★ Report written by Dan Christenson an Arizona Licensed Architect This Report was temporarily on the FOS Community Web page under IMPOC titled: Activity Center Evaluation Task Team. However, this report was removed from the Fountain of the Sun community website by the FOSA board. That is unconscionable! As most of you on this task force do not know me I would like to tell you some of where my opinions are coming from. I have lived in Fountain of the Sun for 10 years and have a vested interest in preserving this as the place I chose to move to as well as making sure it is safe and updated but not burdening the homeowners here with unnecessary expenditures. I have been a licensed Architect for over 40 years and during that time I have done many projects both very large and very small. During that 40 plus years I have developed ideas that problems can be solved in many ways if explored. My thoughts have always been drawn to creative and cost saving designs that accomplish the task to be the most benefit for the client. With that being said I find the report reads like there is an agenda. I see this in the fact that the report seems to find every short coming in the building to make a negative report. I will not dispute the licensed design professionals competency or integrity. We all have our own personalities and biases and I have mine. They have every right to disagree with my analysis as mine is cost cutting. I am not suggesting that I would like to have contracts with Fountain of the Sun because that would be unethical and illegal. I am only on committees to advise and concerned that we get the best solution to the issues. My first issue with the report is that it states perceptions as facts. As example is P. 2B ADA Compliance. "The City of Mesa Prefers". The City of Mesa cannot Prefer anything, they can only enforce codes and ordinances. There are certain officials who would prefer that you do things the way they prefer but they can't force the public to do it the way they prefer. P.2c 2018 Building code adherence. The building as it is now was not built under the 2018 IBC and is not required to go back and adhere to 2018 standards. The phrase in the report "Any significant additions or alterations will require the building to be brought up to the 2018 building code" is true and should be kept in mind as the report is evaluated. It could potentially add millions of dollars to the project. P. 2 Paragraph 1. The statement that the roof "Does not allow" leads the reader to believe that the roof cannot be used as is but in the next statement it allows "that any new loads would require structural analysis" This does allow for a structural analysis of the roof and may allow for expansion. P. 2 D Functionality Does the building need to accommodate traveling shows that require higher ceilings and larger stages, high quality lighting and sound systems. Are we going to have Broadway type shows here? The lower sides of the main building are a compromise to being a multi-purpose building and not a dedicated theater. P3 Paragraph 1 "There is not an inexpensive way to increase the ceiling and height and overall volume of the building" that is true. The question then becomes is the existing building size and height adequate for Fountain of the Sun or do we need a larger grander building. P 3 paragraph 3 This paragraph is puzzling to me. I thought the ceiling height was adequate for the dances and performances we have here and I did not know that we were in need of extra classrooms. If we make classrooms from the current Activity then where do we hold shows and dances? Huge expense to build a new building. P 3 E Roof Condition This section seems to address mechanical problems rather than the overall roof condition. Structural Engineer Analysis The building is structurally sound. Structural Assessment: Item 2 Roof joist supported off of fascia board. In quickly looking I cannot find the IBC 2018 code section that does not permit this. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. However if it does exist then 2018 IBC sections 2308 and 2308.8.2 allow for engineering solutions for "non-described structural elements". Item #1 on the plans are not roof joists as defined. This roof overhang area needs to have a structural analysis performed before it is declared "considered structurally unstable". Basically I believe that with proper maintenance the building is structurally sound and should last about100 years. Mechanical and Electrical Analysis P ME3 Plumbing systems The existing waste, vent and plumbing are in good condition. P-ME4 Analysis The majority of the AC units are less the 5 years old. Two of the units are 11 years old. They still have some life left. There is definitely a big problem with the duct work on the roof. The transfer grill may have been the preferred design option at the time. The statement "building does not have space for the ductwork below the roof making any upgrades impossible." is too pessimistic. I believe that it would be difficult but not impossible. One solution would be that when these AC units need replaced to go to ductless units in these rooms like the Mitsubishi units. P-ME4 Statement at bottom of the page "None of the air conditioning units have been provided with the code required outside air." If I remember correctly this code requirement didn't come into effect until the 1980s. If this is a good idea on a 1970's building that was not built to the air infiltration standards (an air sealed building) we may have to look at this to see if it would be a good idea. P-ME5 At the top of the page it talks about the exhaust fans in the kitchen causing negative pressure. When I moved in to Fountain of the Sun the kitchen was operational and I don't remember any adverse problems. All kitchens that I have ever dealt with have what are called make up air units to compensate for the cooking exhaust fans. If there is not one in the kitchen, then the obvious fix is to put one in. P-ME5 As noted earlier the ductwork and condensate lines need a lot of work. Electrical systems The AC disconnect switches on the roof need work as the report. The missing labels and panel schedules as noted on the report. Hand written panel schedules are permitted as long as they are legible and permanent. Using electrical cords as permanent wiring is not only against any code ever, it is a safety issue and should be corrected. P-ME6 Top of the page ~ The building does not have to comply with 2017 NEC current code, but it would be a good idea to bring the roof mounted electrical up to current standards. P-ME6 Recommendations HVAC recommendations: The AC equipment is already larger than the original. If after careful engineering analysis on our specific building it is determined that an amount of outside air is needed perhaps the new larger AC unit will suffice. Perhaps an additional unit would work without having to replace all existing units. Electrical systems recommendations The electrical system is in generally good shape unless massive new loads are added into the system. Recommendations and cost estimates Replacing the entire AC system with 200% capacity is not supported by any data in this report. This unsupported recommendation triggers unnecessary massive structural and electrical upgrades. It could also trigger a host of unwanted costs such as a sprinkler system. While I appreciate the work and cost that went into this report, I believe that there are less expensive other options than listed in the report. The main question seems to be is the current size of the building sufficient to meet the reasonable expectations of the FOS community.
|