, both cast in place and pneumatically applied, and stainless steel panels covered with PVC lining and mounted to a concrete foundation and side walls. B. Morgenthaler reviewed briefly the various systems included in the design. J. Shin described various types of entries into a pool- "ramping in" or stairs. T. Hyer continued - noting that although we are facing unique economic situations, the initial concept ofthis pool has been to "design to the program". What is being submitted is designed to be an attractive facility, durable, form coupled with function - a pragmatic approach. He indicated that the next step, given the economics - significant escalation - would be to identify potential funding sources. F. Public Hearing Comment re a concrete pool - it's a sure thing. Question re depth of teaching pool - if it is too shallow the area is not useful for teaching, but can't be too deep for beginning swimmers. It was suggested that a ramp instead of stairs be used for pool entry. Jim Willis of the CG pool said that no one uses the ramp at the CG pool and that -0- depth is a waste of space - 1 112' - 3' is a good entry depth range. D. Home suggested that some sort of mechanism is needed for handicapped entry if there is no ramp - possibly there is funding for pool apparatus to assist wheelchair bound swimmers. He also commented on the spectator seating - he said you cannot have [potentially] 250 people on the deck. He suggested reworking the spectator seating. T. Hyer suggested the possibility of "lifting" the bleachers and questioned the need for 250 seats. It was suggested that the bleachers did not need to run to the end of the pool area - down past the deep/diving board end - visibility wouldn't be good and it was not a good use of space. J. Shin said there are various types of retractable bleachers - some with guards along the front row and the team would investigate. D. Home reiterated that spectators should not be on the deck. P. Branson of the Senior Center strongly emphasized the need for safety and accessibility. She also commented on the use of lifts - it is very difficult for one person to move a swimmer from a wheel chair onto a lift. Question re the savings gained by removing public bathrooms and family changing rooms. Mr. Hyer stated that the savings would not be significant. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\Minutes ARB 31 May 2006.doc Page 2 of8 Mayor Selby complimented Terry Hyer and his team on the design effort thus far. He encouraged the ARB to focus on the technicalities and to continue working on refining the numbers. He said that he is seeing $3.6M of "fuzzy" costs - wants to see more solid numbers so that the Assembly knows what is needed when investigating additional funding. Sue Jeffrey said that she would not like to see any of the windows removed [to cut cost]. P. Branson encouraged the group to not cut back, to go after the required funding and suggested the Rassmussen Foundation as a possible source. She noted that the Foundation would look at the voter approved Bond as a commitment by the community to this Project. A comment was made by one of the audience members that, as a taxpayer, they would prefer a concrete pool and did not want another "box". The Chair closed Public Hearing. He said that he would like to go back to the beginning of the Presentation and go through some of the technical aspects. He questioned the height of the ceiling - the response was that it is a State mandated spec - and he went onto state that he was not in favor of any other kind of pool except concrete. T. Hyer responded saying that the pool consultant prefers concrete, but being driven by budget concerns, the stainless steel pool presented an opportunity for cost savings. J. Johnston said that he was in favor of a concrete pool. He would like the design to stay based on the Program. He would like to see the cost figures fine tuned and then let the Assembly deal with the financing issues. R. Oswalt noted that he was uncomfortable with electrolysis and he thought if the PVC liner [over the stainless steel panels] was used we would be patching up holes in 4-5 years. G. Hacker was interested in knowing what kind of gutter system was available with a concrete pool. C. Jerling suggested a change in the configuration - placing spectators at a mezzanine level. J. Shin said that a mezzanine level had been considered, but with that arrangement there then would have to be two sets of stairs and an elevator [to satisfy code]. R. Oswalt questioned using a crown roof. J. Shin responded: the roof is designed with a gradual slope. This kind of a slope allows for energy efficiency and also is a safety feature. \ \dove\Departments\EF\Architectura1 Review Board\Minutes ARB 31 May 2006.doc Page 3 of8 S. Arndt entertained a motion for a cast in place concrete pool. B. Watkins made the motion and it was seconded by R. Oswalt. B. Morgenthaler said that he felt it should be concrete but not necessarily CIP - could be shot rocked. J. Johnston asked ifthe vote could be simply on a concrete pool and not more particularly specified at this point. There was a roll call vote on a concrete pool being recommended. The roll call vote was unammous. The Chair questioned the seIsmIC factor of the building - was the building being considered essential. K. Smith noted the different factors involved in selecting a seismic level - 1.25 [A-4] would be appropriate for this kind of building. 1.50 is used for buildings such as hospitals, fire departments, police departments. S. Arndt questioned gutter drain systems. J. Johnston said that a rollout gutter system is what is preferred for competitive swimmers - that the design in place - 5"high - less than typical for competitive swimmers - is a good compromise for both competitive and recreational swimmers. B. Watkins questioned the dimension [height] on the rollout gutter and asked if there was a gutter system made with a removable edge - his concern is that the pool be designed for all groups and not just for a select group. G. Hacker approved of a rollout gutter system. T. Hyer noted that a level gutter system allows a lot of water to get on the deck. A motion was made by R. Oswalt and seconded by B. Watkins to use a rollout gutter system, but with more details to follow [further research by design team]. There was a unanimous affirmative voice vote. S. Arndt questioned the wall assembly shown at the beginning of the Presentation. He felt it was too labor intensive and suggested foam panels. J. Shin said metal sandwiched foam wall systems tended to fail at certain points. T. Hyer spoke to the vulnerability of other systems. j. Shin said that pre engineered composite panels had been priced and the shipping costs were incredible. K. Smith said that the handling of those kinds of panels was a problem - damage was to be expected in shipping and handling so that necessitated ordering an extra number of panels to make sure there were enough to do the job. \ \dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\Minutes ARB 31 May 2006.doc Page 4 of 8 T. Hyer spoke to the thermal issue of other wall systems - other than the one designed. J. Shin added that an additional plus with the system designed was that plumbers and electricians could work simultaneously - while this system was being installed. S. Arndt said that he did not like cedar on the inside. J. Shin said that the wood added warmth and texture, that cedar is a common application and would not be dark because the pool will have a lot of light coming in. There is no maintenance for this material and a natural finish could be used - the wood would fade to a lighter color. T. Hyer noted that the team could look for other materials. He also noted that the cedar will add an acoustical baffle for the interior. R. Oswalt questioned the use of bleached cedar. J. Shin said that the cedar could be pretreated - stained grey. J. Johnston said he thought the cedar walls would become stained and that he was not sold on this material being a good long term solution. S. Arndt said that he would be interested in other options - something durable that would wear well and require low maintenance. B. Watkins questioned the heating duct system. Asked if the ducts could tie into a durable panel and cover the lower 4' of wall below the cedar. B. Morgenthaler didn't know of such a product - it might have to be architecturally fabricated. He noted that this was only the preliminary 35% schematic design phase - the next phase is where getting more into the details occurs. There was a 10 minute break. The Chair reconvened the meeting at 9:30 pm. S. Arndt questioned the hardiplank exterior. He said that at Northstar Elementary where this material has been used there were problems with paint peeling and the material losing its integrity. He would encourage other options. S. Arndt went on to talk about the list of reductions/changes that had been presented earlier - in an effort to reduce the cost - and that he did not want to see any reductions - they would change the whole proglallllllatic thrust of the Project. He wanted to stick with what we have [in the Program Summary]. Discussion followed with R. Oswalt agreeing with S. Arndt's position. J. Johnston agreed - did not want to reduce - actually maybe widen the building - rework the spectator area. He does not want spectators on the deck. Suggests shortening the bleacher arrangement - \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\Minutes ARB 31 May 2006.doc Page 5 of8 and the seating at the end of the building is not viable. He said that it is important to keep the spectators off the deck and design to allow the coaches to be able to move up and down both sides of the pool. S. Arndt questioned what was separating the lanes between the main part of the pool and the teaching pool. Response: stem wall. Perhaps a bridge could be added. R. Oswalt wants the building to be 10' wider - thought that a lot could be gained by that enlargement - a larger wall between the two pool areas, assist the spectator issue and allow more room in the entranceway. T. Hyer questioned how adding to the square footage ofthe building would fit into the Ed Specs. There followed discussion re placement of bleachers and shallow pool access and depth- T. Hyer to speak w/pool consultants on these issues. Discussion re filtration systems. J. Johnston suggested that the pressure system w/sand tanks, as is in the existing pool, be used. Discussion re water treatment. R. Oswalt suggested UV and saline. B. Morgenthaler said that the UV system would reduce chlorine by 80%. The electricity cost is unknown but he will check on that. J. Johnston would like to know the operating costs. The consensus of the Board was in favor of the UV system. R. Oswalt said he wanted a saline system installed in the existing pool and then moved to the new pool when constructed. B. Morgenthaler said he was in agreement with the saline system but would like to gather more information. Discussion re ventilation system. B. Morgenthaler explained the heating/ventilating system. J. Johnston asked if heat recovery was included in the system and B. Morgenthaler answered no - and that this was an issue he would like to take a hard look at. J. Johnston questioned the efficiency and reliability of the new building being tied into the boiler system at the high school. B. Morgenthaler affirmed the existing system. S. Arndt said he wanted to see a cost analysis between trying into the existing boiler system and putting a new boiler system in the new stand alone building. At 9:45 pm B. Morgenthaler and M. Langberg left the meeting to return to Anchorage. S. Arndt began a review ofthe proposed reductions offered in the presentation. \ \dove\Departments\EF\Architectura\ Review Board\Minutes ARB 3\ May 2006.doc Page 6 of 8 All of the reduction options were negated by the Chair w/agreement from the Members. The only exception had to do with parking lot costs and that information [from the Community Development Department] has not yet been received. S. Arndt said that he would like the team to run an operations budget - electricity, fuel, etc. T. Hyer said that he appreciated the challenge and suggested that the team keep going - to design drawings and the next level of cost estimate. S. Arndt said that he wanted updated costs and that he was still not happy with the site. J. Shin questioned if what was discussed and agreed to at this meeting be included in the next design schematics and cost estimates. S. Arndt responded yes. G. Hacker said that information regarding the increase in square footage and how it fits into the Ed Specs needs to be looked at. J. Johnston asked where the architects were in terms of their scope of work. T. Hyer noted that they had completed their scope with the presentation of the 35% schematic design and 35% cost estimate, but he was willing to continue. He said that it would cost between $5000-7000 to have another cost estimate prepared based on the changes from this meeting. G. Recommendation Skipped. H. Board Comments B. Watkins. None J. Johnston. Noted that although costs had been added, he felt the program had been improved and that it is important to continue to stick with the program. C. Jerling. He complimented the design team on their efforts and felt they had gone well beyond the 35% level. He urged the project forward. G. Hacker. He agreed with J. Johnston's comments. R. Oswalt. He agreed with J. Johnston's comments. S. Arndt. Said that we are going to live with this building for 50-60 years and we want to do it right or not do it at all. Emphasis needs to be on the program, longevity and suitability for all the community. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\Minutes ARB 31 May 2006.doc Page 7 of8 I. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 pm. Sharon Lea A III , Project Assistant KIB Engineering/Facilities Dept. 5~~~..A/?#- Scott Arndt, Chair Architectural/Engineering Review Board Cy placed in Pool File Date: ~ ~6 {/ Date: 2? - 1- ;2.00,6 \ \dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\Minutes ARB 31 May 2006.doc Page 8 of8