Loading...
07/31/2007 Regular Meeting Minutes Architectural/Engineering Review Board Me 31 July 2007 - 5:30 pm KIB Conference Room A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 5:37 pm B. Roll Call ARB Members present were Scott Arndt, Jerrol Friend, Gregg Hacker, Charlie Jerling, Jay Johnston, Reed Oswalt and Brent Watkins. Representing the Hospital were Brenda Friend and Capt. Ng. Jae Shin from ECI/Hyer, Terry Hyer telephonically. Also present were Ian Fulp, Chris Lynch, Jim Willis and Joe Balor. Representing the KIB Engineering and Facilities Department were Woody Koning, Ken Smith and Sharon Lea Adinolfi. C. Approval of Agenda There was a motion made and seconded to approve the Agenda with a unanimous affirmative voice vote D. Continued Review of 95% Drawings/Specs CHC Project K. Smith read an updated letter from Curt Field of Prochaska regarding the Foundation section of the Drawings. Cyattached. He also noted that changes to drawings for Snow Jax had been sent and were available. Included in the Board Members' package were Curt Field's responses to questions raised by the ARB during the 30 July 2007 meeting. S. Arndt said he wanted to wait for the Foundation details before approving the 95%. K. Smith he thought the Board could approve [the 95%] based on written notice that the Architect would do what was being requested by the Board. Jay felt the 95% could be approved with the condition that there may be addendums - could approve and still be able to flag items - why stop the approval for a couple of issues? R. Oswalt said he would like to see the Drawings completed before giving approval and he asked K. Smith if it would take long to get the completed drawings. K. Smith responded saying it should be only a short time. J. Friend asked if it would be OK to go out to bid, noting at approval of95% there was still some work to be done. K. Smith said they [Prochaska] would be making the changes and would put out a bid set for review by ElF and get it advertised, indicating bid documents would be available on a certain date. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070731 Minutes.doc Page 1 of7 J. Friend suggested moving ahead, noting there were only a couple of issues and addendums weren't that big a deal. S. Arndt expressed his concern about certain things not being addressed by this point. The issue regarding undisturbed fill had been questioned twice and was still not corrected. Brand name of wall next to Rezanoff had not been researched so that a good match could be made. However, as Chair, he would entertain a motion for approval. Jay moved to approve 95% Pool Drawings with the caveat that the final verbiage on the Foundation be reviewed before going out to bid. J. Friend seconded the motion. Discussion: Jay asked Capt. Ng about the amount of pressure there was to move. Capt. Ng said the biggest concern was that construction get started. He said he had spoken with Prochaska regarding responding to the Foundation questions and was certain that they would provide what was requested. He said he had no concern about the deliverables. W. Koning suggested moving forward with the approval of95%. He said the process did not need to be slowed down and, assuming all concerns were not met in the bid set, addendums could be done. S. Arndt questioned if the motion was that the bid set would not go out until ARB reviewed. W. Koning said he was suggesting getting the bid set ready to go, advertising and noting bid sets would be available on a particular date. R. Oswalt commented on the foundation not having been designed first. J. Friend said that architects now actually start at the top [ofa building in order] to figure loads- so the foundation is often the last thing to be designed. B. Watkins felt it would not hurt to get the bid sets out - noting there may be changes coming. W. Koning questioned the role as to who determines when something goes out to bid. The ARB will report to the Assembly the 95% approval was made. The Assembly does not need to act for a bid to go out. He continued saying he felt it was a staff function. However, clean drawings are necessary and would not want something to go out that did not meet with the ARB's approval. He suggested directing Prochaska to keep working to develop a bid set. The revised work could t......... ...........__...._:...........4-..........J ......_ +t........ _.......... C"t......_......n.......:.....+ .....:+...... +t......+ ................1\.6......_L......_..... ................1..1 _...........:........... +1-...... .t:'..........._...1....+.:......_ U~ "'UllllllUlll"'al~U Ull Ul~ ll~W ~llal~rUllH Ml~ - Ulal way ~V.l~lllU~l::> "'UU~U l~Vl~W Ul~ lUUlluaUUll changes, roofing changes, etc. The bid package could be advertised on Monday - say Thursday the bid sets would be available, and that way the contractors were being alerted. S. Arndt said he would support Jay's motion but would not approve if there were no conditions. Jay said the missing information could be available shortly and using SharePoint would allow for review - did not think time was going to be lost. \ \dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070731 Minutes.doc Page 2 of? J. Friend said that once the ARB approves the 95% it then it becomes staffs job to get the bid out. Question called. Roll call vote. Unanimous affirmative vote. E. Review 95% Drawings/Specs Pool K Smith expressed his appreciation for the time and effort the Board puts forth. He turned the meeting over to Jae Shin who got Terry Hyer on the teleconference line. J. Shin began the presentation by saying he would be highlighting the differences [in the drawings] between Design Development and the 95% drawings, noting they were continuing to change. Site: - Redoing driveway at Mill Bay Road - this will be additive alternate 1 - there will be extensive demo - have kept the same opening but have swung the road wider minimizing curb cut. One of the other changes - storm drain was connected to one location and H. Weston requested connection at intersection of Upper and Lower Mill Bay Roads- issue was that the original manhole area isn't actually connected to anything. He said the City had limited as-built info. W. Koning questioned if the best approach was closest. J. Shin- Yes. C. Lynch asked if the retaining wall was going to be rebuilt. J. Shin - No. Jay asked if the location was in the middle of Mill Bay. J. Shin- Yes. G. Hacker - C3.1lower section driveway near Maintenance Shop - storm drain - is that supposed to be running parallel to the new sewer - don't know if there's a storm drain in there - it flares 45 across the road. S. Arndt said more research needed to be done and confirmed. J. Shin said they had worked from an electronic survey from Kill. S. Arndt said the survey was incorrect. Jay asked why it couldn't come off the parking lot instead of going across Mill Bay. J. Shin to check. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070731 Minutes.doc Page 3 of7 S. Arndt refers to C2.1 - saying that the contractors will need to know where the manholes are and the underground utilities. J. Shin and G. Hacker to check the area. G. Hacker suggested an upgrade and getting away from the Mill Bay connection. J. Shin continued review of the Site indicating islands that have been taken away - wheel stops went away and planters went away. Gates put in for pedestrians and for equipment. S. Arndt questioned glycol line - 4 or 6 and it shows a 2 1/2" cover - 3" is standard. Tuck questioned size of pipe. S. Arndt requested reconsideration of the depth and the amount of foam over the pipe. S. Arndt refers to area on C4.l - believes the estimate is under what it will take to do what is being proposed - and is not necessary. He said that regular shot rock - 1 to 1 would work. C. Lynch noted that shot rock is cleaner and suggested asking DOWL about the angle - want to make sure about what you're getting. S. Arndt refers to handicapped parking - could they be moved to another area where snow removal equipment would cause less damage? J. Shin said current location has a bit of a canopy so from a wheelchair you can get immediately to a covered area- the curb could be capped [to prevent equipment damage] - or if there's a directive to move the handicapped spaces that could be done. J. Friend said the spaces would have to meet ADA requirements. J. Shin continued noting the replacement of gabion - as an additive alternate - additional asphalt paving to Maintenance Shop. S. Arndt noted the steps going into the loading dock - 3.1 - there's an elevation difference - could do a gradual slope - that would allow for additional parking. He asked Jae and Gregg to take a look at that area - would eliminate some of the concrete work. G. Hacker referred to the existing fire protection details - same sheet. He suggested adding a fire hydrant. He suggested Jae speak with the Fire Chief. S. Arndt agreed and added that with a new water line going in it would be much cheaper to do it now rather than later. There was discussion regarding tying the new asphalt into the KMS playground and location of a transformer. J. Shin to have further discussion with KEA. Tuck noted that there must be storage for sand. G. Hacker to walk the area with Jae tomorrow - back of maintenance shop is a "choke point". \ \dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070731 Minutes.doc Page 4 of7 J. Shin mentioned a quoted price from KEA to relocate a pole. S. Arndt and J. Friend both felt the cost was high. G. Hacker asked about the rolling security gate. J. Shin said the fence had been reduced to chain link - and had been moved a couple of feet. C. Lynch asked if there would be any conflict with the Armory and their construction project. W. Koning said he knew there had been a discussion regarding sharing some paving. J. Shin said that it is now crucial to know what the NG foot print is, information re utilities. Jay asked the status of the lease and the Armory property. W. Koning said the KID attomey was reviewing the lease, also DNR and the Department of Military Affairs. The parties are "inching" toward resolution - it is not in hand, but no one is opposed. Jay asked if there was any likelihood there would be an impact. W. Koning said based on information from Bud [Cassidy] there would be no impact. J. Shin moved to Sheet Ll.O - reduced landscape island and the fencing had been changed. S. Arndt directed attention to the landscaping at the bottom of the sheet and at the right side- needs to be removed along with the topsoil on the right, citing expense and maintainability. He suggested using shot rock as an option. J. Shin said that using the topsoil and the landscaping not only would look nice, but would allow for stability of the slope. However, anticipating this concern, the landscaping had been removed. S. Arndt referred to L2.0 - the 6x6 posts - said it was a labor intensive fence - vinyl coated chain link fence would be cheaper. Tuck said he was worried about the wood posts. S. Arndt said to go to 10' center and straight chain link fence. He continued, referring to the benches - do not want them embedded - said they need to be concrete and moveable to allow for snow removal - does not want to see anything embedded. S. Arndt - Ll.O - benches - total of 3 - on L2.0 shows fixed - thinks they need to be concrete ~~~ ~~,,~t.l~ -I'~_ n~~..' _~~~,,~1 ~n_~n~n ~~+ ~~t.~~~~~ auu uJ.vvauJ.~ IVl ;:)llVVV l\.illlVVQl 'pUlpVi:)v~ - UUl. ,""UIU\..;UU,""U. Jay questioned the ease of moving the benches with a forklift. J. Friend noted that options are limited if something happens to a fixed bench. S. Arndt said that perhaps the benches could be moved near the handicapped area - and then back into place in the summer. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070731 Minutes.doc Page 5 of7 J. Shin reviewed wood bench design which was spanned between columns - not embedded. S. Arndt said that bike racks also need to be moveable. Discussion regarding use of concrete - will not work in large areas where equipment passes over - perhaps use asphalt. C. Lynch noted that the aggregate in this area is soft and not durable. Suggested aggregate could be used in smaller areas and closer to the building - out of the way. She noted that sandbed pavers have held up and could be used in some places. She also mentioned colored concrete working well. J. Friend liked the idea of some color - and pattern - stamped concrete. J. Shin said he would look into these suggestions and noted there needs to be a balance between aesthetics, practicality and functionality. J. Shin, referring to "embedded" fixtures said that the trash receptacles would be made replaceable and suggested bolting them to columns. J. Shin moved to the floorplan noting some changes in window placement. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the design of the shallow pool area. Issues discussed - design to be reworked for review. Switchback ramp for wheelchair use Toddler area to be enlarged Depth at one end reduced from 4' to 3 1/2' Entry steps possibly at locker room entry - although could cause congestion Seat wall at water line Ramp instead of stairs Rails/grated ramp It was noted that if there is change in the configuration of this area, it could be handled through addendum. Break J. Shin continued: Additional showers have been added - private shower to stay. Case work has been added in admin area - added the greeting window and the P A system will be located in there. There was discussion re the acoustics and location of speakers. Jay to review. J. Shin reviewed floor coverings - shows shoe racks. C. Lynch asked if there was interest in looking at other tiles as an additive alternate. Speaking about the shower area where there can be a maintenance problem. She suggested this might be an area for some value engineering. \ \dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070731 Minutes.doc Page 6 of7 Tuck suggested using epoxy floors in the shower, locker rooms - and putting the regular tile in the natatorium - maybe an add alt. J. Shin continued showing the layout of the lockers - a combination of short, tall and open cubbies. S. Arndt suggested eliminating windows in men's locker rooms. The consensus ofthe Board was to keep the windows. The meeting was recessed at 8:57 pm to be reconvened at 5:30 pm 1 August 2007. \ \dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070731 Minutes.doc Page 7 of?