[Vision2020] Fw: RE Fire Station 3

[Jon Kimberling]

Nancy- what follows is the response I received from Greg Castellaw, the
project architect. Thanks for the question.

Jon Kimberling

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Castellaw" <gcastellaw@ckarchitects.com>
To: "'Jon Kimberling'" <n-k-ins@moscow.com>
Cc: "Greg McCracken (E-mail)" <gmccracken@ckarchitects.com>; "Randy Rice
(E-mail)" <rrice@ci.moscow.id.us>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 9:35 AM
Subject: RE: RE Fire Station 3


> Jon,
> Thanks for the opportunity to respond to the questions from Gary Bryan and
> Nancy Chaney. I will try to answer their questions...
>
> The redesign does not have a second story as a part of the design nor are
> there plans for a second story in the future. The roof that is currently
> designed is sloped and hipped to tie nicely into the adjacent residential
> neighborhood. The current design pretty much builds out to most of the
> property line set backs.
>
> The building does have capacity built in for future expansion. There is
> room for expansion of two additional resident fire fighters if deemed
> necessary in the future. Currently two of the apparatus bays are to be
> leased to the Rural Fire Department. As the city grows to the north and
> around Station #3, the city needs at this location would expand and the
> rural needs would reduce at this location thus allowing the city
additional
> expansion within the existing facility as the rural department locates
> itself closer to its service area. The current set up provides the best of
> both worlds.
>
> Typically, rather than adding to a fire station the size of Station #3, a
> new station would be built in the future at a different location as the
> city grows that would provide better response times to areas of need. This
> is a very important concept in fire station design to keep in mind that is
> different from other types of building design. This fire station is sited
> to serve a specific and select portion of the city needing coverage
> (including future expansion anticipated in this portion of the city).
>
> My recollection of the MHS Annex was that it was originally designed for a
> second story addition during the original construction. At one time I had
> heard that bearing capacity of the soil  or seismic code changes since the
> original construction (30 - 40 years ago) was the reason a second story
> addition could not be added to the building. The building code does change
> every three years and often affects the structural design of seismic
> requirements.
>
> It should be mentioned that all of the questions that were raised in this
> e-mail have been discussed at one time or another during the project
design
> (except for the MHS Annex and Hamilton Lowe thoughts) . We have had a
broad
> based design committee for this project that has helped to make sure we
are
> on top of issues such as these. I hope that my response is helpful in
> answering the questions that were brought up.
> Thanks, Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Kimberling [SMTP:n-k-ins@moscow.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 8:21 AM
> To: Greg McCracken; Greg Castellaw
> Subject: Fw: RE Fire Station 3
>
> Hi Greg's- could I trouble either of you to provide me a response to this
> question?
>
> Sorry I couldn't attend the meeting.
>
> Jon
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Kimberling" <n-k-ins@moscow.com>
> To: <vos@moscow.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 9:34 AM
> Subject: Re: RE Fire Station 3
>
>
> > Nancy- I will check into this next week and get back to you.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary Bryan & Nancy Chaney" <vos@moscow.com>
> > To: "'Jon Kimberling'" <jon@n-k-ins.com>
> > Cc: <london@moscow.com>
> > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 10:29 PM
> > Subject: RE Fire Station 3
> >
> >
> > > Jon-
> > >
> > > After reading your reply to Bill London's Vision 2020 posting, I feel
> > > compelled to ask whether the revised design will accommodate a second
> > story
> > > (or other expansion) on the fire station if that ever becomes
> necessary.
> > > The Moscow High School Annex is an example of a design that didn't
work
> > > well, ostensibly for lack of forethought. I fear that retrofitting the
> > > Hamilton-Lowe Aquatic Center with a roof risks being a more costly and
> > less
> > > satisfactory than having "found" the resources to do it initially.
> > >
> > > I will appreciate your feedback on the fire station proposal.
> > >
> > > Nancy Chaney
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > G.Bryan & N.Chaney
> > > Veterinary Ophthalmic Specialties / VOS*
> > > P.O. Box 8572, Moscow, ID 83843 USA
> > > (208) 882-9350  Fax (208) 882-7155
> > > *Visit our web site at www.vetospec.com
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>