HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC1994-012 Letter To Charles Nickerson, City Manager of LR From Witsell Evans & Rasco 02/02/194_ WITsELL EVANS & RASCO PA
101 EAST CAPITOL AVENUE. SUITE 410
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
501-374.5300
FAX 501-374-5247
February 2; 1994
Mr. Charles Nickerson, City Manager
The City of Little Rock
Little Rock City Hall
500 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Ref: Kramer School
Dear Charles:
EVANS &
aASC0
ARCHITECTS / PLANNERS
CHARLES WITSEI I . JR., FAIA
DON EVANS, AIA, APA -
H. TERRY RASCO, FAIA
TOMMY JAMESON, AIA
Tommy Jameson and I visited Kramer School last week. I was amazed at
how much it has deteriorated since I was last in it just a few years ago. I
urge you to secure the chain link gates (front and back) to keep people out
of the building. As you may know, the front porch has collapsed, so if one
were to walk up the front steps in the dark, you would fall into the
basement. There are several areas inside where the floor has collapsed,
generally in the middle portion of the building. While the decision about
the building is being made, someone needs to keep the public out, because
it is definitely a hazard!
The structure of the first section of the building is deteriorating due to roof
leaks. Some temporary patches of the front roof are necessary to save that
part. This should have high priority.
As I understand your request, you have asked us to give an architectural
services proposal for a "Phase One Rehabilitation" of the building. Phase
One is to include the exterior and structure of the building, leaving the
interior as unfinished shell space. In this shell configuration, there will be
no mechanical, electrical or plumbing, and no interior finishes. We
recommend that the Phase One work include stairs, for basic code
compliance, and enough of a temporary electrical service to include a
minimal amount of temporary lighting and a fire alarm system.
In addition to the above, you asked that we look at the alternative of
demolishing the middle section and/or the rear section, leaving only the
front part of the building, which is the oldest.
We already have drawings of the existing configuration of the building
(although they do not reflect the recent rapid deterioration).
February 2, 1994
Page 2
Proposal:
A. Scope of Work
1. We will inspect the existing configuration as closely as we dare,
due to the dangerous configuration of parts of the building. We
will include a structural engineer in this inspection and will
provide, a written description of the observations.
2. Using the existing drawings as a point of beginning, we will
provide a Phase One preliminary plan of a generalized proposed
reuse of the building. We will interview you, or someone
designated by you, about ideas for proposed use or uses. This plan
could be used for marketing the building, but more immediately, it
will provide the basis for the estimate. Included will be notations of
demolition, structural rehabilitation or replacement, roofing work,
and exterior rehabilitation. An outline specification will be placed
directly on the drawings. The drawings will include site plan, floor
plans, primary elevations, and roof plan. These drawings will not
be full construction drawings, but preliminary drawings only, the
purpose of which is to be the basis for the cost estimate.
3. The Phase One drawings will have an alternative approach
wherein the middle and or rear sections are demolished rather than
rehabilitated.
4. The work will include a site plan which addresses the
limitations/possibilities of on -site parking.
5. Once the drawings described above are completed, we will work
with a cost estimator to generate a construction cost estimate for the
Phase One Scope of Work.
B. Proposed Team:
We propose the following team for this Phase One project:
1. Architectural: Witsell, Evans & Rasco; Charles Witsell, Jr. and
Tommy Jameson AIA
2. Structural: Engineering Consultants; Jim Brown, PE, Principal in
Charge
3. Cost Estimation: Michael Carringer, CPE
C. Proposed Cost of Services
1. We propose to carry out this work for all three building
sections for $15,000.00.
2. If you elect at the onset to save only the front section, the cost
of architectural services will be reduced. In that alternative,
we propose the same services, but on the smaller building,
for a total of $9,000.00.
February 2,1994
Page 3
We would prefer to perform this work on an hourly rate basis because we
are unsure .just what will be required_ . If you must have a fixed price,
however, we will comply.
We are prepared to begin this work immediately. an the other hand, if
-this this proposal does not describe the Scope of Services as you envisioned
them, please let us know and we will modify it accordingly.
Cordially,
Wit 11 Evans & Rasco, P. A.
�.f r
Charles Witsell, Jr., FAIA
CW/tg-