Citation
Greeley Community Recreation Center

Material Information

Title:
Greeley Community Recreation Center
Creator:
West, Susan
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of architecture)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
College of Architecture and Planning, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Architecture

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright Susan West. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
PREFACE
This thesis design project is the culmination of my college education at the University of Colorado. At the Graduate School of Architecture my thesis design offers an opportunity to utilize this knowledge in a project that can be carried beyond the design development stage into a complete and integrated solution.
Since the early 1900's, parks and recreation facilities have been recognized as a significant responsibility of municipal government in the United States. Every major city in the country operates a system of parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, zoos, museums, pools, golf courses, and similar facilities. The needs of various age groups are met by athletic, social, cultural and similar activities; today, well over a billion dollars are spent each year by cities, towns, and villages to support such programs.
It is widely accepted that park and recreation departments make an important contribution to helping cities become healthier and happier places in which to live. Greeley, Colorado is attempting to enrich the existing community services with the addition of new cultural and recreational facilities.
My goal is to design a community recreation facility to meet the needs of the City of Greeley.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND .......................................................... 1
Community Plan...................................................1
Community Attitude Survey ...................................... 2
Centennial Park..................................................4
Heath Junior High School........................................11
The Community Building ........................................ 17
Purpose of the Study............................................24
Parameters of the Problem.......................................24
Methodology.....................................................27
Site Plan Studies...............................................32
Alternative A...................................................34
Alternative E...................................................37
Financing.......................................................44
PROGRAMMING..........................................................47
. Community Recreation Center Program ........................... 50
Site Information................................................60
Cultural Arts Center............................................72
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................... 82
DESIGN SOLUTION .................................................... 83


-1-
BACKGROUND
Greeley, Colorado organized a committee of citizens to assess the community's cultural and recreational needs in 1977. A technical evaluation carried out in 1978 helped to establish the general size and function of these programs in relation to their appropriateness in the Greeley community. A subsequent committee report recommended the following:
- A performing arts auditorium seating 1200 to 1800
- Moving the library to a new location to allow expansion of public services in the City Administration Building
- A community theater seating 300 to 500
- Rejection of a major convention center complex
- Immediate relocation of the Senior Citizens Center from hazardous conditions in the Old School
- A new combination indoor pool/recreation center.
COMMUNITY PLAN
A Phase II technical study to further resolve issues and identify options was undertaken by Gage, Davis and Associates and Everett, Zeigel, Tumpes, and Hand, both of Boulder, Colorado.
This study consisted of four separate but integrated parts:
1. A community attitude survey of (-)5% of the Greeley population to determine attitudes about cultural and recreational facilities, funding preferences, further information needs, and the general attitude about Greeley.
2. An evaulation of three alternatives for development of a community recreation facility:
a. converting the existing Centennial Pool into a year-round facility;
b. developing an ancillary facility at Heath Junior High School to exploit multi-use of the existing junior high facilities, and;
c. a downtown facility on the City-owned land west of City Hall
which expands or replaces the present community building recreation center.


-2-
3. An evaluation of alternative combinations of the proposed facilities on the City-owned land, two blocks west of City Hall.
4. An investigation of financial implications of the development alternatives on the City-owned land and the funding alternatives which appear feasible, including the fiscal impact of these choices on both the City and a typical resident.
Through the public opinion survey, it was found that, overall, Greeley residents are proud of their community. 67% of the citizens are generally satisfied with the public services and facilities of Greeley. The areas that were thought to need improvement were street and sidewalk maintenance, recreational facilities, the Senior Citizens Center, and the bus service.
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE SURVEY
On the survey, the swimming and recreational facilities were described as follows:
"Two types of swimming and recreational facilities are being considered.
A. One is an indoor swimming pool with locker rooms.
B. The other is an indoor swimming pool and locker rooms with additional indoor recreational facilities such as handball and racquetball courts, a gymnasium and sauna."
While it appears reaction to Plan B (65% favorable) is more favorable than Plan A (60% favorable) in terms of need/desirabil ity, anticipated participation and anticipated frequency of use, the difference between the two proposed facilities are not statistically significant.
Reaction to Proposed Recreational Facilities
(A) (B)
Pool Pool With Extras
Needed or Desirable
Yes 60% 65%
No 38% 32%
Don't Know/No Response 2% 3%
Total 100% 100%
Would Participate
Yes 58% 64%
No 41% 35%
Don't Know/No Response 1% 1%
Total 100% Tool


-3-
The primary reasons for not feeling Plan A is needed/desirable is a feeling that there are already adequate existing swimming facilities in the Greeley area among the schools, other public pools, spas, and private clubs (65 mentions).
Second, given a choice of the two types of facilities explored, some would prefer the larger facilities with saunas and other extras (48 mentions).
The only major reason given for not feeling Plan B is needed/desirable is a feeling that there are already existing facilities available in the community for those activities (71 mentions).
If given a choice between one larger facility in a central location (like Plan B) or several small facilities (like Plan A) in outlying residential areas, there is a preference for the one larger central facility.
FUNDING ALTERNATIVES
Two funding alternatives - increased property tax and increase sales tax -were tested among respondents.
Comparing the two alternatives, the sales tax alternative is the only one with a majority preference (50% for increased sales tax vs. 37% for increased property tax).
COMMUNITY BUILDING AND RED BRICK SCHOOLHOUSE
A slight majority of respondents (53%) are in favor of keeping the present Community Building rather than tearing it down to make way for a new cultural or recreational facility.
Disposition of Community Building
Against tearing down Community Building 53%
For tearing down Community Building 30%
Don't know which building that is 10%
Don't know/No response 7%
Total 100%
However, respondents are evenly divided (44% for and 44% against) on the issue of restoring vs. replacing the old red brick school house.
Disposition of Old Red Brick Schoolhouse
Should be torn down and replaced 44%
Should be restored 44%
Don't know which building that is 6%
Don't know/No response 6%
Total T00f


-4-
Based on the findings of this survey, several recommendations were made.
The proposed community recreation facility was not the first issue on the agenda for cultural and recreational improvements for the City of Greeley.
It rated third in order of importance with a senior citizens center receiving highest priority and a cultural center receiving second priority. It was also recommended that, based on the current economic climate, the City might consider a phased approach to funding which would enable them to build the facilities over a number of years. This would lessen the financial burden on the taxpayers and increase the chances of taxpayer approval.
An evaluation of potential locations for a community recreation center in Greeley attempts to compare the possibilities and opportunities available at three sites:
1. Centennial Park, at 23rd Avenue and Reservoir Road, with the potential of year-round use of the existing 50 meter swimming pool.
2. Heath Junior High School, at 23rd Avenue and 16th Street, with the potential supplemental use of the existing gymnasium and playfields.
3. The Conmunity Building, at 10th Avenue and 7th Street, with the potential of improved and expanded use of the existing city recreation center.
Comparison of the sites has been based upon the two kinds of recreation centers proposed in the Community Attitudes Survey:
- A neighborhood center, providing an indoor swimming pool and locker room facilities
- A central recreation complex, offering a comprehensive program, and a broad range of recreation opportunities.
To allow an equal evaluation of each site, and provide for a common point of beginning, a program for the larger central facility was written, with the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation. The 32,571 square foot program, outlining space requirements for a pool, gymnasium, handball courts, crafts and meeting rooms, etc., is included in the section entitled Programming.
CENTENNIAL PARK
This site lends itself most advantageously to implementation as an indoor pool, providing year-round use of the existing 50 meter (164.4 feet) long pool, a popular summer recreation destination. As we concluded in the initial phase of this study, to be enclosed and unusable during nine months of the year makes it a greatly under-utilized resource.
Fifty meter swimming pools are a rarity in Colorado, and the construction of


i rif
*t.
i- > »-
~ u..
1 L I-

i
*• :
â–¡
C.
f
1
â–  :n'j
3 31
ililJ ii
it
i
•mrv-t-t nvirj

h; y 1* ! >f I'
feh -H ["I •; .
fi. i'!. II ( t- l!
I_. ',•1
ii. fi ■•i >
A . J l i <- i _lJ ‘j ii ^~r
i w!Mwa
‘■V
:r
11-:::.:. .:â– !
;l
i atar'Tj;
I l"3-TTtVV-: *
HOl Wl X I
i l....... J, ,
i.*y
IMIr
1 J 1 I!-I I
”■ Ii'j}'f • [IliliMlfiFt;
. JZ, o -7r«fce?5
4
-■ /) '’ r
t v\
iTiblS
N; -:'f
Ji •ft.
V'
. .0* . h •»«
an ii *»!/
*'■ } i *• r ‘ t '■
n • -3 > .
onS31S
!// 'fMfei'il
V-
..‘••2: ....22--2■ ■ •_ * . t• .. //• ' liiBll _ .. Milu 13*1.
•?fteMiJL2p
- 5.
i t
' J
i
C “lr
iM
/
/<
y>
w
i
if
lM;r -
â– 'â– ! '1:1"
' ’ . IK1 1 * P
*s 3:; i
1. f " ■.' • !. i • i.i
£ * . n-t i i ~ !•■
l: i i i i
i i ,i i
*!: 1 j i i.i ij
*; =1 Ii ■ i 'I* •* ' .* l >
\ ! j
J LtJ L .If- f:tl
M-y 11 l‘i *”*i m I ru
kl r H i lia.S : -
.1 i
• I
Q LIB LI:! I _J
’’ -I I- •! i •
t 'i &
m r
jLwJ [ » |j -« j [ » J '• « ! [■<*
...J dJ P...J L...Jl! I I!....
l-'Z-tfi- , â–  1 mi
i 1 lo 1 i •' rwi
- _ >â–  Tin
■ii t- ^r. ».*.. j-i • 'if b
1.* ..i 1: ,fl %

• iw, ■ • i’. t.p i
■ : --H •*•■
I* -
:Mtj e^tj r... i l'-^ji;- i-•"id c {•! l«~l L* Z
11
;~3 e".:j i:i c! rj
s X>jl. I
â– - W" f
...
M-rr-j .»•«!»={ li
_jL..l! -g
. --sv-i-
.3 â–¡ t.;
i r
“ •!
//
I i 1 !
•i [ 1 !
1 I
XOM ItIHini
• r'MWTTfl rwrssirru:
.... lav*
L ?'-1c
•rrkE:irnnn3 ft.EsiEEJri.-
l -- i.n-
H .,■ 1 i' » f-E,: Bj Z !
1 f '1 •* •I i • -i » - 1 lr-;. . 'rPT- . v
:->i i « i : « •i i l 211.: : * i *•. ■■ •
•i i- kri ,r . j W ■ ' ]
W,M ir aa"*".' ntf 1 •i; i 2
3 li!•.!•;] < I i.'if.'l
-• is r
Fvii'ifj ‘ " ' fi
[-....
r ' & •!
42:
a:it
•, m3
lE . itffHllHiElife! ® |&
|CIT«EI3 EiiL'ltl EmUIPJ
f .4 i .
i: '“M -
J1 l-«MI
c:ntra Errmia l
a is;
3 Ltt!
ii i nk?] L.~.. s m» H E’ii
J*3' Jt
j Xl0rc« NOSiOtW r • s. •
K-/ ...............:J"'::


Li l|:J LJLJ LU1.J LJLJ UU LiU LJLJ f .1 . I LJLJ LiJU LJi_d MlllliiliO KiumiiiJit r.lr:,/iliLr:fiiiila1dii^L^’t,li.iL,iiiii:ii;,fli fflilTiJtl 1‘hiUilllfl niUililU UUJILUJJ
>*JAV m§ I I t tTULkW %i 0
-
! HTI
fflfflE
[1 CD a nn Ids! tit
s*-ii ,h i *LlLr \\ Ijln ' â–  c .-â– ] z~~ ft _ -f

r:
W!
^: 1; '!>"â– 

â–  l.
5
. iliL_
V
w,*
ifl
>nwf
«r**f
|pm
.#?
.v-r?
131
—i K»«-
sr.i
MMM
GMS«
q pH bib
i]J EBU DOT]

rim
1BU
o'I nil*
iii i .

.Hn
imnF , iW.ua,
*• y,y
j’-rmna
> r><» ihm<
7 „-------------
l
.~nrnr‘i>rFT2 lit
T iM"
a Li !' Lr
FI j ri i
• i jJ*
I
i ’.'t cIBMBI I- MiU^
if- lA^iiihri(10^
i-i
5 h ir4;l?i-HrVT\\'Ll! ; ffr
:c: e^semTOT licjia
it
hii
ft
r
ii

L (£!' ^'» "0.0
.ISi rC-TV: ”
.TFT |“
rll i ' H

t!
Ilw •••••I* |l»k
'•■' r~l; .
u!«l
,'*.1
r<, .‘.Hi-
! t * if; Pii r
f.1
ez/v ; 11 ? U—J \ /•[•/* vf'*;


-7-
such a larger pool becomes even more difficult and unattainable in an inflationary period. Our program at other sites is not so liberal, allowing only for the inclusion of a 25 yard pool, the current standard in recreational planning.
The construction of the addition to the Weld County Library, and the existence of playfields, a fire station, a boy scout clubhouse, and adequate parking, discourages further building at Centennial Park, which would eliminate valuable, usable open space. Rather, our studies have focused upon covering the existing pool with an inflatable dome which can be removed in the summer.
Such an enclosure of Centennial Pool is illustrated in the following sketches and elevations. Here, the structure would enclose 150 ft. x 195 ft.; 29,250 square feet, and cost approximately $160,000 (fabric, mechanical and electric systems, etc. for the enclosure only, 1979). Other costs would include site preparation, and winterization and upgrading of the existing locker rooms.
A 13-year life cycle would require replacement of the fabric only, for approximately $95,000 at current costs.
SUMMARY
The value to the community of Centennial Pool, because of its size (50 meters) would be greatly increased by making year-round use possible. A permanent structure, however, is extremely expensive and will likely reduce the popularity of the pool for summer use--its peak period. The site offers the potential of expansion of the pool, even to the point of a major recreation complex, but is perhaps more valuable at present as open space recreation which should be preserved by reserving the area for less intensive development.
More intensive use of the pool alone would not greatly impact the site and other facilities located there. Air-inflated structure, while not inexpensive, is much less expensive (short and long term) than a permanent structure and being removable enables continued summer outdoor pool use. Such an approach would also provide a high capacity facility to meet non-summer demands. (For example, a central bulkhead would provide two 25 meter pools for separate school or community groups.) While its location for school use is a bit further from several schools than the Heath Jr. High site, almost any site will require some transportation modes to meet constraints of class periods in inclement weather.
RECOMMENDATION
Detailed investigation of the pool structure for soundness, followed by design development of an expansion of the locker facilities and seasonal covering of the pool (such as by an air inflation system) as a satellite year-round pool for joint use by the public and school system.


V
l
| Frp vp
LCr*rp^ 9x>*' 5*-fU4fi.
Af>t>r
—.-,e ]€f
!Q
: :>. : ---syj-^t.-^1!!
\i
TR-
(E'd/xc-Ht pence. -
*• {_=} t*^o_
T£* ptcrvr^HP
~l/~
WHF>* I-----I I-.
iv irt ir.«r. j ; ^ \
______________________
wtLO £&j'-'~y PL«^.CUF^p-y
I
, . . ' : "T-vi
• -A NVf!\" x V\V\V71
r i

I
00
I



^lA'
i i
i * —
- *?a'-o
p^p.rnanrra£^r-
•gcfSCBMaaoBB "r—. nrnmT’‘,3r?»vw?»irTrHr-wrwii »e *runsa
ett,Zeigsl, Tumpes & Hand
; Planners A Professoral Corporation
'-otrwric p2o-'fe
:£Nrg'-iH!AC

swcmfi’Mkraananr^aaft^HEPwervaen
cvr-p- p-rF^-p


'StflilRlS&D
1 &oflsrwiei'©
cm \t-ir>T}


-11-
HEATH JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
The existing facilities at Heath, including the gymnasium, tennis courts, track, baseball field, and outdoor basketball courts, are available for public use now. The floor plan of the school is adaptable to after-hours use: Hallway barriers can confine public access to the existing gymnasium area in the northeast corner of the building.
A new recreation center can be constructed adjacent to the existing gym, as the following studies indicate, with some site modifications. An existing metal classroom building must be relocated, as will the exterior basketball courts. Parking must be added. These requirements are not so debatable, however, as is the additional public intrusion upon the site.
Since the Heath facilities would only be available for public use after school hours for nine months of the year, or more, a new center on the site can only serve to disturb the junior high program. Traffic and parking requirements will increase. Playfield access will have to be scheduled and controlled to a greater extent. Existing facilities, as mentioned above, must be relocated, or removed, and open space and privacy will be lost. Although, with a new center, two gymnasiums would be available, the scheduling problems required in order to not disturb the school schedule make the relationship and adjacency of the two buildings somewhat meaningless. Essentially, the Heath facilities can be used by the public with, or without, the addition of a new recreation center on the site and are probably more controllable without it.
A new center, in turn, benefits little from a location on the junior high grounds. Playfields are an added advantage and probably not affordable in new community recreation center programming and construction. Their use, however, can go on without adjacent indoor public recreation. The existing gym is adaptable to joint use but, ideally, the junior high locker rooms would not be. Maintenance, access, storage, and locker availability are complicated by public use. Such facilities would best be located in a public building controlled by the recreation department.
A new swimming pool at this location, preferably enclosed, would be a very appropriate answer to the neighborhood recreation need, supporting the existing facilities at Heath and supplementing the athletic program at nearby Greeley Central High School.
SUMMARY
The existing Heath Jr. High building, and its site, would permit development of a new 25 yard indoor pool which, with the existing gym facilities, could be isolated to function as a community recreation center. However, functional scheduling problems do, and will, exist to effectively preclude daytime (and


f\ • II • I l : ll
f I
I:. I! J L IU LIU LIU L.JLJ L‘J J*l -.JL- II • ll JuLd MLiii . i, r.;--n/.i:i.i«ito;i.ji!'mimti
jnmur *r i I * r>
I]00
â–  - *' tiiiiiLiiu mut*
Jrwtlw
LUJiltli.iu
tarn
mmi
9; ii. 1 1! • - ‘ ~ n ’F
! * ” « LI:. . \
.-•i • •; i •
ll - II
t
ILw
MiMna
M (Ml EDI
[M afla ffll BE EDiriitMi


^4
]
aa b

! '
Mil
t
I. I
*; i'p ;
L
in n
• t <
fcUTJ
r
I L
Li

-rr
,'nx

mm Eli mmw
*jj*j iranira miiinrr r.4-^
EiSf/J-Elii
| fl
Ur ^
ffl!
•I
marjnik

•LTJ Eiix^ifelid^
rp
/ »' »<« lltiui
^[EilH EfiCH
IIM

tops*
L
ii ft

2 *
inp im

.1-1
â–¡mp
â– n+f
i
— —pi r*"
»■»

»•
-t—
Tt^f—- i ■ ** tT‘»*7V
— -
/X-
> •>
: ■ • h ■ • *tl« . Mj
I I.K.IH U*»
r v
518
i‘
J
rnr«l i-rl.ni //
ggggnxKn-
lx
i
« u
•W
L'l [i|
L,li
i AM
l ' ; 1 It! f'li
i.;k
#d r:' piw l .
- • n u"iv"r1 "■j"'* rni'- A'\': ■ I f •.?*. > - -i ' .*\\ l>» I . L Ml -/.'-l. v ■ [*




n t
r




r


r


-17-
much nighttime) community use during the school year. Public use of Heath can and should be increased--but adding a new pool will not adequately meet needs for at least one full-service recreation center, available for day and night community use. A pool built at Heath would primarily serve school needs, which are important, but with only marginally greater convenience to the potentially major users (Greeley Central High, Greeley West High).
RECOMMENDATION
Defer building a pool at Heath, increase community use of school facilities focussing primarily on the existing gym facilities and outdoor playfields.
THE COMMUNITY BUILDING
The existing green-roofed quonset Community Building lacks even basic recreation program requirements, outside of an adequate basketball court.
Locker room facilities are not even minimal, and, as indicated in the existing plan, little else but meeting rooms is available. There is an adequate kitchen and much fixed seating. The seating, however, is not a community need and generally remains unused. A major remodeling and addition is required, therefore, to bring the building to a useable, programmable state and studies indicating some of those possibilities are included herein.
The building shell encloses much volume, in a somewhat column-free interior. Thus, some major interior remodeling might be accomplished with little difficulty, such as the addition of handbal1/racquetbal1 courts, and remodeling of the stage area into a locker/exercise room complex. An addition providing an indoor pool would do much to increase the recreation opportunities at this center.
The conceptual drawings included herein were accomplished when it appeared that the old school to the west would be removed. Thus, they do not respect the school 's location, nor do they meet required zoning setbacks and separations. Nevertheless, they serve to illustrate the possibilities of adding to and upgrading the Community Building. Similar additions can occur at the north end, but major expansion in that direction will require vacation of 7th Street.
All such modifications must ultimately speak to the image that the building creates for the City of Greeley. Currently, to say the least, it is not a source of civic pride. While economic factors might initially indicate that salvaging and remodeling such an apparently sound structure would be advisable, the simplicity of the structure, lack of major past investment, and lack of nearly any existing needed civic space within might similarly support demolition and replacement. A more efficiently designed center would provide more recreation opportunities for more people, in a setting that would inspire pride in the City of Greeley.


-.1Lltd UJ UU UU UU UU Lid LdU Ldld ULd Mill IMiilljflldl
**)*» *» i i 7f ______
*r,f fliilililifl LlLltilll 01^
ini iiiimii.iii
luVN


7H\ St


C-,
I
ro
0
1
-i'






-23-
Comparative costs of a remodeled community building and a new downtown recreation center are listed below. The difference, at this stage of planning, is little enough to be considered comparable. Initial construction costs would be similar. However, the larger, more inefficient, remodeled Community Building would require greater maintenance and provide some unneeded space.
Remodeled Community Recreation Center
$2,366,750.00
Major Remodel Community Building - 11,000 s.f. 0 $50.00/s.f. Minor Remodel Community Building - 13,500 s.f. @ $30.00/s.f. New Construction - covered pool area (16,000 s.f. 0 $65.00/s.f-)
Parking (100 cars @ $550.00/car)
Landscaping and Irrigation - 21,750 s.f. 0 $3.00/s.f. Professional Fees (@ 10%)
Allowance for Furnishings (lump sum)
550.000. 00
405.000. 00
1,040,000.00
55.000. 00 65,250.00
211,500.00
40.000. 00
New Community Recreation Center
$2,517,600.00
Community Recreation Building with indoor pool (32,500 s.f. 0 $65.00/s.f.)
Parking (100 cars @ $550.00/car)
Landscaping and Irrigation - 21,750 s.f. 0 $3.00/s.f. Professional Fees (@ 9%)
Allowance for Furnishings (lump sum)
Demolish Existing Community Building
2,112,500.00
55.000. 00
65.000. 00 200,750.00
40.000. 00 44,100.00
SUMMARY
The existing Community Building is heavily, but not effectively, used due to the design of the interior, as Greeley's primary recreation center. Remodeling is needed, and possibly as shown by the design studies to improve its useability, but the largely unused fixed seating still remains as an obstacle to efficient use of the enclosed space. Preserving the Old School further restricts the flexibility of any potential remodeling and additions to the Community Building.
What was at first presumed out of the question (costwide)--replacing the Community Building--upon closer investigation (with admittedly gross cost estimates), it appears to be only slightly more expensive to replace rather than to remodel. In fact, within the accuracy of the estimates, the options appear to be roughly equivalent, largely due to the costs associated with extensive major renovation required and the retrofitting a pool facility to the Community Building.
RECOMMENDATION
Since the downtown site is desirable for a central recreation facility, and


-24-
the alternatives of renovation vs. replacement are approximately comparable, the recommended course of action will be determined by other site-related factors such as efficiency of use and preservation of the Old School.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the Task III study is to give consideration to the development of a two-block area of City-owned land immediately west of the civic complex. Lacking a commitment at present as to the use of this site, the City of Greeley retained the Consultants to undertake site planning studies of sufficient detail to make a recommendation regarding appropriate future use.
The study has been exploratory in nature and has concentrated on accomodating facilities proposed and accepted as a result of a study conducted in 1978 (An Evaluation of Potential Municipal Projects - Greeley, Colorado, July 1978). While these proposed facilities are primarily cultural and recreational in nature, other potential uses such as a new library or new public service offices have also been considered.
PARAMETERS OF THE PROBLEM
THE SITE
Site Size: The site represents a two-block area to the west of the civic complex between 6th Street and 8th Street. The southern block is 2.3 acres and the northern block is 3.7 acres in size. The right-of-way occupied by 7th Street between the blocks is .9 acre, making the maximum land available for development, including the 7th Street right-of-way, slightly less than 7 acres.
Adjacent Uses: The site is located at the interface between the commercial/ public area of the downtown core and the residential areas that surround it. Because of the unique characteristics of its location, planning for the development of the site is a critical factor that should attempt to respond to a diverse set of surrounding influences. The eastern edge of the site is bounded by the existing city offices complex and by the two-block park adjacent to the downtown area. An obvious opportunity exists to utilize the park area as a setting for one of the major public buildings being considered for the site.
The northern and western edges of the site are bounded by areas that are primarily residential in use and are expected to remain residential in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Uses along the southern edge of the site are a mixture of quasi-public, residential and commercial service uses. This area is expected to slowly redevelop into commercial service uses that support the nearby governmental centers and the central business district.
Streets: Present traffic volumes on all streets around the site except 11th Avenue are significantly below capacity and present no limitations to development. Traffic volumes on 11th Avenue, while still well below capacity, are significantly higher than other streets in the area due mainly to its


I
rv>
CJ~l
i
TASK III
SITE PLANNING STUDIES
GREELEY, COLORADO


-26-
designation as a north-south arterial that traverses almost the entire city.
A preliminary analysis by Transportation Development Associates, a Boulder-based transportation consultant, indicates that 7th Street can be closed through the site without significantly affecting circulation patterns in the vicinity. This assessment was made before the present plan for the central business district was developed by Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. of El Segundo, California. That plan calls for closing 8th Street between 7th and 8th Avenue.
While it is assumed at this writing that both 7th and 8th Streets could be closed and 6th Street could still serve as an east-west bypass around the central business district as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, the City should verify future traffic conditions before actually closing any streets.
Existing Buildings: The northern block of the site is presently occupied by several dozen single-family houses. All of these structures are vacant and a number represent potentially historic examples of Greeley's past. As of this writing, it is our understanding that these houses will be sold and moved to other sites. The southern block of the two-block site is occupied by two buildings of major scale--the Community Building and the existing Greeley School.
The Community Building is a large vaulted structure containing a basketball court, stage and fixed seating, several meeting rooms and a complete kitchen. While the building is structurally sound, it is only an average facility for recreation in terms of size and versatility. There are no shower and locker facilities, and the fixed seating and stage area are of limited useability.
The Community Building is heavily utilized for the City's recreation programs in spite of its limitations.
The Greeley School building is an historic structure that until recently housed the Senior Citizens Center and a number of the City's recreation programs. The building is presently vacant, owing to non-conformance with existing life/ safety codes. Preliminary structural and mechanical investigations have been conducted. The eastern portion of the building was built in 1895 and the entire building has been recommended for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Buildings. At the present time the City of Greeley does not have an historic preservation ordinance. Any re-use of this building will require extensive restoration costs which include costs involved for exterior rehabilitation of walls and cornices, new insulated windows, a new roof on the eastern wing, and complete replacement of mechanical and electrical systems. Additional costs as a result of requirements unique to a new use will also be required.
THE USES
A Phase I study for the Mayor's Ad Hoc Committee for Recreational and Cultural Facilities made a technical evaluation of cultural and recreational needs appropriate for Greeley and established general program requirements. Based upon the results of this study, a number of public uses were identified by the


-27-
Committee as appropriate for consideration on this subject site. These uses are:
1. Adequate facilities for Senior Citizens (Senior Citizen Center)
2. A recreation center with indoor pool (Community Recreation Center)
3. A community theatre seating 300 to 500 (Cultural Arts Center)
4. A performing arts auditorium seating 1200 to 1800 (Performing Arts Center)
5. Moving the library or the public service functions to a new location on the site to allow expansion of other functions in the City Administration Building
6. A new public museum.
General program requirements for the above uses established in the Phase I study have been used as a starting point for determining the size and functional requirements to be utilized for each facility during the course of these site planning studies. This information was reviewed for adequacy, and minor additions and revisions were made to the degree possible without extensive re-evaluation and study. The resultant programmatic requirements for each of the foregoing potential uses is set forth in the section entitled Programming.
These programmatic requirements form a statistical basis for the site planning studies that follow.
m
METHODOLOGY PROBLEM DEFINITION
An initial review of the public uses being considered for inclusion on the site revealed that the site was not large enough to accomodate all of them. Consequently, the first level of analysis was one of identifying which uses would be more appropriate for inclusion on the site than others. This decision was not a clear-cut one, being complicated by a number of factors:
- Because of differing inter-relationships among uses, the appropriateness of any use on the site is somewhat dependent upon what other uses are included with it.
-The site itself will be a more appropriate location for some uses than others.
- The desire or feasibility of retaining and re-using the Community Building and/or the existing Greeley School will affect the appropriateness of certain uses for the site, by virtue of their suitability for inclusion within the existing building(s).


-28-
- A decision to retain one or both of the existing buildings will affect both the amount of land available to accomodate other uses, and the flexibility of its utilization.
- The site area available to accomodate uses will be greatly affected by the amount of parking provided on the site and the amount accomodated by existing spaces off the site. The appropriateness of remote parking varies by use.
Because of the complexity involved in identifying the most appropriate uses for the site, the consultants decided to identify a number of site development criteria assumptions and to then identify all possible site development alternatives that meet those assumptions.
IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
A review of background data was made, and additional meetings were held with the Mayor's Ad Hoc Coordinating Committee for Recreational and Cultural Facilities to provide additional information. A preliminary traffic and parking assessment was made by Transportation Development Associates (TDA) of Boulder, Colorado. Input on public attitudes was provided by the Denver Consulting Group as it became available. A preliminary study of the feasibility of renovating the old Greeley School was made by Hensel Phelps and Everett, Zeigel, Tumpes and Hand (EZTH). This information and other general data was then consolidated into the following assumptions:
1. Utilities in the area of the site are capable of accomodating all uses being considered for the site.
2. The capacity of 11th Avenue is sufficient to accomodate present and anticipated future traffic, and a one-way couplet at 10th and 11th Avenues is neither necessary or desirable.
3. Seventh Street can be closed across the site without affecting police and fire protection services in the vicinity and without seriously impacting plans for downtown development.
4. There are nearly 650 curbside parking spaces within a 1000' walk of the site. Approximately 400 of these spaces are under-utilized on nights and weekends.
5. The proximity of available parking spaces for spectator facilities is not as critical as the proximity of available parking spaces for non-spectator facilities.
6. The nature of the Community Building makes it inappropriate for utilization of any uses other than recreation. The building is in sound physical condition.


-29-
7. The existing Greeley School is, by virture of its structural characteristics, inappropriate for re-use as a library, recreation center, or performing arts center.
Based upon these assumptions, an attempt was made to identify all possible alternatives that could be accomodated on the site. A total of 21 alternatives were identified. Subsequent to this identification, eight of the alternatives were eliminated as unfeasible due to what were felt to be glaring shortcomings. These shortcomings included such things as the need to demolish the Community Building without providing a replacement facility. The remaining 13 alternatives were then compared and evaluated against a number of criteria selected by the consultants for the purpose of identifying four alternatives that seemed most appropriate for the development of the site.
COMMITTEE REVIEW
At the completion of this evaluation process, results were presented to the Mayor's Ad Hoc Coordinating Committee for Recreational and Cultural Facilities for review. The four alternatives identified in the course of the evaluation were considered "straw men" for the Committee to either endorse for more detailed study, or replace with other alternatives of the Committee's choosing.
It became clear during the course of the Committee's review that there was significant support among the numbers present for saving the Greeley School building. Additionally, there seemed to be a desire to have each potential use incorporated in at least one of the alternative choices. The Committee decided to defer selection of the final alternatives until they had the benefit of the results of a study then underway regarding the cost-benefit analysis for restoring the Greeley School building.
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
At a later date, members of the Committee met again and reviewed the results of the analysis to restore the Greeley School building and selected the following five alternatives for more detailed study by the consultants. These alternatives formed the basic nucleus of possible uses considered in the following site planning studies.
Alternative A - Proposal: Total clearance of the two-block site, including demolition of the Community Building and the existing school building. Other development on the site would include a new Senior Citizens Center, a new Cultural Arts Center, and a new Community Recreation Center (including indoor pool). Provision should be made for future expansion of the Senior Citizens Center. Development is to be in separate facilities able to be staged over time.
Alternative A - Recommendation: Alternative A is an efficient approach to ut-ilization of the site, and provides for the highest priority uses. In addition, the total cost for full development of this alternative as well as the initial


-30-
costs for Phase 1 are as low or lower than any other alternative. The main drawback to the solution is the need to demolish both the Community Building and the existing school. The affinity of the public for these existing buildings is assumed to be different in each case: The public's desire to keep the Community Building is attributed to a desire for the activities that the building accomodates, while the desire to keep the existing school building is attributed to an affinity for the building itself. In this regard, it is assumed that provision of a new Community Recreation Center on the site in Phase 2 would tend to defuse any adverse public reaction to demolition of the Community Building in Phase 3 - if it can be shown conclusively that this course of action is economically comparable to an expansion of the existing Community Building. Demolition of the existing school building would constitute removal of a building having significant aesthetic and historic value, and elimination of a link to Greeley's past. Demolition can be expected to elicit an adverse reaction from that portion of the public that wish to see the building saved.
Alternative B - Proposal: Expand the existing Community Building into a full Community Recreation Center (including indoor pool). Convert the existing school building for use as a Cultural Center and a Senior Citizens Center. Provision should be made for future expansion of the Senior Citizens Center. Other development on the site should include facilities for public services offices and a new public library. Again, development is to be in separate facilities where possible and should be able to be staged over time.
Alternative B - Recommendation: While the retention of both existing buildings in this alternative avoids the negative aspects of Alternative A, the loss of flexibility for utilization of the site as a result of keeping the buildings presents difficult site design problems. It is difficult, if not impossible, to relate the auto entrance and parking lots to the entries to these buildings -a situation that is conducive to confusion and disorientation. The library use would be relegated to the residual land available after providing for the major uses - and as a result would be poorly located on the site. While this alternative provides for a larger number of uses than most other alternatives, the end result tends to be crowded and the site over-utilized. The initial Phase 1 cost is the highest of all alternatives, due mainly to the need to develop the Cultural Arts Center in the existing school concurrent with the development of the Senior Citizens Center. There may be a political liability in the need to include the Cultural Arts Center with the Senior Citizens Center in a single facility.
Alternative C - Proposal: Expand the existing Community Building into a full Community Recreation Center (including indoor pool). Convert the existing school building for use as a Senior Citizens Center, museum and public services offices. Provision should be made for future expansion of the Senior Citizens Center. Other development on the site should include a new Cultural Arts Center. Development is to be in separate facilities where possible and


-31-
should be able to be staged over time.
Alternative C - Recommendation: Alternative C is similar to Alternative B in that it retains both existing buildings, and as a result suffers from similar difficulties of efficient site utilization. The most obvious manifestation of this loss of efficiency for site utilization is the necessity for placing the Cultural Arts Center on the northern portion of the site -thereby relegating a significant public building to an inferior location on the site. While the total number of uses provided for is greater than most of the other alternatives, the resultant overcrowding of the site has resulted in an overall shortage of parking and a shortage of landscaped area. The initial Phase 1 costs are high - due mainly to the inclusion of low priority uses such as a museum and public service offices. There may be a political liability in the need to include a museum and public service offices with the Senior Citizens Center in a single facility.
Alternative D - Proposal: Expand the existing Community Building into a full Community Recreation Center (including indoor pool). Demolish the existing school building. Other development on the site should include a new Performing Arts Center and a new Senior Citizens Center. Provision should be made for future expansion of the Senior Citizens Center. Development is to be in separate facilities able to be staged over time.
Alternative D - Recommendation: The significant difference of this alternative from all other alternatives is the inclusion of the 1800-seat Performing Arts Center. The magnitude of this facility in regard to both building size and parking requirements is significantly greater than any of the other uses considered for inclusion of the site. As a result, the 70' high proscenium can be expected to visually dominate other buildings on the site - particularly the single-story Senior Citizens Center. Because of site limitations, the Performing Arts Center must depend upon under-utilized curbside spaces on the vicinity of the site to meet approximately 70% (over 400 cars) of its parking demand. This shortfall of available parking spaces can be expected to create conflicts in utilization of other parking facilities on the site during concert hall events. The retention and expansion of the Community Building necessitates placing the Performing Arts Center on the northern portion of the site - thereby relegating a significant public building to an inferior location on the site. As already mentioned in Alternative A, demolition of the existing school building to provide parking area for the expanded Community Building can be expected to elicit a negative reaction from groups favoring its restoration. While the initial cost for Phase 1 compares favorably with the other alternatives, the total cost of this alternative is significantly higher than any of the others. (No discussion or analysis is made here regarding the sharing of costs of the Performing Arts Center with UNC.)
Alternative E - Proposal: Demolish the Community Building. Convert the existing school building for use as a Senior Citizens Center and a Cultural Arts


-32-
Center. Provision should be made for future expansion of the Senior Citizens Center. Other development on the site should include a new Community Recreation Center. Development is to be in separate facilities where possible and able to be staged over time.
Alternative E - Recommendation: This alternative combines nearly all of the advantages of Alternative A while avoiding the most significant drawback -demolition of the existing school building. As the preliminary cost estimates indicate, the conversion of the existing school to a Cultural Arts Center compares favorably to the construction of a new facility and construction of a new Community Recreation Center compares favorably to the expansion of the existing Community Building. The main drawback to the conversion of the existing school to a Cultural Arts Center is the smaller community theatre size. Whereas a 250-seat capacity may meet Greeley's present needs, optimum needs are projected to be 400-500 seats. In the future, a new 500-seat theatre could be added in the proposed parking lot and the 250-seat theatre converted to a children's theatre or rehearsal hall, if parking needs can be accomodated in a nearby lot and/or structure. This alternative, like Alternative A, has the lowest total cost and a Phase 1 cost as low as any of the other alternatives. Justification for demolition of the Community Building is similar to that presented in Alternative A. This alternative has the least crowded site condition of all the alternatives considered.
SITE PLAN STUDIES
GENERAL
Site planning studies prepared for each alternative and included as a part of this report are preliminary in nature and of limited applicability. Having identified a number of preferred combinations of uses appropriate to the site, the purpose of the site planning studies was to determine in a preliminary manner the opportunities and constraints involved in placing each combination of uses on the site. Consideration was given to the inter-relationships of various program uses, the potential impacts of the development on the adjacent area, and to planning considerations such as vehicular and pedestrian access, open space, utilities, visual impacts and phasing.
The site plan studies utilize available data with respect to such things as facility size, access and parking requirements, and facility inter-relationships--the development of primary program information with regard to needs and relationships is not a part of this contract. While it is recognized that each facility will require a detailed and specialized study of its internal operations prior to establishing its final size and configuration, the preliminary data used for the site plan studies is believed to be sufficiently accurate to make gross comparisons between each alternative. (Since Alternatives A and E are presumed to be the best solutions, they are the only two I have included in this booklet.)


-33-
PHASING AND PRIORITY
In order to retain maximum flexibility for the development of the site over time, each alternative can be accomplished in a number of independent phases. This permits development of the site to occur as a result of a number of bond issues or diverse funding approaches, as well as a result of a single bond issue.
Each phase has been assigned a priority based upon the results of the public opinion survey conducted by the Denver Consultant Group. Generally speaking, a Senior Citizens Center is given the highest priority, and a Community Recreation Center is given the second highest priority.
SITE PLANNING CRITERIA
Certain site planning criteria have been developed during the course of the study that apply to each of the site plan alternatives. These criteria are set forth below:
Uses:
- Cultural Arts Center, Performing Arts Center, and/or public library uses should have very high public visibility - particularly from the large City park area between 9th and 10th Avenues.
- The public service offices use should be closely related to the existing City Hall, but should be visually subservient to it.
- The Senior Citizens Center should be related to the existing residential areas and should be expansible.
- Avoid main building entrances on the north-side wherever possible.
Vehicle Access:
- Vehicle access directly to and from 11th Avenue should be avoided due to high traffic volumes - particularly for event-related uses such as a Cultural Arts Center or Performing Arts Center.
- Vehicle drop-off areas should be incorporated with each use wherever possible - especially for a Cultural Arts Center or Performing Arts Center.
Pedestrian Access:
- Minimize crossing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.
- Pedestrian ways should link all uses on the site to each other as well as


-34-
to the City Hall and the Central Business District.
- For event uses such as a Cultural Arts Center or Performing Arts Center where large numbers of people arrive and depart in a short time span, pedestrian/automobile conflicts in the parking lots are particularly critical from a safety standpoint.
Landscaping:
- The entire site should be integrated through a consistent landscape treatment.
- The streetscape around the perimeter of the site should be upgraded by an improved landscape treatment that includes the replacement of diagonal parking with parallel parking and comprehensive street tree planting.
- Reinforce the setting of all building entrances where possible with a special landscape treatment.
Parking:
- Each use should have its own autonomous parking lot.
- All parking needs should be accomodated in off-street lots wherever possible.
- Parking lots should be visually screened from all public streets and adjacent uses by berms and/or plantings.
ALTERNATIVE A
SITE USES
This alternative demolishes the existing school building and the existing Community Building.
Phase 1: Construction of a new Senior Citizens Center.
Phase 2: Construction of a new Community Recreation Center with indoor pool, handbal1 court(s), gymnasium and ancillary facilities.
Phase 3: Demolition of the existing Community Building and the existing school building. Construction of a new Cultural Arts Center with a 400-seat community theatre and ancillary cultural facilities.
SITE PLANNING
A schematic conceptual site plan for Alternative A is shown on the following page.


JLIUUIN Oi I l/.LI'U SCHICK
Building Coverage .32 ac. Parking - 120 cars 1.0 ac. Open Space .5 ac.
1.8 ac.
PHASE 2
COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
Building Coverage .8 ac.
Parking â–  - 100 cars .8 ac.
Open Space .5 ac.
2 .1 ac.
PHASE 3
CULTURAL ARTS CENTER
Bui 1 ding Coverage .5 ac.
Parking â–  - 165 cars 1 .3 ac.
Open Space .6 ac.
2 .4 ac.
ALTERNATIVE A
TASK Hi
SITE PLANNING STUDIES
CV rOI rvnAnn
cc


-36-
Provision is made for a new Senior Citizens Center at the corner of 6th Street and 11th Avenue adjacent to high density residential areas to the north and east of the site.
A new Community Recreation Center is provided with indoor pool area. The building has been placed adjacent to 10th Avenue as close as possible to the existing City park to maximize public visibility.
Both existing public buildings on the site are to be removed to provide space in the southern portion of the site for a new Cultural Arts Center with 400-seat community theatre. The building is placed at the corner of 8th Street and 10th Avenue facing the existing City park for maximum public visibility.
Major pedestrian linkages among uses on the site and to nearby off-site uses are shown on the site plan.
SITE REQUIREMENTS
Site requirements for Alternative A are set forth below:
Phase 1 - Senior Citizens Center: 1.8 ac.
Building Coverage* .32 ac.
Parking (120 cars @ 350 s.f.) 1.0 ac.
Open Space (@ 25%) .5 ac.
*Building assumed to be on a single level
Phase 2 - Community Recreation Center: 2.1 ac.
Building Coverage* .8 ac.
Parking (100 cars @ 350 s.f.) .8 ac.
Open Space (@ 25%) .5 ac.
*Bui1ding assumed to be on a single level
Phase 3 - Cultural Arts Center: 2.4 ac.
Building Coverage* .5 ac.
Parking (165 cars 0 350 s.f.) 1.3 ac.
Open Space (@ 25%) .6 ac.
*Building coverage assumed to be 80% of total square footage
Total Site Requirement: 6.3 ac.
COST ESTIMATE
Based upon the foregoing site requirements, and utilizing program data established in the section entitled Programming, a preliminary cost estimate was prepared for purposes of comparing the financial impacts of each alternative.


-37-
Costs are preliminary only and are not the result of detailed analysis.
Phase 1 - Senior Citizens Center:
Senior Citizens Center Building - 14,000 s.f. 0 $58.00/s.f. Parking (120 cars @ $550.00/car)
Landscaping and Irrigation - 21,750 s.f. @ $3.00/s.f. Professional Fees @ 9%
Allowance for Furnishings (lump sum)
Phase 2 - Community Recreation Center:
Community Recreation Building with indoor pool (32,500 s.f. @ $65.00/s.f.)
Parking (100 cars @ $550.00/car)
Landscaping and Irrigation - 21,750 s.f. 0 $3.00/s.f. Professional Fees 0 9%
Allowance for Furnishings (lump sum)
Phase 3 - Cultural Arts Center:
Demolish Existing School - 41,500 s.f. @ $1.80/s.f.
Demolish Existing Community Building (24,500 s.f. @ $1.80/s.f.)
Cultural Arts Building with 400-seat theatre (30,000 s.f. $ $65.00/s.f.)
Parking (165 cars @ $550.00/car)
Landscaping and Irrigation - 26,250 s.f. @ $3.00/s.f. Professional Fees @ 12%
Allowance for Furnishings (lump sum)
Total Cost - Alternative A:
$1,048,250.00
812 ,000.00
66 ,000.00
65 ,250.00
85 ,000.00
20 ,000.00
$2,473 ,500.00
2,112 ,500.00
55 ,000.00
65 ,250.00
200 ,750.00
40 ,000.00
$2,542 ,950.00
75 ,000.00
44 ,100.00
1 ,950 ,000.00
90 ,750.00
78 ,750.00
254 ,350.00
50 ,000.00
$6,064 ,700.00
Using the foregoing site plan as a guide, an evaluation of potential opportunities and constraints inherent to Alternative A is presented below.
Pros Cons
Lowest Phase 1 cost Demolishes existing school
Lowest total cost Demolishes existing Community Building
Best location for Cultural Arts Center
v
ALTERNATIVE E
SITE USES
This alternative retains the existing school and demolishes the existing Community


-38-
Building .
Phase 1: Construction of a new Senior Citizens Center.
Phase 2: Construction of a new Community Recreation Center with indoor pool, handball court(s), gymnasium, and ancillary facilities.
Phase 3: Demolish the existing Community Building. Restore the existing school building and convert it to use as a Cultural Arts Center with a 250-seat community theatre.
SITE PLANNING
A schematic conceptual site plan has been developed for Alternative E and is shown on the following page.
Provision is made for a new Senior Citizens Center at the corner of 6th Street and 11th Avenue adjacent to residential areas to the north and east of the site.
A new Community Recreation Center is provided with indoor pool area. The building has been placed adjacent to 10th Avenue as close as possible to the existing City park to maximize public visibility.
The existing school is planned to be restored and converted to use as a Cultural Arts Center with a 250-seat community theatre. The existing Community Building is to be demolished and the available land utilized for parking for the Cultural Arts Center. Removal of the Community Building will enhance the visibility of the Cultural Arts Center from the existing City park and the downtown area. Landscape area has been retained along 8th Street to enhance this visible connection.
Major pedestrian linkages among uses on the site and to nearby off-site uses are shown on the site plan.
SITE REQUIREMENTS
Site requirements for Alternative E are set forth below.
Phase 1 - Senior Citizens Center: 1.8 ac.
Building Coverage* .32 ac. Parking (120 cars 0 350 s.f.) 1.0 ac. Open Space (@ 25%) .5 ac.
*Building assumed to be on a single level


8TH ST
• I < »*_/ l_
SENIOR CITIZENS CENTE R
Building Coverage .32 ac.
Parking - 120 cars 1 .0 ac.
Open Space .5 ac.
1 .8 ac.
PHASE 2
COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
Building Coverage .8 ac.
Parking - 100 cars .8 ac.
Open Space .5 ac.
2 .1 ac.
PHASE 3
CULTURAL ARTS CENTER
Building Coverage .33 ac.
Parking - 120 cars 1 .0 ac.
Open Space .5 ac.
1.8 sc.
ALTERNATIVE E
TASK u;
SITE PLANNING STUDIES GREELEY, COLORADO


Phase 2 - Community Recreation Center:
2.1 ac.
Building Coverage* .8 ac.
Parking (100 cars @ 350 s.f.) .8 ac.
Open Space (@ 25%) .5 ac.
*Building assumed to be on a single level
Phase 3 - Cultural Arts Center: 1.8 ac.
Building Coverage* .33 ac.
Parking (120 cars @ 350 s.f.) 1.0 ac.
Open Space (@ 25%) .5 ac.
*Building coverage based on existing school
Total Site Requirement: 5.7 ac.
COST ESTIMATE
Based upon the foregoing site requirements and utilizing program data established in the section entitled Programming, a preliminary cost estimate was prepared for purposes of comparing the financial impacts of each alternative. Costs are preliminary only and are not the result of detailed analysis.
Phase 1 - Senior Citizens Center:
$1 ,048,250.00
Senior Citizens Center Building - 14,000 s.f. @ $58.00/s.f. 812,000.00 Parking (120 cars @ $550.00/car) 66,000.00 Landscaping and Irrigation - 21,750 s.f. @ $3.00/s.f. 65,250.00 Professional Fees (@ 9%) 85,000.00 Allowance for Furnishings (lump sum) 20,000.00
Phase 2 - Community Recreation Center:
$2,473,500.00
Community Recreation Building with indoor pool
(32,500 s.f. 0 $65.00/s.f.) 2,112,500.00
Parking (100 cars @ $550.00/car) 55,000.00
Landscaping and Irrigation - 21,750 s.f. @ $3.00/s.f. 65,250.00
Professional Fees (@ 9%) 200,750.00
Allowance for Furnishings (lump sum) 40,000.00
Phase 3 - Cultural Arts Center:
$2,515,100.00
Demolish existing Community Building
(24,500 s.f. @ $1-80/s.f.) 44,100.00
Renovate school for Cultural Arts Center with 250-seat theatre
(34,250 s.f. 0 $58.00/s.f.) 1,986,500.00 Parking (120 cars @ $550.00/car) 66,000.00 Landscaping and Irrigation - 30,000 s.f. @ $3.00/s.f. 90,000.00 Professional Fees (@ 13%) 278,500.00 Allowance for Furnishings (lump sum) 50,000.00


-41-
Total Cost - Alternative E: $6,036,850.00
EVALUATION
Using the foregoing site plan as a guide, an evaluation of potential opportunities and constraints inherent to Alternative E is presented below.
Pros
Cons
Lowest Phase 1 cost Lowest total cost Retains existing school Least crowded site condition
Demolishes existing Community Building Community theatre is smaller than projected needs
Of the five alternative site plans for the city-owned, two-block area west of City Hall, Alternative E clearly prevails over A, the second rank of the alternatives considered. Since preservation/renovation of these buildings is approximately comparable to new construction in either case, the decision rests upon other factors such as community values and optimum usage of the site. Since preservation of both the Community Building and the Old School greatly compromise the efficiency of the site, Alternative A proposes to preserve the Old School and to rebuild a more efficient community recreation building elsewhere on the site. The appropriate choice is clouded by the fact that community sentiment leans slightly more toward preserving the Community Building; and the building is certainly in better physical condition than the Old School. Yet, all factors considered, the Old School can be effectively renovated into an efficient Cultural Arts facility, while the Community Building, due to its slightly inconven-tional design, will remain inefficiently utilized and slightly more expensive to maintain over time.
In sum, Alternative E combines more advantages than the other alternatives considered, is the least expensive and will effectively meet community needs for cultural and recreational facilities.
The program data (activities, building sizes, parking) and the cost estimates are based upon general assumptions and valuable but limited input from citizens and Task Force members, received early in the study process.
FUNDING
It is unlikely that any federal or state funds would be available to subsidize the construction of these facilities, unless they come out of general revenuesharing funds at the expense of other programs. Funding sources, specifically those for facilities for the elderly, should be pursued, but it is realistic to assume that City funding will be the primary source of financing for these facilities. Existing City revenues may have some flexibility, but generally are or should be allocated to other pressing needs identified by the community.


-42-
A modest property tax increase as a means of financing this program assures that construction can be committed immediately, and at today's prices, repaying in cheaper dollars. The property tax/bond does, however, carry a longterm commitment, an interest burden, and is not evenly distributed on the population of users--at least in the perception of the general public.
The sales tax appears to be a more promising revenue source--in terms of acceptance, even distribution over a larger population, and ability to more closely match it to the required revenues and development time span of the facilities.
Recommendations:
A pay-as-you-go (non-bond issue) approach financed by a h% sales tax imposed in the City of Greeley to run for five years, from January 1, 1980 to December 31, 1984. The construction would have to be carefully phased to match the projected income stream:
Year 1 Senior Citizens Center
Year 2, 3 Community Recreation Center Year 3, 4 Cultural Arts Center
In fact, the h% sales tax would produce revenues potentially in excess of the required construction costs, which could be an increment to general revenues or applied to related cultural/recreational projects such as the Centennial Pool cover, playfields, library, museum, or the Performing Arts Concert Hall.
A comment is required with respect to the Performing Arts (Concert Hall) facility. It was identified in the Phase 1 work of the Task Force and Consultants as needed, justifiable and desirable to round out an important aspect of Greeley's cultural resources. Its consideration was initially made possible by the unilateral action of the UNC student body financial commitment. Recent re-evalu-ations of that commitment and other demands on UNC resources have called into question the ability, and desirability, of UNC to pursue that objective, at least in the near future.
The assessment of the City's need for and ability to support such a facility has not substantially changed, but remains dependent upon substantial financial support by the University in the construction funding (since they will also dominate the use of the facility). From the City's perspective, a slightly higher or longer duration sales tax could generate the revenues required for the City participation.
The site location issue (downtown vs. UNC site) has been at least partially addressed in the Alternative D site evaluation-indicating that another site would be preferable to allow maximum efficiency of development on the City-owned two-block area.


-43-
Discussions and negotiations between the City and UNC should be encouraged to continue, as well as major efforts to develop a broader-based support in the community for the Symphony and other potential Concert Hall artist groups.
A potential, but rather inadequate, alternative interim measure is to consider a slightly larger theatre/auditorium than that proposed in conjunction with a future addition to the Cultural Arts Center in Alternative E.
The public opinion survey was held both to evaluate the Greeley residents' perception of need or desirability for various facilities and to elicit the information voters might require to feel comfortable to vote.
Of the specific facilities studied in detail, the Senior Citizens Center has the strongest community backing with 92%.
The Concert Hall, Cultural Arts Center, and Community Recreation all scored positively, although somewhat lower than the Seniors' Center. A fairly high percentage (72-73%) felt they would use the Concert Hall and Cultural Hall if available, somewhat fewer (69%) felt that way about a Community Recreation Center. Two particular areas of note are feelings that a joint Concert/ Theatre facility is better than separate ones, and that existing recreation facilities should be better used rather than build new ones. There is little recognition of the real deficiency of winter swimming facilities, for school or the public.
The community feels slightly more strongly about saving the Community Building (53% for, 30% against) and remained evenly split over the Old School (44% -44%).
There are strong, defendable needs in the community for the facilities being considered. An inventory of how few recreational facilities (indoor) are, or can be, really made available to the public, the growth in recreational participation, the real local demand for the facilities, and comparable data from other communities need to be communicated simply and effectively to the public in any educational program prior to a public vote.
Similarly, the advantages and drawbacks of joint vs. separate cultural facilities, the cost vs. quality issue needs to be made more clear. While costs are obviously of prime importance, it is important to also convey that the quality of each facility, and of the experience, will be important and remembered, long after the initial cost has been forgotten.
Finally, the merits of saving vs. replacing the Old School and the Community Building cannot absolutely be determined on costs alone. The final decision, and all the trade-offs considered, also need to be clearly conveyed to the public as part of an educational program.


-44-
FINANCING
The previous tasks summarized in this report have detailed alternatives for the development of various cultural and recreational facilities in the City of Greeley with an emphasis on planning for the two-block area of City-owned land west of the Civic Center complex. The focus of this chapter is to discuss alternative means of financing this development which are consistent with the City's resources and the attitudes of the population of the City as expressed in the questionnaire which was administered as a part of this study. The costs of any development scheme could be grouped into three major categories :
- Capital expenses -- the cost of construction and equipping the facilities
- Operating expenses -- the cost of maintaining, heating and operating the structures themselves, and
- Program expenses -- the cost of personnel, equipment and production of the activities which will take place in the facilities constructed.
The program expenses have not been addressed in this study. These can vary widely from year to year depending on budget conditions, the enthusiasm and aggressiveness of the persons responsible for various programs, the success or failure of programs tried in previous years, and the extent to which users' fees and admission charges can offset program expenses. The audit of the City's 1977 expenditures indicates that about $44,000 was spent on senior citizen programs, $413,000 on recreation excluding the swimming pools and $87,000 on the swimming pool programs. While it is likely that these programs would be expanded somewhat to meet the resources available in new facilities, the program costs should be handled through the normal revenue and budget channels.
The operating expenses associated with the facilities proposed here could also be handled through normal budget channels. If, however, new revenue sources were identified to pay for these new facilities, then a modest increase in the annual levy could be included to cover the operating costs. In any case, the net increase in operating cost is likely to be small. The community building had budgeted operating expenses in 1977 of about $21,000, the recreation building (the old school house) required expenses of $14,000 and all of the City's pools had expenses of only $11,000. These expenses include the salaries and fringe benefits of maintenance personnel, supplies, public utilities and repair costs. Since the alternative schemes proposed for development of the site either retain these buildings or replace them, the net increase in operating expenses under any of the development schemes would likely be small. In this financial analysis, it is assumed that no more than $50,000 per year in additional resources would be required for maintenance and operation of the proposed facilities.


-45-
The capital costs of development of the site have been estimated in detail in the previous tasks and are summarized as follows:
- Alternative A - $ 6,064,700.00
- Alternative B - 8,589,250.00
- Alternative C - 7,639,850.00
- Alternative D - 11,041,250.00
- Alternative E - 6,036,850.00
Alternative D is the only one in which the Performing Arts Center is included as part of the site development. It is expected that, if developed, this Center would be financed one-third by the City, one-third by the students of UNC and one-third by private contributions. While this funding arrangement has not been finally resolved, and it is unclear whether the student commitment could be applied to a Performing Arts Center in this specific location, the cost to the City of this alternative under that financing scheme would be $6,004,450.00, making it fairly comparable in cost to Alternatives A and E.
The consultants' recommendation is that E be the preferred alternative with A as a second choice -- based not only on the total cost but also on consideration of site utilization, efficient phasing and the priorities expressed in the community attitude survey. In addition to these construction costs, there would be additional costs associated with the issuance of bonds (should that method be used) and other City staff and overhead costs involved in getting the program underway. Therefore, in this financial analysis, a total capital expenditure of $6.3 million is assumed to be required to implement Alternatives A, D or E and the analysis is developed around that figure. Alternatives B and C would cost proportionately more; however, the concepts, advantages and disadvantages outlined in this chapter would otherwise be similar.
It is unlikely that any federal or state funds would be available to subsidize the construction of these particular facilities. While there are federal programs that provide assistance for community centers for the elderly, funds are quite limited at the national level and are allocated on a state and regional basis in a manner which leaves very little available for Colorado communities including Greeley. Large scale private and foundation contributions could provide a source of funding for these facilities. However, such a campaign is likely to be instituted for the Performing Arts Center (wherever it may be located) and health care improvements needed in the community. Private support for these facilities might best be confined to smaller-scale contributions for equipment and furnishings of special program facilities.
It has certainly been a "working assumption" of the Task Force and the consultants that public funding by the City would be necessary and appropriate, given the nature of the facilities proposed.
The public funding must then come from either the existing revenue structure


-46-
or new sources of revenue must be identified and tapped. To reallocate existing resources would place these proposed cultural and recreational programs in competition with existing activities or other pressing needs within the community. While it is possible that this capital improvement program could be worked into the existing and projected revenue structure of the City, proposing new revenue sources would have the advantage of allowing the citizens to express their desire for or against these particular facilities without having to directly make trade-off decisions. The two most likely sources of public funding are property taxes and sales taxes.


-47-
PROGRAMMING
SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER BUILDING SIZE
Approximately 14,000 s.f. (Source: An Evaluation of Potential Municipal Projects for Greeley - 1978.)
BUILDING FACILITIES
The facility should include areas for a large meeting/dining room, kitchen, two meeting rooms, lounge, reading room, craftsroom, cardroom, billiards room, counseling room, emergency treatment, and administration.
PARKING NEEDS
Approximately 120-cars parking should be provided in close proximity.
OTHER NEEDS
There should be outdoor recreation space for shuffleboard, horseshoes, etc. COMMENTS
The Senior Citizens Center should be expansible as, historically, new facilities of this type attract new numbers and are soon over-utilized.
COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
BUILDING SIZE
Approximately 32,500 s.f. (Source: Everett, Zeigel, Tumpes and Hand letter to Greeley Recreation Director dated November 7, 1978.)
BUILDING FACILITIES
The facility should include a gym, 3 handbal1/racquetbal1 courts, exercise rooms, meeting rooms, kitchen, lounge/games room, indoor swimming (6 lanes, teaching bay, diving area) with spectator seating, lockers/dressing, saunas, rifle range, control and administration, etc.
PARKING NEEDS
Provide 1 car/350 s.f. of building, or 90-100 cars. (Source: Transportation Development Associates.)


-48-
COMMENTS
Assume most of the building (80% minimum) would be on a single level. The facility could be built in stages, i.e. pool area or multi-use area.
PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
BUILDING SIZE
Ground plan requirements of 120' x 240'. (Source: A Report of Committee and Consultant Work for a Proposed Campus Auditorium, University of Northern Colorado - May, 1977.)
BUILDING FACILITIES
An 1,800-seat auditorium with balcony; stage and proscenium to accomodate orchestra, opera, dance and musical touring groups; orchestra pit; lobby; ticketing; concession; and management areas.
PARKING NEEDS
Provide 1 car/3 seats, or 600 cars. (Source: Transportation Development Associates, City of Greeley Zoning Ordinance.)
COMMENTS
Utilization of approximately 400 under-utilized curbside parking spaces within 1,000 feet of the site is encouraged, as usage of the facility will be nights and weekends.
LIBRARY
BUILDING SIZE
Approximately 22,000 s.f. (Source: Directory of Colorado Libraries - 1976, Time Saver Standards, Sam Sasaki.)
BUILDING FACILITIES
The building should include: Fiction section, non-fiction section, children's section, historical section, periodicals, music section, technical services (microfilm, etc.), general administration, conference/meeting, and bookmobile storage.
PARKING NEEDS
Provide 1 car/500 s.f. of building, or 40-45 cars. (Source: Transportation


-49-
Development Associates.)
COMMENTS
The library can be on several levels, although two stories would be optimum for a facility of this size.
MUSEUM
BUILDING SIZE
Approximately 8,000 - 10,000 s.f. (Source: Time Saver Standards.)
BUILDING FACILITIES
The building should include approximately 10-12 exhibit rooms, a workshop, restoration area, documentation service, lobby/control areas, and administration.
PARKING NEEDS
Provide 1 car/500 s.f. of building, or 16-20 cars. (Source: Transportation Development Associates.)
COMMENTS
The building can be on two levels.
PUBLIC SERVICES OFFICES BUILDING SIZE
Approximately 10,000 s.f. (Source: Greeley Planning Department - Sam Sasaki.) BUILDING FACILITIES
The building should accomodate the following City functions: Planning and Zoning, Water and Sewer, Building Inspection, and such other City functions that provide direct services to the public.
PARKING NEEDS
Provide approximately 45-cars parking. (Source: Greeley Planning Department -Sam Sasaki.)


-50-
COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER PROGRAM
Area in Sq
1. Physical Activities Rooms
a. gym 72x94 (incl. 5 ft. surround) floor markings for basketball, volleyball and badminton, place for gymnastics practice 6,768
b. 3 handbal1/racquetball courts @ 20x40 ea. 2,400
c. handball access & spectators, 3 0 20x5 300
d. weight training room, 15x20 ) exercise room, 20x20 ) comblne gym storage, office, control 300
e. 400
f. 400
Sub Total 10,568
+ 10% Structure 1 ,057
Total 11,625
2. Classrooms/Lobby
a. 2 craftsrooms @ 500 sq. ft. ea. 1,000
b. craftsroom storage 300
c. meeting room dividable into 2 classrooms 600
d. meeting room cooking facilities (a small serving kitchen area for potlucks, etc.) 50
e. meeting room storage (chairs, etc.) 500
f. dance room w/mirror & ballet bars (15x25) 375
g- lounge, games, vending machines, etc. 625
h. checkout storage 150
i. central control; checkout, sign-up, and office 150
j- 2 public toilets @ 80 sq. ft. ea. 160
Sub Total 3,910
+ 10% Structure 391
Total 4,301
3. Pool House
a. swimming pool - 6 lanes, L-shape with teaching bay and 1 meter diving board) 7,330
b. pool storage (bench storage = length of pool house) 300
c. filtration equipment 200
d. pool office, control 50
e. spectator seating for 50 300
Sub Total 8,180
+ 10% Structure 818
Total 8,998
V 4. Locker Rooms
a. 2 @ 700 sq. ft. ea. 1,400
b. 2 saunas 200
Sub Total 1,600
+ 10% Structure 160
Total T7760


-51-
5. Mechanical Equipment 220
a. janitor 100
Sub Total 320
+ 10% Structure 32
Total 352
6. Rifle Range
a. interior - 2340 sq. ft.
2886 sq. ft.
+ 10% Structure Total
2,340 (min.
234
2,574
TOTALS
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sub Total
+ 10% Circulation
Total
= 11,625 = 4,301
= 8,998
= 1,760
= 352
= 2,574
29,610 2,961
32,571 sq. ft.
Outside Facilities
1. Parking for 60-75 cars: Approximately 21,060 sq. ft.
2. Tennis )
3. Jogging ) As avai1able at each site
4. Baseball )
5. Football )
Preliminary Estimate
a.
b.
32,571 sq. ft. G> $65.00 = $2,117,115.00
with 1 handball court only and some smaller spaces:
30,770 sq. ft. @ $65.00 = $2,000,000.00


-52-
BACKBOARD DETAIL SC
BOTH TYPES LEGAL FOR COLLEGE 0> M S
SECTION SHOWING BASKET a ENCROACHMENTS
SCALE I" = IS'
SCALE r = 32 - O’’
GOAL ( BASKETBALL)
SCALE ,/lo" * I’-O"


53
ENCROACHMENTS

t
POST-
F=F^=f
SHORT
VJ
SERVICE LIME
MET
Tv3
\ VSIC
^-Sic
0
0
—Jf-
5-0" BETWEEN COURTS
LIMED FOR BOTH DOUBLES AMO SINGLES ALL LIMES l'/2" WIDE
- BACK BOUMO LIME
BADMINTON-MEN a WOMEN
SIDE BOUMD LIME SINGLES SIDE BOUMD LIME DOUBLES
SCALE I" * 32'-0"
SCALE I" = 32-0" MOTE :
U.S. Volley Ball Association dimensions for unofficial games. Court may be varied to suit players, (for children and the less agile). Min. clearance 3'- 0". See page on womens sports.
NET ( VOLLEV BALL)
SCALE '/16"= T-O"
6-0"
VOLLEV BALL fl
SCALE I " * 32 -0"


55'
54
r
(FRONT )-
'TOP OF play IMG ( WALL
REAR )
/Flush door
( SIZE OPTIONAL
VISION if 3 I PANEL '
‘'TOP OF PL AVI MG WALL
ELEV. OF PROMT WALL ( REAP WALL DOTTED)

ELEV OF SIDE WALL
46-0 140-0")
HARD BALL COURT IS SAME AS FOUR WALL COURT EXCEPT SIZE = 65 X 25 FROMT WALL : 30 -0 HIGH REAR WALL = 12-0" HIGH
0:
b!
V- FROMT WALL
A A U STANDARDS VMCA COURTS ARE SMALLER
23 -0 ( 20 -O' )
23 -O ( 20 O )
W-
SERVICE 4 LIME----''
SERVICE BOX---
BACK WAl -SERVICE ZOME DOOf

Short lime
'SiDEWA_
-^dr5-°
HANDBALL — FOUR WALL COURT
PL AM
SQUASH
SCALE I = 20 -O’


-55-
?TH OF POOLS
Js is the minimum length lor American , and meets interscholastic and intercolleg-juirements. (Pool should be 75'—1 1/2" allow for electronic timing panels at one
ers (164' —0 1/2") is minimum for world V) records. Add 3 1/2" for electronic devices.
WIDTH OF POOLS =
Drawing below shows 7' lanes. 6' lanes with pool width a multiple of 6' also meet general racing requirements. Strictly competitive pools should have 7' lanes.
Min. width of 25 yard pool is 36' (6' lanes) or 42' (7' lanes). With outside lanes, min. widths are 38' or 45'. 60' width (8 lanes) is desirable.
* NOTE*.
Gutters at sides of pool are desirable to redu* wave action in swimming meets or water polr See lighting standards and diving board stand on other pages of this series for additional rc ments for competitive pools.
Swimming pool capacity requirements vary from one locality to another: check local regulations The followir suggested by the American Public Health Association.
FORMULA ZONE -A"
DERIVATION «
ZONE "B"
ZONE “C "
FORMULA Max. pool =
capacity
Diving area defined by 10' radius from diving board or platform.
12 divers per board; 2 - 3 in water, the rest on shore.
Or allow 300 sq. ft of pool water surface per board.
Swimming area, 24 sq. ft. per swimmer. Based on volume displaced by each swimmer (4/5 square of average ht.) and adjusted by the number of swimmer using pool at one time. (2/3 total swimmers).
Non swimmer area 10 sq. ft. per person. Based on volume displaced by per (1/2 area allowed per swimmer) and adjusted by number not using water-50 (in some pools with large number of non swimmers, figure may be as high as
12 x No diving boards + Area Zone "B" 4 Area Zone "C" or platforms 24 10


DESIGN PROBLEMS
Ae" STEEL, plate LIGHT PROTECTION WITH 3/4" PLYWOOO COVERS
W V' 57
* / U_-TARGET : y\ ~ © , X 'V STEEL BACK STOP* , ' SAND PIT ID ^-CLEARANCE REQ i 'op’i'n.ATORLL ^ ^ FOR target a operator CARRIERS 5»MLLf L^H FLOOR X .
M „ . ..
ROJECTirsiG SURFACES COVERED WITH STEEL PLATE
| 50'- O" STANDARD
1. Safety
a. Trap safety.
b. Firing line safety use stalls.
c. Spectator safety.
d. Ricochet protection.
e. Safety from spilled r explosion.
2. Ventilation.
3. Noise.
4. Lighting.
The use of range design c sultants is advisable.
DR REGULATION RIFLE a PISTOL RANGE NO SCALE
LTI - BAFFLE a ESCALATOR" TYPE BULLET TRAPS AVAILABLE & LESS HAZARDOUS THAN PLATE 6 PIT TYPE SHOWN


57
JDARD COURT
r- 32' -O"

(/)
u
6
Q.
h
I
0
o'1
ENCLOSURE
PARTIAL ENCLOSURES
scale . r- 32' -O"
DRAINAGE PLAN ( 2 OR MORE COL
SCALE r=32'-O"
IT ATI on:
Northern states, North-Northeast and South-â– st is best.
note:
Surface drainage-Pitch 1" per 10'- 0". Pitch si side for single court: pitch end to end for 2 or courts. Need for drainage system depends on soil c tions.
i>R TENNIS CEILING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS
note:
This information is for prelin planning and design only. Foi layouts and design investigate c rules and regulations of the ai organization or other authority 1 standards will govern.
— *-
JET LINE o
l Q
DF WALL
■'NET LINE 3‘ -O" AT CENTER 3'-6" AT ENDS
WALL: CONCRETE OR BLOCK WITH FLUSH JOINTS
COURT SIM TO HALF OF STD COURT IF SPACE IS
available
riCE COURT
I": â– K'P' O"
«=;<•'Al F l" s R' -O"


58
1ST 2ND. » 3RD. BASES
'/a " «r-o"
FOUL LINE
HEIGHT OF PITCHER' S MOUND I - 3" ABOVE FIELD
STANDS OR FENCE 250 MIN FROM HOME PLATE ALONG FOUL LINES
GRASS
LINE
DETAIL OF PITCHER'S MOUND
SCALE : 3/,6"*r-o"
/ ’ \
/ \
-/'GRANDSTAND OR FENCE \
/ 60' - O" FROM FOUL LINE \
BALL DIAMOND ^ ^ \/
i = ao'-O" /NS / \
/
*s* .^BACKSTOP LINE
/
NOTE:
This information is for preliminary plan / ning and design only. For final layouts and design investigate current rules and regulations of the athletic organization or other authority whose standards will govern.
/
\
>S OR FENCE 175 HOME PLATE » FOUL LINE
ORIENTATION .
No standard consider time of day for games; months when played; location of field, surrounding bldgs, and stands. East North East recom. by N.C.A.A (Home plate to center field).
COACH'S BOX A X 8-
SCALE '/e" = I’-O"
-E LEAGUE BASEBALL
I" = 60-0'
CATCHERS E-
BASEBALL DETAIL OF HOME BASE BATTER'S a CATCHER BOX
‘BASE
LINES
CATCHER'S BOX '
>^X
6 N >
3‘-O" i_ i_ y
w ©
BATTER
BOXES
CATC HE BOX
2ND BASE
HOME BASE


59
QUARTER MILE RUNNING TRACK
SCALE r = 120-0"
20


-60-
SITE INFORMATION
The following maps include different types of required site information. The existing site construction is shown on one of the maps. Most of the houses between 6th and 7th Streets have already been demolished or moved to other locations. The remaining few are destined to the same fate in the near future. The quonset hut now serving as a recreation center, on the block between 7th and 8th Streets, will be demolished. That will leave a cleared site with only the old Greeley High School to be renovated for service as the new Cultural Arts Center. Information on the proposed floor plans for the Cultural Arts Center are included along with evaluations as to the renovations needed to restore the old school.
The site is in an area zoned C-4 by the City of Greeley. All setbacks, height limitations, and square footage requirements have been suspended in the downtown area except as required by the Uniform Building Code.
A climatological survey is included with information on the climate of Colorado.


-Cl '!'!!, I r,
THill :i- !-;
ti>[ iljlj . ill.
:i i f;
M !!
1.1
I 1
u-y
r in i. U r H ;ij. FI H.
i n rj !r ■i 11 [.! . 1.1 • ( ii
i j „i_ i I. .i.

ilmxjji-
â– WM A&Wl-
l Ml
â–  y /\V.rjr V. .(/
■• •A, I
r Jit
1 j’M 11]
I .1 r si1. / / /• /
11" , . t
‘ II ' j*!
j { I ! •-
*i.*i v .
i\
y H
1?
11 ! I
'.-••I
/J.
J tr-
-L L —
*
•j • i ■
• .. v.::A!
â– fi. '. _i#'
...."'■•// ►'■''. I'" .. I
..,/ **..1 » .J l - •fl* i>
*//. • r/‘:) t ?
i—.>«-•
i 11 r • 1 j I f-t S'., ip//- ?r•'
' !• -I;' | | 'j . • .1 ! | 4’!c (j i
. J i i- |i , .,
j l. it _ J i i Jl 1 :. a
ll..
â– L.
i -if i IT
;
â–  I! â– /:
it ! ! f !! 1 I
•:v v
« •• • i : ....i r
;;t*A
JifajlAh-J

440mI
n i i
!•. i!. i 1 ,. 1;
■ i ‘
>
JLJ
« *
it â–  i ^ ii
i >.: *
l....
»
• > ft
U_
:r.j l.TlL.: » ;»j, .
■ i •. t • . *
i j
: i !l l “ij!;\\\
; j : :
* I , ir i i i‘ | f. A /-AY r.-./'-Ui J -• !;■ . 1 !i. i | ll*■ ,;i . /.- vv-.a • P i?Hr t
i I'
! : ji;
?r 1 ! i: « > ■
!’ • : i • il *
... \ • . \ >• i\
i i | | -
V 4
• L vi*T

ru
â– 
i;«
I Jin.I
--
â– 
s y *c ;
* ] . 1
1 "v â– 
i â– 
• * ' * » * i • t1 .
: i .1 -i-L j 1 •*" . 1 : 1 i

* L *L H
l : :i i l
IH
Ji >W4 OH*
' I’jT ; 'A, ia; :11 i if-- ; Li * ,■ « f ' 'Sill ;
«. v» :,s\> •
»L . M:i !’ ! l :i r iU >A
: f -Ja i
.'j [ J!
i
WOt 1 *â– >
m. 4 i i.&i' j

\[ “I
;•»
< ' 1 *
!•" I !r.. r
.!.] 1 4 S ME rjSr
1 1 • 71 bj I:
i'1 H ''; 1 iriil ll
i 1 mi
r 1.1 V«.r • J.j.y.Til: :c7:Pi1,m;
OwtA H-j*.
* Hit |M
"iNJ aai.
•! i
I f
^ « -J . -m . ] } j : »m
U L_J l_J L j L.J
L..
---- . —M.MAJ-,
iLl^_ • fc
* l iilJ I :*pV-I
„i 1 J i ( I i. L. I?**'"" 1
::!:1 i ii i * pj:>14Vrl ! : ?vsr. *r. ;i
... ■ f • n • n
safeaDiqMP....ikas?
.JL
JI'T .| j- -M. -j
■ • I fi ■ a J J 1 <•! I IJ
ilu.t ' P*M
"lr • ,1 ‘
4 s StL- * | ;. . bi. . - j *: . -Hi : ; l w â– - 1

-I t.....H
.’ I
X.. if Via
. !
I i’
..
fc^sj !««»*•! I|: -n- , . —
J L_J i*-"'.. j L................Jli ./) I .. .-i â– 
!•-■] L

M
I
•' i+nrE'-i jH-if’ ".2
tax /
JJB*
fB&^r
' ,(‘4ir
ti-li J:
rr - x •*
rm fr
• • • • inffisa n?ri:5gQT«3
•i i
r
I I.
. .j.L ... 31 -”r ' 3 i j.rH,rjr;iTTrit ' -»htbCliniH?! EL^lIFri.-T
•i i i
I. , lj ■ | ksy.]/ » :3 k. :t .j
l.......r‘....'..-)i .: J-fi-tr?. ,:.*3 fli-td H 1 >
] E.^3 Ei^.J
' 7 17 ^ I -S!: 1
r.1 i . . i
«ut
Jl ^
'1 I

7,:.-i i;v f k-f;^oW v-fi •
.....i----------1.
f'W I ^--.J T- 'i
init* :7‘*’*"i.t57::: :.n^i
i-f: ijTT
!A; J
*.1 «
5 |OS£3 tejSJS-ri-J
eh^biss
Ulmla
nra£iii“7sl|:±t.^
IXKX NOWJW
K
m


-62-


WTH AVE
If
a
-t
i
2J
L

JJ
7 ^ R
jS-Hc
r n ri __L
1 J r 11
M _.....] u——
a
7TH AVE
9TH
•C2=
=3 G
is a®
C rri
4° ■vE3j|
01
/
J
a
Uj

[I
rr>
D
>= nf
’—' rJ f —1 1
V-
\f Q i
L 1 Jj
r


“U7"


-65-
J
is 400 ‘
i
r


-66-
1 J

I
J

(
J
<5T-
e*xieT|H6j -^ew^R. £ FW^
4±
&X|^nii^ IaJAT^R. ,^EM P2A1H 3 HATTJP^U
utTuitI^ L^ATIOH

XL
XL
UTTTl
j n r
J!
-• ru
Jt;
ii
11
j /
jj
&
C
1

'-Tix) (s?
''ll
(7
X.


-0/-
J
i
|e> ‘b'Fl*C&b>


- exKaiN5 ^i i ^rvuh^ iM<&V
£ T— I I. .. UHZJTZ—"3 -3 7 i U
"p .- ~»I_ P”1 .. f 1 i i 1 H— i—v-, il i i


-68-
I
J
V
J
"\

(?

—.
EsXI^IHa F<9L|A6l£ ALL r6£IDU0lK>'Tfc£fc -1C>"E£> t^LL^
puenBee^ ^O1 TALL- V___


1976
DENVER, COLORADO
-69-
Narrative Climatological Summary
Denver enjoys the mild, sunny, semi-arid climate that prevails over much of the central Rocky Mountain region, without the extremely cold mornings of the high elevations and restricted mountain valleys during the cold part of the year, or the hot afternoons of summer at lower altitudes. Extremely warm or cold weather is usually of short duration.
Air masses from at least four different sources influence Denver's weather: arctic air from Canada and Alaska; warm moist air from the Gulf of Mexico; warm dry air from Mexico and the southwest; and Pacific air modified by its passage over coastal ranges and other mountains to the west.
The good climate results largely from Denver's location at the foot of the east slope of the Rocky Mountains in the belt of the prevailing westerlies. During most summer afternoons cumuiiform clouds so shaeo the City that temperatures of 90" or over are reached on 3n average of only thirty-five days of the year, and in only one year in five does the mercury very briefly reach the 100° mark.
In the cold season the high altitude and the location of the mountains to the west combine t'o moderate temperatures. Invasions of cold air from the north, intensified by tiie high altitude, can be abrupt and severe. On the other hand, many of the cold air masses that spread southward out of Canada over the plains never reach Denver's altitude and move off ever the lower plains to the east. Surges of cold air from the west are usually moderated in their descent down the east face of the mountains, and Chinooks resulting from some of these westerly flews often raise the temperature far above that normally to be expected at this latitude in the cold season. Iliese conditions result in a tempering of winter cold to an average temperature above that of otiier cities situated at the same latitude.
In spring when outbreaks of polar air are waning, they are often met by moist currents from the Gulf of Mexico. The juxtaposition of these two currents produces the rainy season in Denver, which reaches its peak in May.
Situated a long distance from any moisture source, and separated from the Pacific scyurce bv several high mountain barriers, Denver enjoys a low relative humidity, low average precipitation, and considerable sunshine.
Spring is the wettest, cloudiest, and windiest season. Much of the '9 percent of the annual to: il ore( ipitation thai occurs in spring falls as snow during the colder, earlier period cf tnat season. Stormy periods are often interspersed by stretches of mild sunny weather that remove previous snow ver.
lurjvr precipitation (about ii percent of the annual total), particularly in July and August, usually bills mainly from scattered local thundershowers during the afternoon and evening. Mornings are i..unity clear and sunny. Clouds often form during early afternoon and cut otf the sunshine at wiiat amid otherwise be the hottest part of the day. Many afternoons have a cooling shower.
"i urn is the most pleasant season. Local summer thunderstorms are mostly over eul invasions ot old air and sec-re weather are infrouuunt, so that there is less . loudim-ss and a croattr ;>i ivetsC f passible sunshine than at any other time of the year. Periods ol unplea, out weather are generallv • tii f. i’rec i p i t a t i on amounts to about !'• percent of the annual total.
int"r :ias le ist precipitation ai enr.m 1 at i on, only about II pei.iul ot the .rr.ui.it total, an! almost li .-I it snow. Prec 1 pit.it. i ci treju. mv, however-, is higher thin in .ut in.in. there .s a Isa more I- ’i'll., -s and the relative humidity acta,;..; hiidier than ia the aut.in.i. '.f ather can ho quitil-' .'t to, hill is a general rule the scVetitv do. au't last I n,;.
lUcid
•| 'll ■ I i i t • v .. I “i t , K
n.t titjnai <•' f Atjn Atjt)
A i r/t ibi'i p it11 r.t if.ttfit', 11 - a r M iti
i NVMtt'r-jMi rj i ,.| i-i i a v| tty u i
'•>< u . \ >1 i.t. N



^TAPlETUN INTE*N|T IC‘<*L 40 Sta>n'a*»l tune u»rd
Elevation (yrourvi) 5261 '-ef
Te.neereiuie "f i - -1 Pnrre days Prcoiwlanom inc-e* Hr'.Hive humidity i Hate bS “F " 1
h»e* .ia i Extreme* Water mmvalent Snow Ice ne"m
1 „ : g g ... j
Mo'tr- 1 i E 1 j 1 i c S I X X X 1
I = ' f ! ii r c - 03 11 IT 22 5
1 JT i 1 c , i i 1 s X 11 « 2 5 ' a J 1 V- o £ o $ • c O £ 2 a Loca time! £ cu S & os i. *r
. AN * o. i IS. 1 12.1 66 29 i -«i 3 1006 0 0.19 0.10 31-1 3.2 -.2 31-1 63 - 3 -91 63 *> 1.9 9
c -9 i »% . • jo . 1 18 28 1| 6 7-01 0 0.5- 0.44 20 6.4 -.7 20 52 31 30 31 2- 2.9 12
-«x 3 22.-. *? 23 -2i 5 859 o 1.3. 0.53 28-29 18.7 3.3 28-26 *9 36 35 33 26 2.4 ll
\BA * ; . ® 13.• • 0.2 '9 11 23 ) -69 0 1.27 0.32i 29-30 1.2 1.0 17 69 39 35 n 19 1.9 11
-li ■»:. 3 -1.01 ?6.” 83. 18 33 17 23- 3 1.3- 0.09 2 1-22 0.0 0.0 69 J! 39 61 l- l .0 10
JV.N 82.6 33.6 66.1 9- 27 >7, ,7 6 . . L 8 9.1 6 ‘. .* ”3.3 v8 10 771 3 0 32- 2.31 1.30 25-26 0.0 0.0 39 31 30 49 18 1.9 ■
4. v 8*.6 33.8 7:.2 91 26 -9 27 7 176 2.30 1.71 1 c.o 0.0 6- 34 3- 33 18 3.0 8
>f° ”4 . 1 -9.21 6 . 3 92 3 36 2 8 1-2 32! 1.88 0.44 26-27 0.0 0.0 70 -3' -0 62 17 1.8 7
o i.: 11.6 -9 . - 82 10 19. 19 509; c 0.93 0.62126-27 7.2 6.3 26 63 36 III 30 17 2.4 8
S-v 5 3. * 26.0' 39.3 71 8 -1 !! 739i 0.32 0.26| 26 4.3 3.5 26 62 30, -0 59 18 1.9 8
a?: 30.9 20.C| 13.3 63 16 3, n 907 0.16 0.08 9-10 1.1 1.2 9-10 39 34| 36 33 21 2.7 8
1 1 j JUL 1 JAN AUG | OCT
YE »« 6?. 2 36.7. 31.0. 9 • 1 10 3 5716 667 13.41 1.71 1 -4.3 6.3 26 62 3 61 331 36 10 2.0 9
t r. * t
63
-1
30
T.P ,
8.3 I
I £ Number ol da it ! A
r !
SI mile —I Sunrise m *un*rt 1 1 ? l !r*z\ .'e F i p.rs-.ur- '•■h
5 f, st 1 fi - ^ ' Mix. f.'immuni j
i t d o £ o ^ u ll n * 0 Ap—OlS A|»i*d > u 3 o U c F 0 w - c 2 c. a c 1 - i o ac 4 5 — c O e~ A- \ ? 1 St M 1:4 - 1 If 1 I- !.f- ;»l i, o s l I. hi u\ b i l —r 3332
* 33 77 ... „ 7 13 3 7 0 0 0 » 77 3 - 3 ”.;
N 20 80 5.6 12 4 1 3 3 l 0 o n 7 74 o ej-.i
hw 19 79 5.1 10 13 8 9 * •3 2 0 - 29 2 8 Ji .-
s 23 66 5.3 6 11 13 12 1 7 7: o 0 3 0 8 J J . -
s J 65 7.0 5 9 17 12 0 3 0 I 0 0 0 0 8 J â– >. -
s“ 22 77 ..7 12 13 3 7 0 9 0 | 6 0 0 0 8 3 3.8
h« I4 75 -.8 11 13 3 6 0 12 0 1 16 0 0 0 A j • , 8
5 7 73 3.2 1C 12 « W 0 13 0 4 0 0 0 8-1.2
NW 1- 65 3.0 1 1 - 13 10 0 6 l 3 0 0 0 5-0. ”
N 17 78 3.3 17 6 8 - 1 0 l 1 0 0 13 0 Ai’,5
N 26 70 5.6 9 9 12 3 1 0 0 ' 0 3 21 2 e j a .:
hw 27 • 7 4.4 14 9 8 4 I 2 0 0 0 1 0 I 31 o 833 .-
JAN 1 \
N 30 7- 3.3 128 112 126 89 1 “ 47 6 j 29 1 1* I 177 1 7 6 36.6
Normals, Means, And Extremes
Tew»ne«afj»fs F Normal 0—tree days Base 65 * F Precipilat on in inches
i i Waiec equivalent Snow. Ice (aellets
j i l ”1 £ ? j i if V ' l T =i ii l ? j 1 z 1 _> i £ Jl 1 2 E> tf i s c O 1 Z - M >• u 5 = - L | > 6 Z : c i p ; | c ? i « r- c 2
.11 1 • i*2 1 *' 42 "2 42 -2 4 2
- J. 5 .3.2 „.Jt7 ; 9 • *. -2 3 *196 3 1CS8 0 0.61 l .4- 9-8 0.01 llo52 1.02 ! 194 2 23.7 19-n 12.4 1942
* - . 2 19.- 72.5 ”6 ,»r,1 ►Jo 1936 9C2 0 0.67 l .b6 : 960 0.01 19 ’0 l.Cl 193 3 13.3 1 9 6 3 9.5 1’5 3 ,
- V. . .* i • 8 e. 1 •“* . -11 9-J It 8 0 1.21 2.39 '.9 4- C. 1) ,19-3 1.-8 11.17 29.2 1 1961 16.3 1 1952
L *.,: ? 3. 9 * 7.5 •? .’60 -c 9 ”5 525 0 1.93 4.17 ,9-2 0.03 196) 3.23 1907 28. 3 l«?5 17.3 I’)7
- ” . J - .»• 5 J’.C j 96 .9-2 2 2 ,19?- 233 0 2.6- 7- Jl 1957 0.06 197- 3.55 '1973 1 J.6 1950 10.7 1 7 3 0 !
• 9 -.. 3’. .9 46. C jl ' - *9)6 )0 1931 0C 110 1.93 -.69 1967 0.10 19-0 3.16 ,1970 0.3 1951 0.3119511 1 i
* 3.6 ”3.: lo- ;’)9 -o :;9”2 £ 248 1.78 6.-1 1 97 5 i 0.17 19)9 2.42 ^1963 0.0 0.0 1
l •5.3 5 * . «• 71.6 101 .’)• '1 9 6 v 0 208 1.29 .95 1 0.06 11960 3.-3 19 5 1 o.u 0.0
5 ” ' . ’ • 7 ■ 8 6 2 . 8 97 1*63 i J il9 7; 120 3 - 1.13 -.57 .941 r ;i9-- 2.-- 19)6 21.3 1’36 19.4 19)6
; • * . d J 7 • 2 •2.3 68 ;9fc7 3 .969 - C 8 3 j 1.1 J -.17 ; 969 0.03 .1962 1.71 19- 7 31.2 1969 12.4 1969
N * J . ) ? 3 • * 19 . * ’9 |9-l -8 19JJ 7.8 0 0.76 2.97 19-6 0.01 19-9 1.29 1975 39.1 19-6 15.5119-6
- •6.2 16.9 ) 2 • 6 7 - ’.9)9 -18 ,19*2 ICO- 0 0.4) 2.8- l 9 ’3 0.04 1946 1.38 il 9 7 3 | 30.8 19 73 11.8 1973
WCL if £ 3 • 1 ►* A V 5F8 |may NOV |sr.
- # 4 -. 0 J6.2 33.1 ;io- 3. -33 jl936 1 6C16 623 | 17.31 T • 31 1937 T (1944 3.53 ,1973 i 39.1 1945 19.4 1 19)6
Relative humidity Pet
W| 2
16 16jl6«6j 2
I }
4 0'6 1 I 9 . ' -3!63 I 9. ! 4 l 6-|10. ; 34 59
• 69 33 ; 34 59
3 S
4 S 3 S
.3 S .5 S .2 IS
Js . 3 Is .2 ;$
.0 s
Wind
= c.
Fesicst mile c 1 Sunrue to sunset
s ?
1 5 o -
' s a + -
I !‘J •n fe i u n 5 s? m b rt c z Z -0 i U
27 27 27 29 42 42 42
53 N l 9 74 72 5.5 10 9 12 |
-9 l®5 J 71 5.9 9 9 1 1
33 N - 1957 70 4.1 8 10 1 3
56 NM I960 6- 6.1 7. 10 1 )
4 J 5- 196'. 6- 6.7 3 12 1 J
47 S 1956 ,0 5.0 9 13 «
56 SW11965 7 1 -.9 9 16 6
42 Sh ! 1 9 7 7 4.9 10 l4 7
47 r.. 1955 74 4 . - 13 9 8
-3 N« | 194? ' 71 1 4.4 13 1C 8
48 h 1 1952 66 3.) ll 9 10
51 NE | 195) 69 it.r 11 lu 10
1 JUL 1
36 SM | ,7.3 70 |3.3 115 1)1 119
Mean nyr her of dart
a v*’°*
â–  nne,1*
- o «. 3
2 r -
»? . >.
I * n
I 1 ? • J 5
».• n i
'"'.I E»ev
S 1 â– C 1
o 11
? - o i m* 3 i . m j 1
i 16 , 16 1 6 16 '
0 , 6 3: 3 9 3 -.
° , - z" 1 i 8 3-.
0 4 2’ 1 B3-.
0 • 13 • 3 32.
• ' 0 2 O' 83-.
3| 0 3 0 =>35.
1 13 • 0 ?• 837.
ic o; c 0 6 3 9 .
2 0 > | 0 899
0 1 • 3 ' 0 8»7
0 • 2 2 3 i • 833
o • • 30 | 3 8 3- 1
1 32 | 21 163 I ! j I0| 83)
I
O
I
“»11 s ar.d • itier.es abov" • ico from rxis1. in-j arid tunpar.able exposures. Annual oxttemus have been exceeded at other sites in the . .j.'.t/ r • • l lows: Mijh"-'. temperature 10S in August 18 70 ; iraxanum monthly precipitation 8.57 in May 1876; minimum monthly
I'at son »J. 0 0 in l.»re"U>*-t 1891; maximum prec 1 p 11 at ion in 24 hours b.5J in May 1876; maximum monthly snowfall 57.4 In December 191 >; maximum stowtall in 24 hour* 23.0 in April 1885; fastest milo of wind 65 from West in May 1933.
'•1 Lm-it** ?if recc'd, /ran, ‘-rough the ' yar ."less otherwise noted,
bac-d on January data â– '1*1 7"' a**'! above at Atasaan vlatloM.
• less than one half.
* Trace.
nophai5 - Based ~n record for the 1941-1970 period.
OATl Of AH HTPlMf - The must recent In cases of multiple occurrence.
PPfVAll ING WINO OIPFCTIOH - Pncord through 1961.
WIND OlHfCTION - hvxKrrils Indicate tens of floorers clockwise from true north. 00 Indicates calm.
FASTEST MILE wlhO - Sp-cd Is fastest observed l-m1nut« value when the direction ts In tens of degrees.
4£


Table 4
Solar Position ami Intensity; Solar Hect Gain Factors" for 40 Deg North Latitude


-72-
CULTURAL ARTS CENTER
The following studies were provided at the request of the Downtown Development Commission to illustrate the renovation potential existing in the 1895 Greeley High School at 8th Street and 11th Avenue. Concurrently, they relate to our program goals and site studies.
The cost data included herein was prepared by Hensel Phelps Construction Company as a cost model, outlining needs required to "stabilize" the building. Major interior reconfiguration could not occur for the costs enumerated in that breakdown. Tailoring the building to a specific need, as indicated in this Cultural Arts Center study, would require additional money. Such a renovation, providing a small auditorium (seating 240), exhibition, meeting and museum space and crafts, pottery and photography studios and workshops would cost approximately $2,000,000.00 at today's costs, with additional costs for furnishing, parking, landscaping and fees (see downtown site study Alternative E).


/ /■ /./•
-73-


-74-




-76-
i IMS EL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
ary 30, 1979
Julie Ann Haefeli 18th Avenue ley, CO 80631
ect: Old Red Brick House Remodel Greeley, Colorado
Julie Ann:
our request, we have prepared a "building first cost parameter breakdown" or ;ibility estimate, a copy of which is attached. We received three drawings from ett Ziegel Tumpes and Hand, and Johnson-Vorland-Archuleta, Inc., representing ;ting conditions as best as they can be detailed.
feasibility estimate should be examined as a range number. The low-range number ild realistically be the $39.00/SF or $1,493,700 and the top range is $44.23 or >94,000. These dollars will totally replace the mechanical and electrical systems bring the building in compliance with the life-safety codes. Architecturally, building would be stablized without major interior reconfiguration. The exterior Id be rehabilitated with new insulated windows and refurbishing of the cornice ailing and potentially a new roof. The totals will vary depending upon project )e. For example, the roofing system may nob need to be replaced or the existing abing fixtures -may be reused. The use of the building is predicated upon an office largely in its existing room configuration.
Lgn and Engineering costs will run $85,000 to $110,000. This cost is not included the attached feasibility estimate.
efully these fcash fifty values will help you in your evaluation of the viability the slruclure.
y truly yours,
hard K. Hump times elopment Manager
ilosure : Sam Addoms
GREELEY. COLORADO B063
r> r a f- o n e i o 1 •-< r> - * r


HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO.
: J 3 n jl_ 31 *_JL3 7
OPEELEY,
COLORADO
merAPfj) rr.
DKI! '


-78-
Everett, Zeigel, Tumpes & Hand August 8, 1978 Page Two
The interior and exterior masonry bearing walls are in good to excellent condition. There is some evidence in the brick near the front entrance of differential settlement; there are minor failures of arched lintels over window and door openings; there is deterioration of brick mortar joints in areas where water has been allowed to flow down the face of the walls; and there are some open joints in the stone foundation walls.
None of these defects, however, is serious, nor are immediate repairs required. Should permanent uses of the building be contemplated, repairs should be made. We believe that the masonry can be repaired and brought to what can be considered to be excellent condition at a relatively minimal cost.
The roof of the west portion of the building is framed with wood joists, wood built-up beams and wood trusses supported on masonry bearing walls that rise to the attic level. All components appear to be of adequate size and in excellent condition.
The primary roof supports for the majority of the roof over the east section of the building are built-up wood trusses spanning approximately 66 feet in the north-south direction over areas that once served as a multi-purpose auditorium and a stage. These trusses support two poorly conceived trusses spanning in the east-west direction which, in turn, support wood beams and joists. Both types of trusses are clearly inadequate for the spans involved. The main trusses have buckled and deflected over the years to the point where, in our opinion, they are very near failure; a reasonably heavy snow load could cause a collapse of the entire roof of this portion of the building. A collapse of the roof could cause progressive failure of supporting walls and/or the structural floors below.
Because of the critical condition of the roof structure of the east portion of the building, we recommend that one of the following procedures be undertaken before it is subjected to snow loads this coming fall or winter:
1. Discontinue occupancy of the entire eastern portion of the building.


-79-
Everett, Zeigel, Tumpes & Hand August 8, 1978 Page Three
2. Replace the major roof trusses (It is, in our opinion, impractical to repair these trusses). This alternative will necessitate a substantial expenditure of money.
3. Provide shoring between the roof and the second floor. Such shoring must be carefully and adequately done in order to insure sufficient factors of safety at both levels. Although this scheme would be considerably less expensive than the replacement of roof trusses, the cost of shoring could be as high as $5,000. The presence of shoring would, of course, mean
the necessary abandonment of a large section of previously usable second floor area.
We trust that this letter answers your immediate questions regarding the structural integrity of this building. If we can be of any further service, please let me know.
Sincerely,
JOHNSON-VOILAND-ARCHULETA, INC.
By
w.
B. Johnson, Vice-Pres.
WBJ:fw


-80-
1 filHH GROUP, IOC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
(303) 420-4455
6073 W. 44th Ave. P.O. Box 12037 Denver, Colorado 80212
August 9, 1978
Mr. Richard A. Tumpes Everett, Zeigel, Tumpes & Hand 1215 Spruce Boulder, CO 80302
RE: Possible renovation of old Greeley High School Dear Dick:
In response to your request for an evaluation of the mechancial and electrical systems for the above-referenced project, there were several areas which were found to be inadequate or or in violation of the National Electric Code, the UBC, and Mechanical UBC.
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS:
All of the receptacles on the upper floor were ungrounded receptacles. The lighting in the entire area was totally inadequate. There were no exit signs properly illuminated.
There were areas where exposed wiring was used on the main floor though some remodel work has taken place in order to keep the area open for the senior citizens to use. There were no exit lights properly illuminated. The lighting was better, but inadequate. There was no egress lighting. There was also no emergency lighting. In case of power outage; there would be inadequate light for exiting the building. In the basement area, again, there are no exit lights and no emergency egress lighting.
In general a building of this construction should be equipped with a manual fire alarm system which would consist of horns and pull stations. There should be a proper emergency egress lighting circuit. The entire electrical distribution system should be reworked as the system that is in there now is totally inadequate.
MECHANICAL COMMENTS:
1. There are many exposed steam heating pipes which could be hazardous to ■•the occupants. No piping has been insulated.
Robert J. Rice/Don E. Marek/Robert G Holtz/Verlin G. Torgerson/Solomon P. Chavez GaryC. Curry/Ralph W. Kloepfer


-81-
Mr. Richard A. Tumpes Everett, Zeigel, Tumpes & Hand August 9, 1978 Page Two
2. Plumbing fixtures are inadequate for a building of this usage.
3. The coal fired boiler will not meet the new State Pollution Code.
With the number of electrical and mechanical code violations that are present in the upper floor and in the basement, it is our opinion that the building is mechanically and electrically hazardous. There is a definite possibility of fire because of the exposed wires and dangerous burns from the exposed piping. It is our opinion that the mechanical and electrical systems should be totally renovated.
Very truly yours,
GCreme
♦


-82-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ramsey and Sleeper, Architectural Graphic Standards, Sixth Edition,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1970.
2. Terry Barnhart, Planner, Gage, Davis and Associates, Boulder, Colorado; personal communication.
3. "Cultural and Recreational Facilities for Greeley - Phase II," prepared by the Mayor's Task Force, April 19, 1979. Lydia Ruyle, Chairperson; Consultants: Gage, Davis and Associates; Everett, Zeigel,
Tumpes and Hand; Hammer, Siler, George Associates; The Denver Consulting Group.
4. "Downtown Development Study," prepared by the Greeley Planning Commission, City of Greeley, Colorado, July 1978.
5. Stan Gengler, Director of City of Greeley Parks and Recreation Department; personal communication.
6. John Given, current Planner, City of Greeley Planning Department; personal communication.
7. Butler, George Daniel and National Recreation and Park Association, Introduction to Community Recreation, McGraw Hill, New York, 1976.
8. Hatry, Harry P. with the National Recreation and Park Association, Measuring the Effectiveness of Local Government Services: Recreation, Urban Institute, Washington D.C., 1971.
9. Guggenheimer, Elinor C., Planning for Parks and Recreation Needs in Urban Areas, Twayne Publishers, New York, 1969.
10. Lydia Ruyle, Chairperson, City of Greeley Mayor's Task Force; personal communication.
11. "Uniform Building Codes," prepared by International Conference of Building Officials, California, 1979 edition.
12. "Urban Parks and Recreation: A Challenge of the 1970's: A Research Study," by the Community Council of Greater New York, and Professor Richard Kraus, New York, 1972.
13. Gold, Seymour M., Urban Recreation Planning, Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, 1973.


-83-
DESIGN SOLUTION


Sprint]
Sprint):
*C80
.Gfavel/Pit
64-S
ncninl'
*66/
r^tm h.
Co-rtj14664 j
'H pt;se,
LiWriln Sch
‘eterB
V Jr >is:
fO . At-id Co ■■At •' tibllC I hospital
Ij.ifksort
TW£Ml'CT.lr.
u7 7!
Peservoirsi;
Is *82S
7 W.E d rv FIFTH
4675
Garden City






u
parking
•
/
tUZT"
vZ_L
F-
~v • -]
jljl
—------r c-:=u=
Pn
T
H

c

/
»uC





12*^, A
V '
•O') " AoOc^b ^C?x<5 £2 W^KTtEAlHIH^ &X5(26H?g -£0*20
P^r\6JZ ^IFLS' RAMIS’
?=££>
^2?



'ZCO
nirgcPruPH ^uipiMSHr zx>
CTV £PPP! ^
*bP5£*7*T£fc. -b.S^rih^
(^) vdov&v. po^rj^ ^"IO^m3^ 142?
^ -eAUHAA 3 \CO‘^r- cQ zoz>
na^HAHi^i- e^jiPMSHf ZZD
JAHIT0B. cxczd&r \c&


3£aft^
'PJT
U?L>H3£
PN-I^ Mgerm^j
h^H



j:; czx^zccrr? Sj er <£j
-‘$uxQ-A^ 5- 3^?
n^riH^
zc?

1C x^S" ST5
U?Jk\L& ^>35
£M &A£VT ^XC&WaZ' l^£>
cx*ex&jr: pFr\L& 1*22
(psmjs&o & I6C>




f
prvp

e-Ab I iA

«l??p.. pi-rtA MBtH. . 1 1



eT'eAU
£*efL. l AWLJ£
CPAFte
weiar
PPHP© PRAFf^
£ffM
12JFU5

IIPPIIHO
M
u
^IPP..
f=^eng &
^AU^."l/^d,'''11'^"
0



(BALLS

|2XgR. W4T PrWC

6.RAPI
RlPU^
4YM

ICCAC&L
€AL 1A

FllAPP
^KC^AU€-
:P|M5
T225U
<££HKMg 6-
-SCAU5 â– l/fed-l'-C


&OW BM 6"P>
'.'.i>AL£5 !


‘SOi&Me. e
.^ALg ;-l/fe£C -- \'-0'


4YM
{2JFU5
c%uier zc>

jn^ALC-

(^pAgfZvAmi Al^Vfc
)
UajB-Y
sir^
Pt3^|c-
--------7
/
/
/
/
y
^Or\&~lb (
FcAUS : 1/6^ - I1 A"


r
\____
o o o o
—
rifle
gym
9000000 ©_© ©
T&fi
©
©
©
©
©
©
3©r
lockers
OOOOOOOOOOOO 0^0 o a ~v---------rry
quiet zone
pool
deck
O O O viewer access
© 0 © athlete access
L____A-




Full Text

PAGE 1

PREFACE This thesis design project is the culmination of my college education at the University of Colorado. At the Graduate School of Architecture my thesis design offers an opportunity to utilize this knowledge in a project that can be carried beyond the design development stage into a complete and integrated solution. Since the early 1900's, parks and recreation facilities have been recognized as a significant responsibility of municipal government in the United States. Every major city in the country operates a system of parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, zoos, museums, pools, golf courses, and similar facilities. The needs of various age groups are met by athletic, social, cultural and similar activities; today, well over a billion dollars are spent each year by cities, towns, and villages to support such programs. It is widely accepted that park and recreation departments make an important contribution to helping cities become healthier and happier places in which to live. Greeley, Colorado is attempting to enrich the existing community services with the addition of new cultural and recreational facilities. My goal is to design a community recreation facility to meet the needs of the City of Greeley.

PAGE 2

• TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND . . Corrmunity Plan Comnunity Attitude Survey .. Centennial Park ..... Heath Junior High School • • • t The Community Building Purpose of the Study • . Parameters of the Problem Methodology ... Site Plan Studies Alternative A Alternative E Financing . PROGRAMMING . _ Corrmunity Recreation Center Program . Site Information Cultural Arts Center BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . DESIGN SOLUTION 1 . • . • 2 . . . . 4 ll . 17 . 24 24 . . 27 32 34 37 . 44 47 50 60 •• 72 82 . . 83

PAGE 3

-1BACKGROUND Greeley, Colorado organized a committee of citizens to assess the community's cultural and recreational needs in 1977 . A technical evaluation carried out in 1978 helped to establish the general size and function of these programs in relation to their appropriateness in the Greeley community. A subsequent committee report recommended the following: -A performing arts auditorium seating 1200 to 1800 Moving the library to a new location to allow expansion of public services in the City Administration Building A community theater seating 300 to 500 Rejection of a major convention center complex Immediate relocation of the Senior Citizens Center from hazardous conditions in the Old School -A new combination indoor pool/recreation center. COMMUNITY PLAN A Phase II technical study to further resolve issues and identify options was undertaken by Gage, Davis and Associates and Everett, Zeigel, Tumpes, and Hand, both of Boulder, Colorado. This study consisted of four separate but integrated parts: 1. A community attitude survey of ()5% of the Greeley population to determine attitudes about cultural and recreational facilities, funding pre ferences, further information needs, and the general attitude about Greeley. 2. An evaulation of three alternatives for development of a community recreation facility: a. converting the existing Centennial Pool into a year-round facility; b. developing an ancillary facility at Heath Junior High School to exploit multi-use of the existing junior high facilities, and; c. a downtown facility on the City-owned land west of City Hall which expands or replaces the present community building recreation center.

PAGE 4

-23. An. evaluation of alternative combinations of the proposed facilities on the City-owned land, two blocks west of City Hall. 4. An investigation of financial implications of the development alternatives on the City-owned land and the funding alternatives which appear feasible, including the fiscal impact of these choices on both the City and a typical resident. Through the public opinion survey, it was found that, overall, Greeley residents are proud of their community. 67% of the citizens are generally satisfied with the public services and facilities of Greeley. The areas that were thought to need improvement were street and sidewalk maintenance, recreational the Senior Citizens Center, and the bus service. COMMUNITY ATTITUDE SURVEY On the survey, the swimming and recreational facilities were described as follows: "Two types of swimming and recreational facilities are being considered. A. One is an indoor swimming pool with locker rooms. B. The other is an indoor swimming pool and locker rooms with additional indoor recreational facilities such as handball and racquetball courts, a gymnasium and sauna." While it appears reaction to Plan B (65% favorable) is more favorable than Plan A (60% favorable) in terms of need/desirability, anticipated participation and anticipated frequency of use, the difference between the two proposed facilities are not significant. Reaction to ProQosed Recreational Facilities (A) (B) Pool Pool With Extras Needed or Desirable Yes 60% 65% No 38% 32% Don • t Know/No Response 2 % 3 % Total 100% 100% " Would Participate Yes 58% 64% No 41% 35% Don•t Know/No Response 1 % 1 % Total TOO% TOO%

PAGE 5

-3-The primary reasons for not feeling Plan A is needed/desirable is a feeling that there are already adequate existing swimming facilities in the Greeley area among the schools, other public pools, spas, and private clubs (65 mentions). Second, given a choice of the two types of facilities explored, some would prefer the larger facilities with saunas and other extras (48 mentions}. The only major reason given for not feeling Plan B is needed/desirable is a feeling that there are already existing facilities available in the community for those activities (71 mentions). ' If given a choice between one larger facility in a central location (like Plan B) or several small facilities (like Plan A) in outlying residential areas, there is a preference for the one larger central facility. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES Two funding alternatives increased property tax and increase sales tax -were tested among respondents. Comparing the two alternatives, the sales tax alternative is the only one with a majority preference (50% for increased sales tax vs. 37% for increased property tax) . COMMUNITY BUILDING AND RED BRICK SCHOOLHOUSE A slight majority of respondents (53% ) are in favor of keeping the present Community Building rather than tearing it down to make way for a new cultural or recreational facility. Disposition of Community Building Against tearing down Community Building For tearing down Community Building Don't know which building that is Don't know/No response Tota 1 53% 30% 10% 7 % 100% However, respondents are evenly divided (44% for and 44% against) on the issue of restoring vs. replacing the old red brick schoolhouse. of Old Red Brick Schoolhouse Should be torn down and replaced Should be restored Don't know which building that is Don't know/No response Total 44% 44% 6 % 6 % 100%

PAGE 6

-4-Based on the findings of this survey, several recommendations were made. The proposed community recreation facility was not the first issue on the agenda for cultural and recreational improvements for the City of Greeley. It rated third in order of importance with a senior citizens center receiving highest priority and a cultural center receiving second priority. It was also recomnended that, based on the current economic climate, the City might consider a phased approach to funding which would enable them to build the facilities over a number of years. This would lessen the financial burden on the taxpayers and increase the chances of taxpayer approval. An evaluation of potential locations for a community recreation center in Greeley attempts to compare the possibilities and opportunities available at three sites: 1. Centennial Park , at 23rd Avenue and Reservoir Road, with the potential of year-round use of the existing 50 meter swimming pool. 2. Heath Junior High School, at 23rd Avenue and 16th Street, with the potential supplemental use of the existing gymnasium and playfields. 3. The Community Building, at lOth Avenue and 7th Street, with the potential of improved and expanded use of the existing city recreation center. Comparison of the sites has been based upon the two kinds of recreation centers proposed in the Community Attitudes Survey: -A neighborhood center, providing an indoor swimming pool and locker room facilities -A central recreation complex, offering a comprehensive program, and a broad range of recreation opportunities. To allow an equal evaluation of each site, and provide for a common point of beginning, a program for the larger central facility was written, with the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation. The 32,571 square foot program, outlining space requirements for a pool, gymnasium, handball courts, crafts and meeting rooms, etc., is included in the section entitled Programming. CENTENNIAL PARK This site lends itself most advantageously to implementation as an indoor po.ol, providing year-round use of the existing 50 meter (164.4 feet) long pool, a popular summer recreation destination. As we concluded in the initial phase of this study, to be enclosed and unusable during nine months of the year makes it a greatly under-utilized resource. Fifty meter swimming pools are a rarity in Colorado, and the construction of

PAGE 8

rr:: . l' : t : .J-:..:_' . . ' --! _.. . :: .. _...._ :::: . .. --..... ::

PAGE 9

-7-such a larger pool becomes even more d{fficult and unattainable in an inflationary period. Our program at other sites is not so liberal, allowing only for the inclusion of a 25 yard pool, the current standard in recreational planning. The construction of the addition to the Weld County Library, and the existence of playfields, a fire station, a boy scout clubhouse, and adequate parking, discourages further building at Centennial Park, which would eliminate valuable, usable open space. Rather, our studies have focused upon covering the existing pool with an inflatable dome which can be removed in the summer. Such an enclosure of Centennial Pool is illustrated in the following sketches and elevations. Here, the structure would enclose 150ft. x 195ft.; 29,250 square feet, and cost approximately $160,000 (fabric, mechanical and electric systems, etc. for the enclosure only, 1979). Other costs would include site preparation, and winterization and upgrading of the existing locker rooms. A 13-year life cycle would require replacement of the fabric only, for approx imately $95,000 at current costs. SUMMARY The value to the community of Centennial Pool, because of its size (50 meters) would be greatly increased by making year-round use possible. A permanent structure, however, is extremely expensive and will likely reduce the popularity of the pool for summer use--its peak period. The site offers the potential of expansion of the pool, even to the point of a major recreation complex, but is perhaps more valuable at present as open space recreation which should be preserved by reserving the area for less intensive development. More intensive use of the pool alone would not greatly impact the site and other facilities located there. Air-inflated structure, while not inexpensive, is much less expensive (short and long term) than a permanent structure and being removable enables continued summer outdoor pool use. Such an approach would also provide a high capacity facility to meet non-summer demands. (For example, a central bulkhead would provide two 25 meter pools for separate school or community g . roups.) While its location for school use is a bit further from several schools than the Heath Jr. High site, almost any site will require some transportation modes to meet constraints of class periods in inclement weather. Detailed investigation of the pool structure for soundness, followed by design development of an expansion of the locker facilities and seasonal covering of the pool (such as by an air inflation system) as a satellite year-round pool for joint use by the public and school system.

PAGE 10

---------------------I I I I , I / I I , , , ,L/ I I • I j • \ ' \ '\ ':] \ r .-------qv ' 1 . . [:::::::, . l j J I I ' ) "./ / ' / ro Q () ....... ( : ' ) nn t.:_.. \6!) L ----==--= f I I I OJ . .

PAGE 11

---------------->.•0 r , -,., I_,_ , :r;;:c..,...' v -Cl , t.L ' ---x--r ---------! -y es-.. , . ; ') .I . --j, : :------. ----' ) --l I ' dJ' ' I 1 I -'----' j , -----I ' , , I ,---;---,-'/ I I . , I -----> fCOL.. _ j __ - • ---------;--: I >' I I \ I \ ::ti":;;fi r--iV I \ . . ,.. )< \ ! 7.1 I I \ \ . . r::::: --ra:oU ,.J ',. 1;1, . -:Y. '-1"'-,,_... r....-<.. _ ......__, • '/MJ::....-!.1, . . I . ,1/ ,1.' I . T .....-I ...... ---t: ' ' 1-. ; -;. __ __ X ' ' ')(-..J .. , ett,Zeigel, Tumpes & Hand ; P lanners A Profess-oral Ccroora110n O i /'-...W / ,. c" J.."-A 1 1 c_ r-:,"::::r. 1 t ........... ........ '-:a, ..... j :;::, , , r t: '-: h : }\, r .....-.,.,-,-, ,..-\ ' ' l....t. . ', . _..:.....:.L-.._;.. .... r, r \ I I l I I I I I I \

PAGE 12

a I __, 0 I

PAGE 13

-11-HEATH JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL The existing facilities at Heath, including the gymnasium, tennis courts, track, baseball field, and outdoor basketball courts, are available for public use now. The floor plan of the school is adaptable to after-hours use: Hallway barriers can confine public access to the existing gymnasium area in the northeast corner of the building. A new recreation center can be constructed adjacent to the existing gym, as the following studies indicate, with some site modifications. An existing metal classroom building must be relocated, as will. the exterior basketball courts. Parking must be added. These requirements are not so debatable, however, as is the additional public intrusion upon the site. Since the Heath facilities would only be available for public use after school hours for nine months of the year, or more, a new center on the site can only serve to disturb the junior high program. Traffic and parking require m ents will increase . Playfield access will have to be scheduled and controlled to a greater extent. Existing facilities, as mentioned above, must be relocated, or removed, and open space and privacy will be lost. Although, with a new center, two gymnasiums would be available, the sched uling problems required in order to not disturb the school schedule make the relationship and adjacency of the two buildings somewhat meaningless. Essentially, the Heath facilities can be used by the public with, or without, the addition of a new recreation center on the site and are probably more controllable without it. A new center, in turna benefits little from a location on the junior high grounds. Playfields are an added advantage and probably not affordable in new community recreation center programming and construction. Their use, however, can go on without adjacent indoor public recreation. The existing gym is adaptable to joint use but, ideally, the junior high locker rooms would not be. Maintenance, access, storage, and locker availability are complicated by public use. Such facilities would best be located in a public building controlled by the recreation department. A new swimming pool at this location, preferably enclosed, would be a very appropriate answer to the neighborhood recreation need, supporting the existing facilities at Heath and supplementing the athletic program at nearby Greeley Central High School. Sl!MMARY The existing Heath Jr. High building, and its site, would permit development of a new 25 yard indoor pool which, with the existing gym facilities, could be isolated to function as a community recreation center. However, functional scheduling problems do, and will, exist to effectively preclude daytime (and

PAGE 14

. ' r --=::-. . ..... ':. '"' .. ........... -

PAGE 15

) rs--

PAGE 16

-,"T-/own Cl porkinq t e lawn lawn aspiJo!t

PAGE 17

. rn F 1).-A , . , .... B [...__---_ ( ' . J 1 r----_ _jl , I __. U"l I

PAGE 18

' . I [01 , -. I ---____ . ---.::;-1 -c:.::c;rr.:.-----

PAGE 19

. • -17-much nighttime) community use during the school year. Public use of Heath can and should be increased--but adding a new pool will not adequately meet needs for at least one full-service recreation center, available for day and night community use. A pool built at Heath would primarily serve school needs, which are important, but with only marginally greater convenience to the potentially major users (Greeley Central High, Greeley West High) . . RECOMMENDATION Defer ouilding a pool at Heath, increase community use of school facilities focussing primarily on the existing gym facilities and outdoor playfields. THE COMMUNITY BUILDING The existing green-roofed quonset Community Building lacks even basic recreation program requirements, outside of an adequate basketball court. Locker room facilities are not even minimal, and, as indicated in the existing plan, little else but meeting rooms is available. There is an adequate kitchen and much fixed seating. The seating, however, is not a community need and generally remains unused. A major remodeling and addition is required, therefore, to bring the building to a useable, programmable state and studies indicating some of those possibi'lities are included herein. The building shell encloses much volume, in a somewhat column-free interior. Thus, some major interior remodeling might be accomplished with little difficulty, such as the addition of handball/racquetball courts, and remodeling of the stage area into a locker/exercise room complex. An addition providing an indoor pool would do much to increase the recreation opportunities at this center. The conceptual drawings included herein were accomplished when it appeared that the old school to the west would be removed . . Thus, they do not respect the school's location, nor do they meet required zoning setbacks and separations. Nevertheless, they serve to illustrate the possibilities of adding to and upgrading the Community Building. Similar additions can occur at the north end, but major expansion in that direction will require vacation of 7th Street. All such modifications must ultimately speak to the image that the building creates for the City of Greeley. Currently, to say the least, it is not a source of civic pride. While economic factors might initially indicate that and remodeling such an apparently sound structure would be advisable, the simplicity of the structure, lack of major past investment, and lack of nearly any existing needed civic space within might similarly support demolition and replacement. A more efficiently designed center would provide more recreation opportunities for more people, in a setting that would inspire pride in the City of Greeley.

PAGE 20

: . ' • -1 --) ! ...... • , I '-'

PAGE 21

I 1 _ _ _ , --LFG=a I __. 1.0 I

PAGE 22

If I' S-1-I I ( r ) ,4 eo.w c1etlr rat. I I }(b• -.1' (ID[1DQ[S[Q)Q[KD@ [gS(g)

PAGE 23

lfC=Q . llfW [b[Q) 0 [NJ@

PAGE 24

----------I N N LfO=D -l?W

PAGE 25

-23Comparative costs of a remodeled community building and a new downtown recreation center are listed below. The difference, at this stage of planning, is little enough to be considered comparable. Initial construction costs would be similar. However, the larger, more inefficient, remodeled Community Building would require greater maintenance and provide some unneeded space. Remodeled Community Recreation Center Major Remodel Community Building -ll ,000 s.f. @ $50.00/s.f. Minor Remodel Community Building 13,500 s.f. @ $30.00/s.f. New covered pool area (16,000 s.f. @ $65.00/s.f.) Parking (100 cars @ $550.00/car) Landscaping and Irrigation 21,750 s.f. @ $3.00/s.f. Professional Fees (@ 10% ) Allowance for Furnishings (lump sum) New Community Recreation Center Community Recreation Building with indoor pool (32,500 s.f. @ $65.00/s.f.) Parking (100 cars @ $550.00/car) Landscaping and Irrigation 21,750 s.f. @ $3.00/s.f. Professional Fees (@ 9 % ) Allowance for Furnishings (lump sum) Demolish Existing Community Building SUMMARY $2,366,750.00 550,000.00 405,000.00 1,040,000.00 55,000.00 65,250.00 211,500.00 40,000.00 $2,517,600.00 2,112,500.00 55,000.00 65,000.00 200,750.00 40,000.00 44,100.00 The existing Community Building is heavily, but not effectively, used due to the design of the interior, as Greeley's primary recreation center. Remodeling is needed, and possibly as shown by the design studies to improve its useability, but the largely unused fixed seating still remains as an obstacle to efficient use of the enclosed space. Preserving the Old School further restricts the flexibility of any potential remodeling and additions to the Community Building. What was at first presumed out of the question (costwide)--replacing the Community Building--upon closer investigation {with admittedly gross cost estimates), it appears to be only slightly more expensive to replace rather than to remodel. In fact, within the accuracy of the estimates, the options appear to be roughly equivalent, largely due to the costs associated with extensive major renovation required and the retrofitting a pool facility to the Community Building. RECOMMENDATION Since the downtown site is desirable for a central recreation facility, and

PAGE 26

-24-the alternatives of renovation vs. replacement are approximately comparable, the recommended course of action will be determined by other site-related factors such as efficiency of use and preservatton of the Old School. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of the Task III study is to give consideration to the development of a two-block area of City-owned land immediately west of the civic complex. Lacking a commitment at present as to the use of this site, the City of Greeley retained the Consultants to undertake site planning studies of sufficient detail to make a recommendation regarding appropriate future use. The study has been exploratory in nature and has concentrated on accomodating facilities proposed and accepted as a result of a study conducted in 1978 (An Evaluation of Potential Municipal .Projects-Greeley, Colorado, July 1978). While these proposed facilities are primarily cultural and recreational in nature, other potential uses such as a new library or new public service offices have also been considered. PARAMETERS OF THE PROBLEM THE SITE Site Size: The site represents a two-block area to the west of the c1v1c complex between 6th Street and 8th Street. The southern block is 2.3 acres and the northern block is 3.7 acres in size. The right-of-way occupied by 7th Street between the blocks is .9 acre, making the maximum land available for development, including the 7th Street right-of-way, slightly less than 7 acres. Adjacent Uses: The site is located at the interface between the commercial/ public area of the downtown core and the residential areas that surround it. Because of the unique characteristics of its location, planning for the development of the site is a critical factor that should attempt to respond to a diverse set of surrounding influences. The eastern edge of the site is bounded by the existing city offices complex and by the park adjacent to the downtown area. An obvious opportunity exists to utilize the park area as a setting for one of the major public buildings being considered for the site. The northern and western edges of the site are bounded by areas that are primarily residential in use and are expected to remain residential in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Uses along the southern edge of the site are a mixture of quasi-public, residential and commercial service uses. This area is expected to slowly redevelop into comnercial service uses that support the nearby governmental centers and the central business district. Streets: Present traffic volumes on all streets around the site except 11th Avenue are significantly below capacity and present no limitations to develop ment. Traffic volumes on 11th Avenue, while still well below capacity, are significantly higher than other streets in the area due mainly to its

PAGE 27

7TH ST. EXI STING CITY HALL 6TH ST . FUTURE RESIDENTIAL J I FUTURE RESIDENTIAL I I TASK Ill ' N (.]1 I SITE PLANNING STUDIES GREELEY, COLORADO

PAGE 28

-26designation as a north-south arterial that traverses almost the entire city. A preliminary analysis by Transportation Development Associates, a Boulder based transportation consultant, indicates that 7th Street can be closed through the site without significantly affecting circulation patterns in the vicinity. This assessment w as made before the present plan for the central business district was developed by Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. of El Segundo, Calif ornia. That plan calls for closing 8th Street between 7th and 8th Avenue. While it is assumed at this writing that both 7th and 8th Streets could be closed and 6th Street could still serve as an east-west bypass around the central business district as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, the City should verify future traffic conditions before actually closi.ng any streets. Existing Buildings: The northern block of the site is presently occupied by several dozen single-family houses. All of these structures are vacant and a number represent potentially historic examples of Greeley's past. As of this writing, it is our under s tanding that these houses will be sold and moved to other sites. The southern block of the two-block site is occupied by two buildings of major scale--the Community Building and the existing Greeley School. The Community Building is a large vaulted structure containing a basketball court, stage and fixed seating, several meeting rooms and a complete kitchen. While the building is structurally sound, it is only an average facility for recreation in terms of size and versatility. There are no shower and locker facilities, and the fixed seating and stage area are of limited useability. The Community Building is heavily utilized for the City's recreation programs in spite of its limitations. The Greeley School building is an historic structure that until recently housed the Senior Citizens Center and a number of the City's recreation programs. The building is presently vacant, owing to non-conformance with existing life/ safety codes. Preliminary structural and mechanical investigations have been conducted. The eastern portion of the building was built in 1895 and the entire building has been recommended for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Buildings. At the present time the City of Greeley does not have an historic preservation ordinance. Any re-use of this building will require extensive restoration costs which include costs involved for exterior rehabilitation of walls and cornices, new insulated windows, a new roof on the eastern wing, and complete replacement of mechanical and electrical systems. Additional costs as a result of requirements unique to a new use will also be required. THE. USES A Phase I study for the Mayor's Ad Hoc Committee for Recreational and Cultural Facilities made a technical evaluation of cultural and recreational needs appropriate for Greeley and e stablished general program requirements. Based upon the results of this study, a number of public uses were identified by the

PAGE 29

-27Committee as appropriate for consideration on this subject site. These uses are: 1. Adequate facilities for Senior Citizens (Senior Citizen Center) 2. A recreation center with indoor pool (Community Recreation Center) 3. A community theatre seating 300 to 500 (Cultural Arts Center) 4. A performing arts auditorium seating 1200 to 1800 {Performing Arts Center) 5. Moving the library or the public service functions to a new location on the site to allow expansion of other functions in the City Administration Building 6. A new public museum. General program requirements for the above uses established in the Phase I study have been used as a starting point for determining the size and functional requirements to be utilized for each facility during the course of these site planning studies. This information was reviewed for adequacy, and minor addi tions and revisions were made to the degree possible without extensive reevaluation and study. The resultant programmatic requirements for each of the foregoing potential uses is set forth in the section entitled Programming. These programmatic requirements form a statistical basis for the site planning studies that follow. METHODOLOGY PROBLEM DEFINITION An initial review of the public uses being considered for inclusion on the site revealed that the site was not large enough to accomodate all of them. Conse quently, the first level of analysis was one of identifying which uses would be more appropriate for inclusion on the site than others. This decision was not a clear-cut one, being complicated by a number of factors: -Because of differing inter-relationships among uses, the appropriateness of any use on the site is somewhat dependent upon what other uses are included with it. site itself will be a more appropriate location for some uses than others. -The desire or feasibility of retaining and re-using the Community Building and/or the existing Greeley School will affect the appropriateness of certain uses for the site, by virtue of their suitability for inclusion within the existing building{s).

PAGE 30

-28--A decision to retain one or both of the existing buildings will affect both the amount of land available to accomodate other uses, and the flexibility of its utilization. -The site area available to accomodate uses will be greatly affected by the amount of parking provided on the site and the amount accomodated by existing spaces off the site. The appropriateness of remote parking varies by use. Because of the complexity involved in identifying the most appropriate uses for the site, the consultants decided to identify a number of site development criteria assumptions and to then identify all possible site development alternatives that meet those assumptions. IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES A review of background data was made, and additional meetings were held with the Mayor1S Ad Hoc Coordinating Committee for Recreational and Cultural Facilities to provide additional information. A preliminary traffic and parking assessment was made by Transportation Development Associates (TDA) of Boulder, Colorado. Input on public attitudes was provided by the Denver Consulting Group as it became available. A preliminary study of the feasibility of renov ating the old Greeley School was made by Hensel Phelps and Everett, Zeigel, Tumpes and Hand (EZTH). This information and other general data was then consolidated into the following assumptions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 . . 6. Utilities in the area of the site are capable of accomodating all uses being considered for the site. The capacity of 11th Avenue is sufficient to accomodate present and anticipated future traffic, and a one-way couplet at lOth and 11th Avenues is neither necessary or desirable. Seventh Street can be closed across the site without affecting police and fire protection services in the vicinity and without seriously impacting plans for downtown development. There are nearly 650 curbside parking spaces within a 10001 walk of the site. Approximately 400 of these spaces are under-utilized on nights and weekends. The proximity of available parking spaces for spectator facilities is not as critical as the proximity of available parking spaces for non-spectator facilities. The nature of the Comnunity Building makes it inappropriate for utilization of any uses other than recreation. The building is in sound physical condition.

PAGE 31

-29-7. The existing Greeley School is, by virture of its structural characteristics, inappropriate for re-use as a library, recreation center, or performing arts center. Based upon these assumptions, an attempt was made to identify all possible alternatives that could be accomodated on the site. A total of 21 alternatives were identified. Subsequent to this identification, eight of the alternatives were eliminated as unfeasible due to what were felt to be glaring shortcomings. These shortcomings included such things as the need to demolish the Community Building without providing a facility. The remaining l3 alternatives were then compared and evaluated against a number of criteria selected by the consultants for the purpose of identifying four alternatives that seemed most appropriate for the development of the site. COMMITTEE REVIEW At the completion of this evaluation process, results were presented to the Mayor's Ad Hoc Coordinating Committee for Recreational and Cultural Facilities for review. The four alternatives identified in the course of the evaluation were considered "straw men" for the Committee to either endorse for more detailed study, or replace with other alternatives of the Committee's choosing. It became clear during the course of the Committee's review that. there was significant support among the numbers present for saving the Greeley School building. Additionally, there seemed to be a desire to have each potential use incorporated in at least one of the alternative choices. The Committee decided to defer selection of the final alternatives until they had the benefit of the results of a study then underway regarding the cost-benefit analysis for restoring the Greeley School building. SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES At a later date, members of the Committee met again and reviewed the results of the analysis to restore the Greeley School building and selected the following five alternatives for more detailed study by the consultants. These alternatives formed the basic nucleus of possible uses considered in the following site planning studies. Alternative A Proposal: Total clearance of the two-block site, including demolition of the Community Building and the existing school building. Other development on the site would include a new Senior Citizens Center, a new Cul tural Arts Center, and a new Community Recreation Center (including indoor pool). Provision should be made for future expansion of the Senior Citizens Center. Development is to be in separate facilities able to be staged over time. Alternative A -Recommendation: Alternative A is an efficient approach to utilization of the site, and provides for the highest priority uses. In addition, the total cost for full development of this alternative as well as the initial

PAGE 32

-30costs for Phase l are as low or lower than any other alternative. The main drawback to the solution is the need to demolish both the Community Building and the existing school. The affinity of the public for these existing buildings is assumed to be different in each case: The public's desire to keep the Community Building is attributed to a desire for the activities that the building accomodates, while the desire to keep the existing school building is attributed to an affinity for the building itself. In this regard, it is assumed that provision of a new Community Recreation Center on the site in Phase 2 would tend to defuse any adverse public reaction to demolition of the Community Building in Phase 3 -if it can be shown conclusively that this course of action is economically comparable to an expansion . of the existing Community Building. Demolition of the existing school building would constitute removal of a building having significant aesthetic and historic value, and elimination of a link to Greeley's past. Demolition can be expected to elicit an adverse reaction from that portion of the public that wish to see the building saved. Alternative B Proposal: Expand the existing Community Building into a full Comnunity Recreation Center (including indoor pool). Convert the existing school building for use as a Cultural Center and a Senior Citizens Center. Provision should be made for future expansion of the Senior Citizens Center. Other development on the site should include facilities for public services offices and a new public library. Again, development is. to be in separate facilities where possible and should be able to be staged over time. Alternative B -Recommendation: While the retention of both existing buildings in this alternative avoids the negative aspects of Alternative A, the loss . of flexibility for utilization of the site as a result of keeping the buildings presents difficult site design problems. It is difficult, if not impossible, to relate the auto entrance and par k ing lots to the entries to these buildings a situation that is conducive to confusion and disorientation. The library use would be relegated to the residual land available after providing for the major uses -and as a result would be poorly located on the site. While this alternative provides for a larger number of uses than most other alternatives, the end result tends to be crowded and the site over-utilized. The initial Phase 1 cost is the highest of all alternatives, due mainly to the need to develop the Cultural Arts Center in the existing school concurrent with the development of the Senior Citizens Center. There may be a political liability in the need to include the Cultural Arts Center with the Senior Citizens Center in a single facility. Alternative C Proposal: Expand the existing Community Building into a full Community Recreation Center (including indoor pool). Convert the existing school building for use as a Senior Citizens Center, museum and public services offices. Provision should be made for future expansion of the Senior Citizens Center. O t her development on the site should include a new Cultural Arts Center. Development is to be in separate facilities where possible and

PAGE 33

-31-should be able to be staged over time. . Alternative C -Recommendation: Alternative C is similar to Alternative B in that it retains both existing buildings, and as a result suffers from similar difficulties of efficient site utilization. The most obvious manifestation of this loss of efficiency for s ite utilization is the necessity for placing the Cultural Arts Center on the northern portion of the site thereby relegating a significant public building to an inferior location on the site. While the total number of uses provided for is greater than most of the other alternatives, the resultant overcrowding of the site has resulted in an overall shortage of parking and a shortage of landscaped area. The initial Phase l costs are high -due mainly to the inclusion of low priority uses such as a museum and public service offices. There may be a political liability in the need to include a museum and public service offices with the Senior Citizens Center in a single facility. Alternative D Proposal: Expand the existing Community Building into a full Community Recreation Center (including indoor pool). Demolish the existing school building. Other development on the site should include a new Perform ing Arts Center and a new Senior Citizens Center. Provision should be made for future expansion of the Senior Citizens Center. Development is to be in separate facilities able . to be staged over time. Alternative D -Recommendation: The significant difference of this alternative from all other alternatives is the inclusion of the 1800-seat Performing Arts Center. The magnitude of this facility in regard to both building size and parking requirements is significantly greater than any of the other uses considered for inclusion of the site. As a result, the 70' high proscenium can be expected to visually dominate other buildings on the site -particularly the single-story Senior Citizens Center. Because of site limitations, the Performing Arts Center must depend upon under-utilized curbside spaces on the vicinity of the site to meet approximately 70% (over 400 cars) of its parking demand. This shortfall of available parking spaces can be expected to create conflicts in utilization of other parking facilities on the site during concert hall events. The retention and expansion of the Community Building necessitates placing the Performing Arts Center on the northern portion of the site -thereby relegating a significant public building to an inferior location on the site. As already mentioned in Alternative A, demolition of the existing school building to provide parking area for the expanded Community Building can be expected to elicit a negative reaction from groups favoring its restoration. While the initial cost for Phase l compares favorably with the other alternatives, the total cost of this alternative is significantly higher than any of the others. (No discussion or analysis is made here regarding the sharing of costs of the Performing Arts Center with UNC.) Alternative EProposal: Demolish the Community Building. Convert the existing school building for use as a Senior Citizens Center and a Cultural Arts

PAGE 34

-32Center. Provision should be made for expansion of the Senior Citizens Center. Other development on the site should include a new Community Recreation Center. Development is to be in separate facilities where possible and able to be staged over time. Alternative E -Recommendation: This alternative combines nearly all of the advantages of Alternative A while avoiding the most significant drawback demolition of the existing school building. As the preliminary cost estimates indicate, the conversion of the existing school to a Cultural Arts Center compares favorably to the construction of a new facility and construction of a new Community Recreation Center compares favorably to the expansion of the existing Community Building. The main drawback to the conversion of the existing school to a Cultural Arts Center is the smaller community theatre size. Whereas a 250-seat capacity may meet Greeley1S present needs, optimum needs are projected to be 400-500 seats. In the future, a new 500-seat theatre could be added in the proposed parkfng lot and the 250-seat theatre converted to a children1S theatre or rehearsal hall, if parking needs can be accomodated in a nearby lot and/or structure. This alternative, like Alternative A, has the lowest total cost and a Phase 1 cost as low as any of the other alternatives. Justification for demolition of the Community Building is similar to that pre sented in Alternative A. This alternative has the least crowded site condition of all the alternatives considered. SITE PLAN STUDIES GENERAL Site planning studies prepared for each alternative and included as a part of this report are prelim inary in nature and of limited applicability. Having i dentified a number of preferred combinations of uses appropriate to the site, the purp ose of the site planning studies was to determine in a preliminary manner the opportunities and constraints involved in placing each combination of uses on the site. Consideration was given to the inter-relationships of various program uses, the potential impacts of the development on the adjacent area, and to planning considerations such as vehicular and pedestrian access, open space, utilities, visual impacts and phasing. The site plan studies utilize available data with respect to such things as facility size, access and parking requirements, and facility inter-relationships-the development of primary program information with regard to needs and relationships is not a part of this contract. While it is recognized that each facility w i J l require a detailed and specialized study of its internal operations prior to establishing i t s final size and configuration, the preliminary data used for the site plan studies is believed to be sufficiently accurate to make gross comparisons between each alternative. (Since Alternatives A and E are presumed to be the best solutions, they are the only two I have included in this booklet.)

PAGE 35

-33PHASING AND PRIORITY In order to retain maximum flexibility for the development of the site over time, each alternative can be accomplished in a number of independent phases. This permits develo pment of the site to occur as a result of a number of bond issues or diverse funding approaches, as well as a result of a single bond issue. Each phase has been assigned a priority based upon the results of the public opinion survey conducted by the Denver Consultant Group. Generally speaking, a Senior Citizens Center is given the highest priority, and a Conmunity Recreation C e nter is given the second highest priority. SITE PLANNING CRITERIA Certain site planning criteria been developed during the course of the study that apply to each of the site plan alternatives. These criteria are set forth below: Uses: -Cultural Arts Center, Performing Arts Center, a n d/or public library uses should have very high public visibility-particularly from the large City park area between 9th and lOth Avenues. -The public service offices use should be closely related to the existing City Hall, but should be visually subservient to it. -The Senior Citizens Center should be related to the existing residential areas and should be expansible. -Avoid main building entrances on the north-side wherever possible. Vehicle Access: Vehicle access directly to and from 11th Avenue should be avoided due to high traffic volu mes particularly for event-related uses such as a Cul tural Arts Center or Performing Arts Center. Vehicle drop-off areas should be incorporated with each use wherever . possible -especially for a Cultural Arts Center or Performing Arts Center. Pedestrian Access: M inimize crossing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. -Pedestrian ways should link all uses on the site to each other as well as

PAGE 36

-34-to the City Hall and the Central Business District. -For event uses such as a Cultural Arts Center or Performing Arts Center where l a rge num bers of people arrive and depart in a short time span, pedestrian/automobile conflicts in the parking lots are particularly critical from a safety standpoint. Landscaping: -The entire site should be integrated through a consistent landscape treatment. -T h e stre etscape around the perimeter of the site should be upgraded by an improved landsc ape treatment that i n cludes the replacement of diagonal parking with parallel parking and comprehensive street. tree planting. Reinforce the setting of all building entrances where possible with a special landscape treatment. Parking: -Each use should have its own autonomous parking lot. -All parking needs should be accomodated in off-street lots wherever possible. Parking lots should be visually screened from all public streets and adjacent uses by berms and/or plantings. ALTERNATIVE A SITE USES This alternative demolishes the existing school building and the existing Con111unity Building. Phase 1: Construction of a new Senior Citizens Center. Phase 2: Construction of a new Community Recreation Center with indoor pool, handball court(s), gymnasium and ancillary facilities. Phase 3: Demolition of the existing Community Building and the existing Construction of a new Cultural Arts Center with a .400-seat community theatre and ancillary cultural facilities. SITE PLANNING A schematic conceptual site plan for Alternative A is shown on the following page.

PAGE 37

7TH ST. LEGEND D P R OPOSED OUILOING PROPOSED PAAK I NG AREA I PROPO SE D t _ ____....... LANDSCAPED AREA PHASE AAEA BOUNDAAY PHASE/PRIORITY UTILITY EASEMENT '\ PRINCIPLE MOVEMENT f'RitlC: Pl.E PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT t> BUilDI NG ENTRANCE EXI S T I NG CITY HAll VEH I CLE DROP-oFF POINT 6TH ST . 0000001110 VISUAL SCREEN r--., ; I '----J 0 SPECIAL LANDSCAPE TREATMENT POTENT I AL FOCAL POitH FUTURE RESlOENTIAL 10TH AVE. 11TH AVE. FUTURE j RESIDENTIAL .JLIU V I \ l-J. I I....C.n I C.t\ Build ing Coverage .32 ac . Par king 120 cars 1.0 ac . Open Space . 5 ac. 1.8 ac. PHASE 2 ITY RECREATION CENTER Build ing Coverage .8 ac . Parking 100 cars . 8 ac. Open Space . 5 ac. 2.1 ac. PHAS E 3 CULTURAL ARTS CENTER Covera g e .5 ac. Parking -165 cars 1.3 ac . Open Space . 6 ac. 2.4 ac. I v (.J I AL A TASK Ill SITE PLANNING STUDIES

PAGE 38

-36Provision is made for a new Senior Citizens Center at the corner of 6th Street and 11th Avenue adjacent to high density residential areas to the north and east of the site. A new Community Recreation Center is provided with indoor pool area. The building has been placed adjacent to lOth Avenue as close as possible to the existing City park to maximize public visibility. Both existing public buildings on the site are to be removed to provide space in the southern portion of the site for a new Cultural Arts Center with 400seat community theatre. The building is placed at the corner of 8th Street and lOth Avenue facing the existing City park for maximum public visibility. Major pedestrian linkages among uses on the site and to nearby off-site uses are shown on the site plan. SITE REQUIREMENTS Site requirements for Alternative A are set forth below: Phase l Senior Citizens Center: Building Coverage* Parking (120 cars@ 350 s.f.) Open Space (@ 25% ) *Building assumed to be on a single level Phase 2 -Community Recreation Center: Building Coverage* Parking (100 cars@ 350 s.f.) Open Space (@ 25% ) *Building assumed to be on a single level Phase 3 Cultural Arts Center: Building Coverage* Parking (165 cars @ 350 s.f.) Open Space (@ 25% ) *Building coverage assumed to be 80% of total square footage To.ta l Site Regu i rement: COST ESTIMATE l .8 ac. .32 ac. 1 .0 ac. .5 ac. 2.1 ac. .8 ac. .8 ac. .5 ac. 2.4 ac. .5 ac. 1 • 3 ac . . 6 ac. 6.3 ac. Based upon the foregoing site requirements, and utilizing program data established in the section entitled Programming, a preliminary cost estimate was prepared for purposes of comparing the financial impacts of each alternative.

PAGE 39

-37Costs are preliminary only and are not the result of detailed analysis. Phase 1 Senior Citizens Center: Senior Citizens Center Building 14,000 s.f. @ $58.00/s.f. Parking (120 cars @ $550.00/car) Landscaping and Irrigation 21,750 s.f. @ $3.00/s.f. Professional Fees @ 9 % for Furnishings (lump sum) Phase 2 Corrrnunity Recreation Center: Recreation Building with indoor pool (32,500 s.f. @ $65.00/s.f.) Parking (100 cars @ $550.00/car) Landscaping and Irrigation 21,750 s.f. @ $3.00/s.f. Professional Fees @ 9 % Allowance for Furnishings (lump sum) Phase 3 Cultural Arts Center: Demolish Existing School 41,500 s.f. @ $1 .80/s.f. Demolish Existing Community Building (24,500 s.f. @ $1.80/s.f.) Cultural Arts Building with 400-seat theatre (30,000 s.f. $ $65.00/s.f.) Parking (165 cars @ $550.00/car) Landscaping and Irrigation 26,250 s.f. @ $3.00/s.f. Professional Fees @ 12% Allowance for Furnishings (lump sum) Total Cost Alternative A: $1,048,250.00 812,000.00 66,000.00 65,250.00 85,000.00 20,000.00 $2,473,500.00 2,112,500.00 55,000.00 65,250. 00. 200,750.00 40,000.00 $2,542,950.00 75,000.00 44,100.00 1 ,950,000.00 90,750.00 78,750.00 254,350.00 50,000.00 $6,064,700.00 Using the foregoing site plan as a guide, an evaluation of potential opportunities and constraints inherent to Alternative A is presented below. Pros Lowest Phase 1 cost Lowest total cost Best location for Cultural Arts Center ALTERNATIVE E SITE USES Cons Demolishes existing school De.mol i shes existing Corrmunity Bui 1 ding This alternative retains the existing school and demolishes the existing Community

PAGE 40

-38Building. Phase 1: Construction of a new Senior Citizens Center. Phase 2: Construction of a new Community Recreation Center with indoor pool, handball court(s), gymnasium, and ancillary facilities. Phase 3: Demolish the existing Community Building. Restore the existing school building and convert it to use as a Cultural Arts Center with a 250-seat community theatre. SITE PLANNING A schematic conceptual site plan has been developed for Alternative E and is shown on the following page. Provision is made for a new Senior Citizens Center at the corner of 6th Street and 11th Avenue adjacent to residential areas to the north and east of the site. A new Community Recreation Center is provided with indoor pool area. The building has been placed adjacent to lOth Avenue as close as possible to the existing City park to maximize public visibility. The existing school is planned to be restored and converted to use as a Cultural Arts Center with a 250-seat community theatre. The existing Community Building is to be demolished and the available land utilized for parking for the Cultural Arts Center. Removal of the Comnunity Building will enhance the visibility of the Cultural Arts Center from the existing City park and the downtown area. Landscape area has been retained along 8th Street to enhance this visible con nection. Major pedestrian linkages among uses on the site and to nearby off-site uses are shown on the site plan. SITE REQUIREMENTS Site requirements for Alternative E are set forth below. Phase 1 -Senior Citizens Center: . , , Building Coverage* Parking (120 cars @ 350 s.f.) Open Space (@ 25% ) *Building assumed to be on a single level 1.8 ac. .32 ac. 1 . 0 ac . .5 ac.

PAGE 41

7TH ST. LEGE r'D D -) Pf"lOPOSE O SlALOfNG PROPOSED PAAI
PAGE 42

-40-Phase 2 Community Recreation Center: Building Coverage* Parking (100 cars @ 350 s.f.) Open Space (@ 25% ) *Building assumed to be on a single level Phase 3 Cultural Arts Center: Building Coverage* Parking (120 cars @ 350 s.f.) Open Space (@ 25% ) *Building coverage based on existing school Total Site Requirement: COST ESTIMATE 2.1 ac. .8 ac. .8 ac. .5 ac. 1.8 ac. .33 ac. 1 .0 ac. .5 ac. 5.7 ac. Based upon the foregoing site requirements and utilizing program data estab lished in the section entitled Programming, a pre . liminary cost estimate was prepared for purposes of comparing the financial impacts of each alternative. Costs are preliminary only and are not the result of detailed analysis. Phase 1 Senior Citizens Center: Senior Citizens Center Building 14,000 s.f. @ $58.00/s.f. Parking (120 cars @ $550.00/car) Landscaping and Irrigation 21,750 s.f. @ $3.00/s.f. Professional Fees (@ 9 % ) Allowance for Furnishings (lump sum) Phase 2 Community Recreation Center : Community Recreation Building with indoor pool (32,500 s.f. @ $65.00/s.f.) Parking (100 cars @ $550.00/car) Landscaping and Irrigation 21,750 s.f. @ $3.00/s.f. Professional Fees (@ 9 % ) Allowance for Furnishings (lump sum) Phase 3 Cultural Arts Center: .. , Demolish existing Community Building (24,500 s.f. @ $1 ,80/s.f.) $1 ,048,250.00 812,000.00 66,000.00 65,250.00 85,000.00 20,000.00 $2,473,500.00 2 '112 '500. 00 55,000.00 65,250.00 200,750.00 40,000.00 $2,515,100.00 44,100.00 Renovate school for Cultural Arts Center with 250-seat theatre (34,250 s.f. @ $58.00/s.f.) Parking (120 cars @ $550.00/car) Landscaping and Irrigation 30,000 s.f. @ $3.00/s.f. Professional Fees (@ 13% ) Allowance for Furnishings (lump sum) 1 ,986,500.00 66,000.00 90,000.00 278,500.00 50,000.00

PAGE 43

-41-Total Cost Alternative E: $6,036,850.00 EVALUATION Using the foregoing site plan as a guide , an evaluation of potential opportunities arid constraints inherent to Alternative E is presented below. Pros Lowest Phase 1 cost Lowest total cost Retains existing school Least crowded site condition Cons. Demolishes existing Community Building Community theatre is smaller than projected needs Of the five alternative site plans for the city-owned, t w o-block area west of City Hall, Alternative E clearly prevails over A, the second rank of the altern atives considered. Since of these buildings is approxi mately comparable to new construction in either case, the decision rests upon other factors such as community values and optimum usage of the site. Since preservation of both the Building and the Old School greatly compromise the efficiency of the site, Alternative A proposes to preserve the Old School and to rebuild a more efficient com munity recreation building elsewhere on the site. The appropriate choice is clouded by the fact that community sentiment leans slightly more toward preserving the Community Building; and the building is certainly in better physical condition than the Old School. Yet, a J l factors considered, the Old School can be effectively renovated into an efficient Cul tural Arts facility, while tne Community Building, due to its slightly inconven tional d e sign, will remain inefficiently utilized and slightly more expensive to maintain over time. In sum, Alternative E combines more advantages than the other alternatives con sidered, is the least expensive and will effectively meet community needs for cultural and recreational facilities. The program data (activities, building sizes, parking) and the cost estimates are based upon general assumptions and valuable but limited input from citizens and Task Force members, received early in the study process. FUNDING It i s unli k ely that any federal or state funds would be available to subsidize the construction of these facilities, unless they come out of general revenue sharing funds at the expense of other programs. Funding sources, specifically those for facilities for the elderly, should be pursued, but it is realistic to assume that City funding will be the primary source of financing for these facilities. Existing City revenues may have some flexibility, but generally are or should be allocated to other pressing needs identified by the community.

PAGE 44

-42A modest property tax increase as a meahs of financing this program assures that construction can be committed immediately, and at today•s prices, repaying in cheaper dollars. The property tax/bond does, however, carry a longterm commitment, an interest burden, and is not evenly distributed on the population of users--at least in the perception of the general public. The sales tax appears to be a more promising revenue source--in terms of acceptance, even distribution over a larger population, and ability to more closely match it to the required revenues and development time span of the facilities. Recommendations: A payas -you-go (non-bond issue) approach financed by a sales tax imposed in the City of Greeley to run for five years, from January 1, 1980 to December 31, 198 4. The construction would have to be carefully phased to match the projected income stream: Year Year 2, 3 Year 3, 4 Senior Citizens Center Community Recreation Center Cultural Arts Center In fact, sales tax would produce revenues potentially in excess of the required construction costs, which could be an increment to general revenues or a pplied to related cultural/recreational projects such as the Centennial Pool cover, playfields, library, museum, or the Performing Arts Concert Hall. A comment is required with respect to the Performing Arts (Concert Hall) facility. It was identified in the Phase 1 work of the Task Force and Consultants as needed, justifiable and desirable to round out an important aspect of Greeley•s cultural resources. Its consideration was initially made possible by the unilateral action of the UNC student body financial commitment. Recent re-evaluations of that commitment and other demands on UNC resources have called into question the ability, and desirability, of UNC to pursue that objective, at least in the near future. The assessment of the City•s need for and ability to support such a facility has not substantially changed, but remains dependent upon substantial financial support by the . University in the construction funding (since they will also dominate the use of the facility). From the City•s perspective, a slightly higher or longer duration sales tax could generate the revenues required for the C j ty participation. The site location issue (downtown vs. UNC site) has been at least partially addressed in the Alternative D site evaluation--indicating that another site would be preferable to allow maximum efficiency of development on the City owned two-block area.

PAGE 45

-43Discussions and negotiations between the City and UNC should be encouraged to continue, as well as major efforts to develop a broader-based support in the community for the Symphony and other potential Concert Hall artist groups. A potential, but rather inadequate, alternative interim measure is to consider a slightly larger theatre/auditorium than that proposed in conjunction with a future addition to the Cultural Arts Center in Alternative E. The public opinion survey was held both to evaluate the Greeley residents• perception of need or desirability for various facilities and to elicit the information voters might require to feel comfortable to vote. Of the specific facilities studied in detail, the Senior Citizens Center has the strongest community backing with 92% . The Concert Hall, Cultural Arts Center, and Community Recreation all scored positively, although somewhat lower than the Seniors• Center. A fairly high percentage (72-73 % ) felt they would use the Concert Hall and Cultural Hall if available, somewhat fewer (69% ) felt that way about a Community Recreation Center. Two particular areas of note are feelings that a joint Concert/ Theatre facility is better than separate ones, and that existing recreation facilities should be better used rather than build new ones. There is little recognition of the real deficiency of winter swimming facilities, for school or the public. The community feels slightly more strongly about saving the Community Building (53% for, 30% against) and remained evenly split over the Old School (44% -44%). There are strong, defendable needs in the community for the facilities being considered. An inventory of how few recreational facilities (indoor) are, or can be, really made available to the public, the growth in recreational participation, the real local demand for the facilities, and comparable data from other communities need to be communicated simply and effectively to the public in any educational program prior to a public vote. Similarly, the advantages and drawbacks of joint vs. separate cultural facilities, the cost vs. quality issue needs to be made more clear. While costs are obviously of prime importance, it is important to also that the quality of each facility, and of the experience, will be important and remembered, long after the initial cost has been forgotten. Finally, the merits of saving vs. replacing the Old School and the Community Building cannot absolutely be determined on costs alone. The final decision, and all the trade-offs considered, also need to be clearly conveyed to the public as part of an program.

PAGE 46

-44FINANCING The previous tasks sun1narized in this report have detailed alternatives for the development of various cultural and recreational facilities in the City of Greeley with an emphasis on planning for the two-block area of City-owned land west of the Civic Center complex. The focus of this chapter is to discuss alternative means of financing this development which are consfstent with the City's resources and the attitudes of the population of the City as expressed in the questionnaire which was administered as a part of this study. The costs of any development scheme could be grouped into three major categories: -Capital expenses --the cost of construction and equipping the facilities -Operating expenses --the cost of maintaining, heating and operating the structures themselves, and -Program expenses--the cost of personnel, equipment and production of the activities which will take place in the facilities constructed. The program expenses have not been addressed in this study. These can vary widely from year to year depending on budget conditions, the enthusiasm and aggressiv e ness of the persons responsible for various programs, the success or failure of programs tried in previous years, and the extent to which users' fees and admission charges can offset program expenses. The audit of the City's 1977 indicates that about $ 44,000 was spent on senior citizen programs, $413,000 on recreation excluding the swimming pools and $ 8 7,000 on the swimming pool programs. vJhile it is likely that these programs would be expanded somewhat to meet the resources available in new facilities, the program costs should be handled through the normal revenue and budget channels. The operating expenses associated with the facilities proposed here could also be handled through normal budget channels. If, however, new revenue sources were identified to pay for these new facilities, then a modest increase in the annual levy could be included to cover the operating costs. In any case, the net increase in operating cost is likely to be small. The community building had budgeted operating expenses in 1977 of about $21,000, the recreation building (the old schoolhouse) required expenses of $14,000 and all of the City's pools had expenses of only $11,000. These expenses include the salaries and fringe benefits of maintenance personnel, supplies, public utilities and repair costs. Since the alternative schemes proposed for development of the site either retain these buildings or replace them, the net increase in operating expenses under any of the development schemes would likely be small. In this financial analysis, it is assumed that no more than $50,000 per year in additional resources would be required for maintenance and operation of the proposed facilities.

PAGE 47

-45-The capital costs of development of the .site have been estimated in detail in the previous tasks and are surrrnarized as follows: -Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C --Alternative D Alternative E $ 6,064,700.00 8,589,250.00 7,639,850.00 ll ,041 ,250.00 6,036,850.00 Alternative D is the only one in which the Performing Arts Center is included as part of the site development. It is expected that, if developed, this Center would be financed one-third by the City, one-third by the students of UNC and one-third by private contributions. While this funding arrangement has not been finally resolved, and it is unclear whether the student commitment could be applied to a Performing Arts Center in this specific location, the cost to the City of this alternative under that financing scheme would be $6,004,450.00, making it fairly comparable in cost to Alternatives A and E. The consultants' recommendation is that E be the preferred alternative with A as a second choice --based not only on the total cost but also on consider ation of site utilization, efficient phasing and the priorities expressed in the community attitude survey. In addition to these construction costs, there would be additional costs associated with the issuance of bonds (should that method be used) and other City staff and overhead costs involved in getting the program underway. Therefore, in this financial analysis, a total capital expenditure of $6.3 million is assumed to be required to implement Alternatives A, D or E and the analysis is developed around that figure. Alternatives B and C would cost proportionately more; however, the concepts, advantages and disadvantages outlined in this chapter would otherwise be similar. It is unlikely that any federal or state funds would be available to subsidize the construction of these particular facilities. While there are federal programs that provide assistance for community centers for the elderly, funds are quite limited at the national level and are allocated on a state and regional basis in a manner which leaves very little available for Colorado . comnunities including Greeley. Large scale private and foundation contributions could provide a source of funding for these facilities. However, such a campaign is likely to be instituted for the Performing Arts Center (wherever it may be located) and health care improvements needed in the community. Pri vate support for these facilities might best be confined to smaller-scale contributions for equipment and furnishings of special program facilities. It has certainly been a "working assumption" of the Task Force and the consultants that public funding by the City would be necessary and appropriate, given the nature of the facilities The public funding must then come from either the existing revenue structure

PAGE 48

-46-or new sources of revenue must be identified and tapped. To reallocate existing resources would place these proposed cultural and recreational programs in competition with existing activities or other pressing needs within the community. While it is possible that this capital improvement program could be worked into the existing and projected revenue structure of the City, proposing new revenue sources would have the advantage of allowing the citizens to express their desire for or against these particular facilities without having to directly make trade-off decisions. The two most likely sources of public funding are property taxes and sales taxes.

PAGE 49

PROGRAMMING SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER BUILDING SIZE 47Approximately 14,000 s.f. (Source: An Evaluation of Potential Municipal Projects for Greeley 1978.) BUILDING FACILITIES The facility should include areas for a large meeting/dining room, kitchen, two meeting lounge, reading room, craftsroom, cardroom, billiards room, counseling room, emergency treatment, and administration. PARKING NEEDS Approximately 120-cars parking should be provided in close proximity. OTHER NEEDS There should be outdoor recreation space for shuffleboard, horseshoes, etc. COMMENTS The Senior Citizens Center should be expansible as, historically, new facilities of this type attract new numbers and are soon over-utilized. COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER BUILDING SIZE Approximately 32,500 s.f. (Source: Everett, Zeigel, Tumpes and Hand letter to Greeley Recreation Director dated Nov.ember 7, 1978.) BUILDING FACILITIES The facility should include a gym, 3 handball/racquetball courts, exercise rooms, meeti .ng rooms, kitchen, lounge/games room, indoor swimming (6 lanes, teaching bay, diving area) with spectator seating, lockers/dressing, saunas, control and administration, etc. PARKING NEEDS Provide l car/350 s.f. of building, or 90-100 cars. (Source: Transportation Development Associates.)

PAGE 50

-48COMMENTS Assume most of the building (80% minimum) would be on a single level. The facility could be built in stages, i.e. pool area or multi-use area. PERFORMING ARTS CENTER BUILDING SIZE Ground plan requirements of 120' x 240'. (Source: A Report of Committee and Consultant Work for a Proposed Campus Auditorium, University of Northern ColoradoMay, 1977.) BUILDING'FACILITIES An 1 ,800-seat auditorium with balcony; stage and proscenium to accomodate orchestra, opera, dance and musical touring groups; orchestra pit; lobby; ticketing; concession; and management areas. PARKING NEEDS Provide 1 car/3 seats, or 600 cars. (Source: Transportation Development Associates, City of Greeley Zoning Ordinance.) COMMENTS Utilization of approximately 400 under-utilized curbside parking spaces within 1,000 feet of the site is encouraged, as usage of the facility will be nights and weekends. LIBRARY BUILDING SIZE Approximately 22,000 s.f. (Source: Directory of Colorado Libraries 1976, Time Saver Standards, Sam Sasaki.) BUILDING FACILITIES The building should include: Fiction section, non-fiction section, children's section, historical section, periodicals, music section, technical services (microfilm, etc.), general administration, conference/meeting, and bookmobile storage. PARKING NEEDS Provide 1 car/500 s.f. of building, or 40-45 cars. (Source: Transportation

PAGE 51

-49-Development Associates.) COMMENTS The library can be on several levels, although two stories would be optimum for a facility of this size. MUSEUM BUILDING SIZE Approximately 8,000 10,000 s.f. (Source: Time Saver BUILDING FACILITIES The building should include approximately 10-12 exhibit rooms, a workshop, restoration area, documentation service, lobby/control areas, and administration. PARKING NEEDS Provide l car/500 s.f. of building, or 16-20 cars. (Source: Transportation Development Associates.) COMMENTS The building can be on two levels. PUBLIC SERVICES OFFICES BUILDING SIZE Approximately 10,000 s.f. (Source: Greeley Planning DepartmentSam Sasaki.) BUILDING FACILITIES The building should accomodate the following City functions: Planning and Zoning, Water and Sewer, Building Inspection, and such other City functions that provide direct services to the public. PARKING NEEDS Provide approximately 45-cars parking. (Source: Greeley Planning Department Sam Sasaki.)

PAGE 52

-50-RECREATION CENTER PROGRAM 1. 2. 3. Physical Activities Rooms a. gym 72x94 (incl. 5 ft. surround) floor markings for basketball, volleyball and badminton, place for gymnastics practice b. 3 handball/racquetball courts @ 20x40 ea. c. handball access & spectators, 3 @ 20x5 d. weight training room, 15x20 ) b. e. exercise room, 20x20 ) com lne f. gym storage, office, control Classrooms/Lobby a. 2 craftsrooms @ 500 sq. ft. ea. b. craftsroom storage Sub Total + 10% Structure Total c. meeting room dividable into 2 classrooms d. meeting room cooking facilities (a small serving kitchen area for potlucks, etc.) e. meeting room storage (chairs, etc.) f. dance room w/mirror & ballet bars (15x25) g. lounge, games, vending machines, etc. h. checkout storage i. central control; checkout, sign-up, and office j. 2 public toilets@ 80 sq. ft. ea. Pool a. b. c. d. e. House Sub Tota 1 + 10% Structure Total swimming pool -6 lanes, L-shape with teaching bay and 1 meter diving board) pool storage (bench storage = length of pool house) filtration equipment pool office, control spectator seating for 50 Sub Tota 1 + 10% Structure Total Locker Rooms a. 2 @ 700 sq. ft. ea. b. 2 saunas Sub Total + 10% Structure Total Area in Sq. Ft. 6,768 2,400 300 300 400 400 l 0,568 1 ,057 11 ,625 1,000 300 600 50 500 375 625 150 150 160 3,910 391 4,301 7,330 300 200 50 300 8,180 818 . 8 '998 1,400 200 1 ,600 160 1,760

PAGE 53

5. Mechanical Equipment a. janitor 6. Rifle Range -51Sub Total + 10% Structure Total a. interior 2340 sq. ft. -2886 sq. ft. TOTALS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub Total + 10% Circulation Total Outside Facilities = 11 ,625 = 4,301 = 8,998 = 1,760 = 352 = 2,574 29,610 2,961 32,571 sg. ft. + 10% Structure Total 1. Parking for 60-75 cars: Approximately 21,060 sq. ft. 2. Tennis ) 3. Jogging ) As available at. each site 4. Baseba 11 ) 5. Footba 11 ) Preliminary Estimate a. 32,571 sq. ft. @ $65.00 = $2,117,115.00 b. with 1 handball court only and some smaller spaces: 30,770 sq. ft. @ $65.00 = $2,000,000.00 220 100 320 32 352 2,340 (min.) 234 2,574

PAGE 54

-52HIGH SCHOOL 84'-0", COLLEGE 94'-0" 4 '-0" THROW LINE 2 " LINE :\.L L LINES 2" WICIE 2 " WIDE 8Y 3 '-0" LONG I 28'-0" MIN 3'-0" UNOBSTRUCTED SPACE--10'-0" PREFERABLE 9 b til I I '"'1 I O:TBALL COURTM E N ' S 1"•32'0 " X " ' l / , I
PAGE 55

b I Co b b o
PAGE 56

3ALLSINGLE WALL COURT : I"= 20'-0" • . , b in tJl ito I -54TOP OF" PLAYING WALL E:LE:V. OF FRONT WALL f R EAR WALL DOTTED) HARD BALL COURT IS SAME AS WALL COURT E.XC PT SIZE = 65' X 25" FRONT WALL:. 30' 0'' HIG H REA R W ALL e 12'-0 .. HIGH A AU STANDARDS YMCA COURTS ARE SMALLER 0 I ;., ('j 0 I : I 0 I ;., ('j . • OF" PLAYING WALL ELE:V OF SIDE WALL _____ ..:.4 6 -0 . .. 1 __ _ PLAN BACK WAI ZONE ooo• ...-StOEWA!...._ HANDBALL-FOUR WALL COURT S CALE I :2 S-22'-0" I FRONT I _...;r TOP OF PLAYING WALL -'l' ELE:V. OF FRONT WALL ELE:V. OF S IDE: WALL I REAR WALL DOTTED HGT D-7'-0 " S-6'-6"1 DOOR HGT 5 ' 6 " , WIDTH DOUBLES-3'-0". SINGLES 2'-6 " D-DOUBLES S-StNOLES GLASS WALL PANELS AVAIL SQUASH iD ;., I I a, ill I If) If) D45'-0" S-32'-0" 1. D-IS' ..__SIDE WALL FRONT WALL PLAN SCALE t'': 20 -o

PAGE 57

;TH OF POOL S , js is the mtni mum lenqt h tor Amertcdn . and meets interschol as ti c a nd mt c r c oll e g ( Poo l should be 7 5 1 1/2" allow for elec t ro noc t iming pane l s a t one ers ( 16 4 ' 0 1/2 ") is min omum for world !1.. ) recor ds . Add 3 1/2" for elec t ronic d evices. ) I DECK TER BOARD E.TER -55WIDTH OF P O O L S ' Dr"v11ng below shows 7' ' lanes . 6 lanes with pool wodth a multiple o f 6 ' also meet general racing r e qui rement s . Strictly co m pe t itive pool s shou l d have 7 • l anes . Min . wid t h o f 25 yard pool is 36' (6' lanes) or 42' ( 7 ' lanes ) . With outside l anes, min . wid ths are 3B o r 45 ' . 6 0 w idth ( B lanes) is desirab l e . NOTE' Gutters at sides of pool arc deSirable to • e d u wave a c t i on in swimmmg meets or water pol r lighting s tandards and divmg board stand on o ther pages o f t his ser i es for addi t ional rt ments for c 'ompetit ive pools. 10' RECOMMENDED ? 'MINIMUM I ' -6'"0UTSIDE LANES' ON BOTH SIDES OF" POOL Ul w 2
PAGE 58

.. 563 ' •e " STEEL PLATE LIGHT PROTECTION WIT-H 31'4 " PLYWOOD COVERS ION 3'0 "TO 4'-0" SURFACES COVERED WITH STEEL PLATE I ......-! c:::;--RRAIL :::>-' ::Jw (/r 6-ADVISABLE 0 Zll> zu. I FIRING ' !SPACE '-0" 10'-0 " AREA PAINTED 0 'a: oa: \... VARIABLE TO WHITE ' N \ :::>'-O"Ii I .. o l ---.... .,., tilt.. l 50' -0" STANDARD l 1 1 ::JR BEGULATION RIFLE 6 PISTOL R A N G E NO SCALE D E S I P N PROBLEMS 1 . S a fety a . Tr ap safet y . b . F iring line saf e t y use stalls. c. Spectator safety. d . R icochet protection. e . Sa fety from s p illed n explosion. 2 . Ventilat•on. 3 . Noise . 4 . L igh t ing . T he use o f range design c sul tants is advisable . L Tl-BAFFLE'' 8 "ESCALATOR'' TYPE BULLET TRAPS AVAILABLE 8 LESS HAZARDOUS THAN PLATE 8 PIT TYPE SHOWN

PAGE 59

50' 0 " 1 '-0' :36 ' 0 " DOUBLE S 12' -0" I T • t27cr • s U DISTANCE TOt > ADJ COURT' 12' CHAMP PLAY, ..,[ 6' M I N . 'I r BACK COURT I 1:3'-6" L3' 6 " I I I I I _:3'-0f r_ 3'-0 ' . .5 FORE fOURT II POST 3 '-0" AT POST 0 CENTER. :3' -6" 0 A r POSTS 0 I FORE FOURT > w .J .J <( BACK COURT -1-. MARK/ CENTER FULL ENCLOSURE .JDARD COURT 1 '',:32 ' -0" ITATION: I C) 1 9 Q w rn 0 .J u z w \.., Northern stat e s , Nort h N o rtheast and South •st is best. :-' I'-b iD N 0 ... F WALL riCE COURT t": ""'7 r"'" --, 1'-b b ' it v ., ., g 0 ... 9 b N 01 ., ., NET CEILING HEIGHT NET LINE ' 15 0 " AT CENTER :3'-6" AT ENDS WALL' CONCRETE OR BLOCK WITH f"'LUSH JOINTS COURT SIM TO HALF OF STD COURT IF SPACE IS AVAILABLE ... a. w u X w z 0 J IL. Ol;> WN go ... o"' 1-rn z w w > ...J 6w rn z .J z w z 0 QII rnw ... z w u --,!'- il,o NO WALL If) w '...J OC) ' z ,..._ Nf/1 I B '-0" SIDE TO SIDE """ 9 "' ., REQUIREMENTS VARIES GATE If) 0 1[[ [[ 0 0 z I u
PAGE 60

' ' -581ST. 2ND. 8 3RD. BASES .... It 1'-0" --FOUL l. 1-J (I) a. 1f w Q Ill 0 1(, I '\) 0 1'1 1-I t I GRADUAl SLOPE DOWN ' NEXT SATTER'S SOX S '-0 .. DIA '\ ' ' ' NEXT SATTER'S SOX S'-0'' DIA. DETAIL OF PITCHER'S MOUND SCALE: 3/16": 1'-0" ' ' ' / / / / /37'-0" ' ' ' / ' / ' '-_.,......--,.'GRANDSTAND OR FENCE ' / / ' / 60'-0 " FROM FOUL LINE ' :BALL D I AMOND '/ ' / / ' /', t ":. 4 0 '-0'' / ' / ' / ', / ' / '
PAGE 61

.. -59300' -0" ----r--1 A SIDE LINE F:3 YOS _ I?-IN BOUNDS LINE ,/;? _:.__, b " I g l v ,Z/Iw / a / Z I// / W / I 0 1 / / 4 .a •s 20 2s 3 0 .ss • o • s so • s • o3s 30 2s 20 •s •o s o ([ 0 s FOOTBALL SCALE: 1,. ' PRO<"ESSIONAL GOAL BEST N POST• ON GOAL LINE ORIENTATION 225' SPECTATOR SEATING THI S 'SIDE 323.B5' 24' TRACK 6 LANES @ 48" 32' TRACK 8 LANES Ci> 48" t 48" LANE REQ F"OR HURDLES I 12" MEASURING :,NE==---"" QUARTER MILE RUNNING TRACK SCALE' I " • 120'-0" 24'-(J ' 0 .0.23' - •o"'. D . TOP OF" CROSS BAR F"OOTBALL GOALS NO SCALE

PAGE 62

-60-SITE INFORMATION The following maps include different types of required site information. The existing site construction is shown on one of the maps. Most of the houses between 6th and 7th Streets have already been demolished or moved to other locations. The remaining few are destined to the same fate in the near future. The quonset hut now serving as a recreation center, on the block between 7th and 8th Streets, will be demolished. That will leave a cleared site with orily the old Greeley High School to be renovated for service as the new Cultural Arts tenter. Information on the proposed floor plans for the Cultural Arts . Center are included along with evaluations as to the renovations needed to 'restore the old school. The site is in an area zoned C-4 by the City of Greeley. All setbacks, height limitations, and square footage requirements have been suspended in the downtown area except as required by the Uniform Building Code. A climatological survey is included with information on the climate of Colorado.

PAGE 64

...J J J J I r l 8 II l ! II I Til lli .,,, I ' j ' , CCMMUNITY CENTER I ; I I I I a ! I ! ! i _ I I I -I I I i I .!1 II 9 ! I I I : ! : I -62I ,_. 9 116 II 9 I i I 16 I I SIXTH I --:i CITY 36 COMPLEX I . J i SEVENTH LINCOLN PARK EIGHTH LINCOLN PARK NINTH II 'I COURT II. JL HOUSE ... , . ;;;;;: .. IT 14 8 I I I l i 9 1 I ! 1 I 116 ! i I I . . . ----4 1 I i I "'!'-' I 8 i I ' . . , I t.J 1 7 . . . . -4 1 i I l r r T I I I I l f"\1"7 I I I [= I 9 116 I ro; ; i 1'1 I i i -, . I I ,, n " Jll 1 Ill I ! /1 I I .. -----I I r '-" 1'-' I l

PAGE 65

-63-

PAGE 66

' . : ... . , , ; ' ' r ... : ..... 1._ ' . • ' l : .:; .. , ''t! ' . .. ,. .. : . !. I ,• '( / ,. 4 • ; ll ':f. ' ' ). "-"' , •• I .. .. .... .1• • '".J ' , , ., , f oo EJ ,.... -...... ' , . t : . f ' ,,. . ; I/ B ... /\. . . . J • I ':' 0 . : . c:J ; y :-. ., I I , .. ; \ , .... , ... ' . . . . . I . ' . \' 'I': . -: .. , . :., . ' . . •

PAGE 67

) l . . ---65---------------. j I '------r--4001 II . . 111. r I I l l..___

PAGE 68

-66-) l --------------------1 n: r----------------I! I I I I I ( I -" BXV:::ir1ri tl l,.JA-$R , 0-roeM P12AIH HAilJ eAt..-Cv::> I I I ! I I I I : ,II , I I ___ _ ll )-1 , _ _; ! ' I, C( __ j' I d j l i J j \ t.Lc:s---.... ------------------------"'Y'---J UlfviT1e? -----r,.-r -,.--, L___---.-,.,--c=---. _JL..-r:=t h -r-119 . I l I I LJ L. I li I I I I I I I ,, I C..--' I I c ::;;;;;:;;;;;;; p I ( r I l l . _

PAGE 69

) l ___ _ -0/ -l . __ _,/ ------.. --I : _____ ____ _ _.=-__ -:___ _ . ,-J I I ' ( ._, ' rl I I l I '-----[_(-r . I J I!. ( ;;;;;;u;:;;;;:;; .. ;;;;;; p ll _ _

PAGE 70

_) l ____ -68-____ ___/ ) l I ( • •• =--_ _ _ ..::=:_--_----=-__ . __ _:-:=--::-.=--. . I II I = 1 L _ _ .J l:1 _ _ =::J b r.--=u.. I . ,-_ -11 ;-: ' rr L . . . _ rl I l I I 1 I . J 11 1-. 1l !I I ILJ L I d I II llr I I I ! I r , , I I I C..---' II . lj! ) .. ( :: = . w . p I C:ri __

PAGE 71

,-,I , I I '-"'I "-'...,I I' I 1 '-' J 1976 -69DENVER, COLORADO Narrath:e Climato!ogical Summary • ----. • (,:: i Denver enjoys the mild, sunny, t!1.:1t prc•:ails o ve:::;u c!t of :he central Roc r : : rr);ion, tJitlllJ ut. the t'::tr..:mel; colJ r::oraings of the l i1;!t elc;at Lns and restricted vallo2ys during the cold pJrt uf Lhe ::..:.Jr, o r the hot .Jfte:rnoons of su::-_-:Je r at lo\./C r worm or culd Wo2atht::r is usuJlly of short duration. Air from at l east four sources influence Dvnvcr' s a rctic air Canada anJ Alaska; moist air f::-o::t the Gulf of Jry air anJ .Jnd PJcific air modified by its passage over coast a l ranges and other countains t o the lhe good climate results l a rg2l y from lccatio n at the foot of t!te e ast cf in the belt ot the ; ' r 2vailin6 Durin:; :::ost su..-_-:cr aftc r n oons c u:::ul.:fu::-::1 clo;;ds s u shac:e the City th.::tt tCr.ljh!raturcs of 90' o r over arc re<.lc:ted o:1 .:ln a•;cr.:;ge of t.hirt}-fi\c ddys of year, and in unly one ye:ar in fi;e does ::he :::cr c;;ry 'Jt:r:, jriefly reac h :he 100 ::1ark. l n the colJ season the high altitl!tle J : :tl the loc:Jtion of to :he :,est .:ttc> ter.1;>eratures. lnvasio>1s o: c ol::! Jir fro::1 t!te north, ir.t0nsific:.! :,: : :1e high ob!"upt and severe. On tite ot!ter h,;:1d, o f the cold air t!:at spread sout!-:..:J :::i out o: C.1>1::1dil O\ e r the ; :Jlains :1eve1: re.1ch Dcn;cr' s altitude and ::1uve off c'"' l :)" . .JCr ;>Lai:;s :o ..:.:l:;t. of .::old air trom che .• <.;:;t rated in til'.:ir do;.rn ::tc! c a s t f:1c.: l'f cJtHJ fr;;:-:1 3onc of . . ;l..StC!rJ:: fl.y . . :'=; .. r.Ji. s c f..:lr above t!t.Jt nor;;::lll:, to be a t Lhi latitude i!l t! : e c.JlJ lit..,.:;.:? r.:-:;ult .:n a te<: l j1C::in of r,.;int e r cold to .111 average ter::;J!Jraturc above of cities at t!le :;J::.:! latituc.le. In outbre. 1f.:s of nolar air arc W<21:ing, they arc oftc:1 i:lCL ::.: fnn ::w G•llf of >!e:dco. :-he ju:::aposition of these currents prL'JtiCC:s the rain:: season in Den\•c•r, ••ilicit reac!1es its pe; t k in long ;ist.111CC fro:: : any r::oi sture S..Ju r c c , and SL:j> Jr.:Jt..:d t:lc !';tcific bv Sc!\ , :-.l l r.10untit..ttivn, .>:1d c.Jn i.; t!ll' c louJiLst, . liH.I .. ;i:1Uicst \.Jf ' Y ;>L!:t.:c:lt. , , : tl it>it.Jllc lll thJ t oc ur.:; in s ; > r i:tt; 1 lls ;.tS snu,.; tit..: L Lrlc l :. , ,:riiLr cf >:o rn1 ;>er io:J;; -.tr..: oftt::l .. d uf :::ild :• : t.n;: !.l:al ... , , ;>re llt.Jil .tr ..tn:; •litc•r :i:::" uf the \"t:.tr. f',: i.Hi,: ' " t t:lj>l -t ,.onl .;l' , .Jl:tc • r .lrt • >;c'nl': .!lh I it f. ' i'rt'< i ;rit.tl iull ( < ) ;1 pt: rLl'lll ,,f . tlllll!.tl (:>t,>f, illl1' f :1.1<..; } t t::[ prl•t•ipit,tti• 111 t '!ll:: jJ j'\..:•\Ll ,•t :.!tl.' l •'(, tl, . a :•! ,ll;:h':-'l 1 : , . f 1 ' :ll• l',, ' , Pr , :ipild:. i •:l l rt..:ju•:d: , lt•f . . :v/,1, tlttlt 1:: !=--L r .... • • ""! .. :J :::U!'"L l t'it.• . : . .tlld t!tL r LI:tti ;.!t•t::tiJit:: : 1 .:, ;.; !ti; ! : , , r l i.:t:\ i : r tltc ' . t:t: . .:t .o. . , . .Jrlh• r 1:a:1 be'
PAGE 72

INTf.•"'•tiC'•Al lP S l a • " '.,•IIH•"'"""' , 1.:c.z j J i . i ! I ' Hi ,u_ j; ...... ..0 . 11 1 s , l 1;:. 1 e-!11 o c:! ! ... . )0,} tl!l U • 11 b llo Q j 0,54 0.• • 1 1 0 bolo lt,1 , . zz. .. , ,., z 1 s o Ll" ;ezq \ 111. 1 , s,J "' e ct B.• •"l -;1 , 11 1 l S ) .,64 0 1.211 0.5l 1 1q-JQ 1 . 2 l.O JL' a;:. " ' '' q .. p 37\ t'i O>• uz o.bl o.z• 11-1a n.o o.o "::'., •LOI ... 8.,1 II )) 17 Z51o ) 1.341 Q,SQ\21-Zl 1",0 0 . 0 .• L lq,\' o.: .c.. ;a: \0 :0.,1 l H'-l.l\ 1.1 0 25Zb Q,O 0.0 )Q LY 1•.& SLSI 1 :,z 41: 20 .,q. l1b l 2.501\.1\ 1 C oO 0 . 0 b lt !;:: Jbj ; : '21 1.881 Q,H ilb-17 lb :; , ! ;: g l ;:i l Y, .. ! 57ltt 6&7 11 ... 1 1 .11 ••.J o.l NormCJis, l\1eans, And Extremes -----------------.----.--------------.:__------, __ _j I l'ol.)l'fl"'' l 0-?!'t'fc!h1 8 , n e 65 • F -T_ , :-. 1--r -1 ; ; f n I ; -r I ! I . ! Ho! • ' ! , '.i .: : c r , ":.-s. .).. . 1 J' : .. .. i Jq,. lo -1; .:QJe. 'l C 2 I 0 0 .& 7 t.:,o :9!:0 j 0 .01 IQ'IJ 1 l.C \ .•. ,'l•l .. 1 l-:. '...11 .. ) ltl! I 0 L.21 Z.'l • Qiolo 0.\J 1 \ ,'-8119'!9 . . . • ) -i. .. , 1 50 o \.91 119'-ll O.OJ t e o J l.i) ... J .. I ,,.,C I' 'Of> . 'hl ,z .. ll)) 0 l.bC. l.)l t 9"1 O . OC> 1914,3.)) 1'17) ,:.q o\o.c t .. , 1-:-':'l!"l e o uolt.9J1 ... oCJ !9o71o.to: t1h 0 3,16, !970 • ... •o "'l.: .. t.,P ", •q z 1 2•• I 1.1e o.• t !OI)! o.l71 1QJ-. ! z.c,z119,.,, .. •• ... 'l'\.b lO: <.1 .. ' 2 0 1 \ l.ZCJ lo,q ,t;'5t I 0 .06 I ),1ol lt951 ez.s o" Pe:'l ,-.., tzu ' " Ll1 ... )7 , 'l H r ;to""" I Z ... '-:ttlb •,a p,z -z.:: !& ,t;<.l ) \'leq I H e ) Lll 4.\7 l 9"J9 0.0) oUb21l.7t • )947 •j,J . .. , 1 ,., 1 o.,1 -II ;J'l)J 1 . "'b l 1 0 O.lb z,IJJ \ 9 '6 0,01 o\94911.29 p 9 7 ) t.ll • .'l.. 1 t'f bfP AY 1 ! Jl.& l'" t QJ'1 : 9 1t;-z 0 I 2.11o O . Qlt l9'-b l.HI ..... 'j )bol rlqJq -];: i : 9Jb 61' 1).)1 7.)t 9)7 T ),,, 1 \91) "'""-. ,,,-1. 4tJO•.t• 1 r r tcu:'ll ol:od Annu.Jl h.Jve been cxcecdt!d Ill other site3 i n the . . . "• .... llr; w!5: Ht Jh-''1'-t c.::-; :W!r.Jt 'HC 10') tn Auqu!lt 187 8 : IT'• lX HIUI'l mnnt h l )' 8 .S7 i n H.Jy 1876; mlnlmum fllunthly .:••c.: .j. :•.n H'l L .. re-f"''tJ•r : sill; MAX1rf1Um prec l ptl .. t t o n tn 2 4 hour3 & • ..,) 1n 1876: m4ximwtl monthly enowfall S7. 4 Ln .. ,. ••Ulllll.l."'" sr?we•!l 1n 2 4 huu1e 2).0 1 n 1\prll mtlo u( w•n1 lole:tt Ln May 19J). • , ; tof rttr. .. 1, ,,.,,.\, ,., .. .... .. , r ••r .... .... •JU••rw• \ f note d . c .. , .. r. 0 " .••., u•r, d•t• 1 : 1 •"'I AtM.Itf' tl \ ' l i t IOI\S . lf'\\ th•n t-•lf, T Tr f'tOOJoi.Al'i • BHtd .. , f('lr lP'It )Q411 ) O A i l O r AN UTR lH ( f"-e ....,,\t rrt tnl In o f multlplt o r c ••rrrnt e . PP\.alllf'IG WIHO OIPr C T ;I'l"' • ""cor1 1161 . W I N O IJIJJfr:tlflN "h-"'"rth lndlc •lr u f c1oththt fra-n north, 0 0 lndlrHt\ c.lm. HIL( • 'iP'"t"d h fHlf'H ob\frvrtt 1 11\lnutf v •lut wh"!:n lht dire-ction I s In hn\ of 'l Hll I ""-' 0 I .

PAGE 73

Dote :/.1 l!lr ll "C'll I I -Table 4 •••. Soler Posi t ion anu l nt.!nsi ty; Solar Heel Gain Factors " for 40 Deg North Lat i tude Sol a r Tom e A.M . 9 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 1 0 11 1 2 32 . 8 41.6 47 . 7 50 . 0 : 2 2 2 -------------------Solar Hc'Jf Gci. , F cctars, Btuh,'sq ft ---N NE E SE s SW w NW 111 !JJ 15-1 61 211 b u 69 57 41 22 G Ho r . Sol or Time P . M.

PAGE 74

-72CULTURAL ARTS CENTER The following studies were provided at the request of the Downtown Development Commission to illustrate the renovation potential existing in the 1895 Greeley High School at 8th Street and llth Avenue. Concurrently, they relate to our program goals and site studies. The cost data included herein was prepared by Hensel Phelps Construction Company as a cost model, outlining needs required to 11Stabilize11 the building. Major interior reconfigur ation could not occur for the costs enumerated in that breakdown. Tailoring the building to a specific need, as indicated in this Cultural Arts Center study, would require additional money. Such a renovation, providing a small auditorium (seating 240), exhibition, meeting and museum space and crafts, pottery and photography studios and workshops would cost approximately $2,000,000.00 at today's costs, with additional costs for furnishing, parking, landscaping and fees (see downtown site study Alternative E) . . .

PAGE 75

• . o-th M'4 11ih t-= , I ""-.1 w I .... ( \ \

PAGE 76

-:. ( [

PAGE 77

llnt -d1h rr"fJ r--, .,i.u-l,o -r I : : ..W.0 + '2 I I d 0 : l fOII
PAGE 78

-76:NSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ary 30, 1979 Julie Ann Haefeli 18th Avenue ley, CO 80631 ect: Old Red Brick House Remodel Greeley, Colorado Julie Ann: . . \!'' ... , •.. • , I f I , '! f:. .. ,t . -..... . . . . 5 . •...; ..... ,'-our request, we have prepared a "builJing first cost parameter breakdown" or :ibility estimate, a copy of which is attached. We received three drawings from ett Ziegel Tumpes and Hand, and Johnson-Vorland-Archuleta, Inc., representing :ting conditions as best as they can be detailed. feasibility es:imate should be examined as a range number. The low-range number 1ld realistically be the $39.00/SF or $1,493,700 and the top range is $44.23 or )94,000. These dollars will totally replace the mechanical and electrical systems bring the builcing in compliance with the life-safety codes. Architecturally, building would be stablized without major interior reconfiguration. The exterior L d be with new insulated windows and refurbishing of the cornice 1iling and a new roof. The totals will vary depending upon project )e • . For exampl:, the roofing system may not need to be replaced or the existing obing fixtures n.ay be reused. The use of the building is predicated upon an office largely in its existing room configuration. ign and Enginee7ing costs will run $85,000 to $110,000. This cost is not included the attached fe2sibility estimate. thPs<' fc-:1shi-lity val11Ps will lu•lp you in yn11r C'V:1l11:1tion of the viability the sLruclurc. y truly yours, SEL PHELPS CON::'TRUCTION CO. hard K. elopment :losure : Sam Addoms .... G R E E L E Y COLORADO 80632 n r r-r n n ,: , o :--., :>. r:; • r .

PAGE 79

B ARCHITECT . 654 013 17,07 IY BUILDING FIRST COST PARAMETER BREAKDOWN STRUCTURAL H RED BRICK SCHOOL HOUSE REMODEL a..AAI-,() EXCAVATION [sl SYSTEM CONST. COST : 44.23 ... BUDGET EST : $1,694,000 lsi STRUCTURAL FAAMNO 131-' SlA8 ON GR()lN) fsl AOOFINQ SYSTeM EtTtRI OA WAllS g II{RTICAL C I RCULATION INTER IOR WALLS lsi FlOOR FNISMES CEiliNG ' " I J MECHANICAL 343, 934 . SYSTEMS 8 • . 98 . ., I 75,000 y . 1. 96 2 v;:;:':Oc. 196,096 t I J '""'"" c-c"'' 97 ,SQQ _ _L SYSTEIA 2.12 . ,[! DEVICES 0.87 , : ,1 !gl 1107,:240 , .11 :t _ 2 _ 80 } CONTROL I (w/ SWTTCH GEAR _6.l..2BQ_L I 4 2 ' 2 50 L r TRANSFORMERS 1 6 0 . • J ; 1.10 IYP 1 2 1 1 -0-SPECIAL _74 ! _ _ tStr I! S YSTEM S • FIN I SHES l, 31" J TEMPORARY ____j_J45 I TEMPORARY l _ [;::;:l==WA=l::-::L 1"': HEATING 0 . ELECTR I CAL _j _ O . • ll. L i21 , . -o. J 1-...,D=--, j ELECTRICAL 18 6, 5 21 SYSTEMS 4. 8 7 rre..cs 0 • 52 , ,, : SPECIAL {None) -0-, } ____ SPECIAL (None) EQUIPMENT 1....:.... _ _.:... ___ " I -0-I -0-0--0--o:.. Q] -o= I -0--0-g SITEWORK 175,000 4.60 DEVELOPMENT S ITE 12 • 548 ; CLEA R ING Q 3 3 5 , , PAVING 36, r-, PARK I NG 6 . . : 8 WALKS CURBS RETAINING WALLS • 1 54 r ,. '-AISC. S ITE WORK 2 J 9 2.!i_]. FENC::ING 0, 08 _2!) : PI.ANTING I 35.000 r, LANDSCAP ING i o . ....9u . .. --, S I TEWORK ELECTR I CAL 8 SPECIAL By-"' FINISHES INTER IOR I WALlS -0-mi l -0-FLOOR FINISHES -oQ] -0-I } CEIL NO FIN ISHES SPECIAL rY ITEI.IS HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO. OREllY, GENERAL 128,781 CONDITIONS 3.13 , l! 38,300 ! TEMPORARY SUPERV I SION FAC I LITIES 0 .., GENERAL 1 ___ EQU I PMENT 1--n_._.s . ' I :;:! I QUALITY ', . c ! CONTROL • I -------'-. FEES w PERM ITS j d i ,(ll. , W I NTER _1.9_._5Q.Q_ l '""I HEATI NG 0 'il _5 , I VERTK:Al : __ , _QaU HOI STING I _ Q _,!:! -___ ____ ........,_1 _ ___ ----"'-'5'1 -I I . I I 1\(1 I -C . M./G . C . COSTS c1.•, Gc T CIA , G C 0\IERHEAO Cl.l I GC F( INDIRECT & RESERVES 12-5' 000 3.26 ., ;--f. O 1.00Q .;., 0....52---"!J . L!t 5 ' ; I 1. 3 1 __.l!l 80,751 2.11 1 -0-u 1 1 PERFORMANCE BOfo,() ,,q SPECIAl NSUfiANC CONSTRUCTION I CONTINOENCY 6,389 )J 0,17 OAI"f J_an.._31. 19 -AI'6) w DICH

PAGE 80

Everett, Zeigel, Tumpes & Hand August 8, 1978 Page Two -78-The interior and exterior.masonry bearing walls are in good to excellent condition. There is some evidence in the brick near the front entrance of differential settlement; there'are minor failures of arched lintels over window and door openings; there is deterioration of brick mortar joints in.areas where water has been allowed to flow down the face of the walls; and there are some open joints in the stone foundation-walls. None of these however, is serious, nor are immediate repairs required. Should permanent uses of the building be contemplated, repairs SDould be made. We believe that the masonry can be repaired and brought to what can be considered 'to be excellent condition at . a relatively minimal cost. The roof of the west portion of the building is framed with wood joists, wood built-up beams and wood trusses supported on masonry bearing walls that rise to the attic level. All components appear to be of adequate size and in excellent condition. The primary roof supports for the majority of the roof over the east section of the building are built-up wood trusses spanning approximately 66 feet in the north-south direction over areas that once served as a multi-purpose auditorium and a stage. These trc.sses support two poorly conceived trusses spanning in the east-west direction which, in turn, support wood beams and joists. Both types of trusses clearly inadequate for the spans involved. The main trusses have buckled and deflected over the years to the point where, in our opinion, they are very near failure; a reasonably heavy snow load could cause a collapse of the entire roof of this portion of the building. A collapse of the roof could cause progressive failure of supporting walls and/or the structural. floors below. Because of the critical condition of the roof structure of the east portion of the building, we recommend that one of the following procedures be undertaken before it is subjected to snow loads this coming fall or winter: 1. Discontinue occupancy of the entire eastern portion of the building.

PAGE 81

-79-Everett, Zeigel, Tumpes & Hand August 8, 1978 Page Three 2. Replace the major roof trusses (It is, in our opinion, impractical to repair these trusses). This alternative will necessitate a substantial expenditure of money. 3. Provide shoring between the roof and the second floor. Such shoring must be carefully and adequately done in order to insure sufficient factors of safety at both levels. Although this scheme would be considerably less expensive than the replacement of roof trusses, the cost of shoring could be as high as $5,000. The presence of shori.ng would, of course, mean the necessary abandonment of a large section of previously usable second floor area. We trust that this letter answers your immediate questions regarding the structural integrity of this building. If we can be of any further service, please let me know. Sincerely, JOHNSON-VOILAND-ARCHULETA, INC. By __ W, B. Johnson, Vice-Pres. WBJ:fw , ,

PAGE 82

-80THf RffiH GROUP, InC. August 9 , 1 9 7 8 Mr. Richard A. Tumpes Everett, Zeigel, Tumpes & Hand 1215 Spruce Boulder, CO 80302 CONSULTING ENGINEERS RE: Possible renovation of old Greeley High School Dear Dick: In response to your request for an evaluation of the mechancial and electrical systems for the above-referenced project, there were several areas which were found to be inadequate or or in violation of the National Electric Code, the UBC, and Mechanical UBC. ELECTRICAL All of the receptacles on the upper floor were ungrounded receptacles. The lighting in the entire area was totally inadequate. There were no exit signs properly illuminated. . • (303) 420-4455 6073 W. 44th Ave . P . O . Box 12037 Denver , Colorado 80212 There were areas where exposed wiring was used on the main floor though some remodel work has taken place in order to keep the area open for the senior citizens to use. There were no exit lights properly illuminated. The lighting was better, but inadequate. There was no egress lighting. There was also no emergency lighting. In case of power outage; there would be inadequate light for exiting the building. In the basement area, again, there are no exit lights and no emergency egress lighting. In general a building of this construction should be equipped with a manual fire alarm system which would consist of horns and pull stations. There should be a proper emergency egress lighting circuit. The entire electrical distribution system should be reworked as the system that is in t here now is totally inadequate. 1 >1ECHANICAL 1. There are many exposed steam heating pipes which could be hazardous to . the occupants . No piping has been insulated. Robert J . Rice/ Don E . Marek/Robert G . Holtz/Verlin G . Torgerson/Solomon P . Chavez Gary C . Curry/Ralph W . Kloepfer

PAGE 83

Richard A. Tumpes Everett, Zeigel, Tumpes & Hand August 9, 1978 Page Two -81-2. Plumbing fixtures are inadequate for a building of this usage. 3. The coal fired boiler will not meet the new State Pollution Code. With the number of electrical and code violations that are . present in the upper floor and in the basement, it is our opinion that the building is mechanically and electrically hazardous. There is a definite possibility of fire because of the exposed wires and dangerous burns from the exposed piping. It is our opinion that the mechanical and electrical systems should be totally renovated. Very truly yours, GROUP, INC. GC:eme ..

PAGE 84

-82-.. BIBLIOGRAPHY l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. ., 13. Ramsey and Sleeper, Architectural Grarhic Standards, Sixth Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,. 970. . ' Terry Barnhart, Planner, Gage, Davis and Associates, Boulder, Colorado; personal communication. and Recreational Facilities for Greeley Phase II,11 pre pared by the Mayor's Task Force, April 19, 1979. Lydia Ruyle, Chair person; Consultants: Gage, Davis -and Associates; Everett, Zeigel, Tumpes and Hand; Hammer, Siler, George Associates; The Denver Consult ing Group. 11Downtown Development Study,11 prepared by the Greeley Planning Com.:. mission, City of Greeley, Colorado, July 1978. Stan Gengler, Director of City of Greeley Parks and Recreation Department; personal communication. John Given, current Planner, City of Greeley Planning Department; personal communication. Butler, George Daniel and National Recreation and Park Association, Introduction to Community Recreation, McGraw Hill, New York, 1976. Hatry, Harry P. with the National Recreation and Park Association, Measuring the Effectiveness of Local Government Services: Recreation, Urban Institute, Washington D.C., 1971. Guggenheimer, Elinor C., Planning for Parks and Recreation Needs in Urban Areas, Twayne Publishers, New York, 1969. Lydia Ruyle, Chairperson, City of Greeley Mayor's Task Force; personal communication. 11Uniform Building Codes,11 prepared by International Conference of Building Officials, California, 1979 edition. 11U rban Parks and Recreation: A Challenge of the 1970's: A Research Study,11 by the Comnunity Council of Greater New York, and Professor Richard Kraus, New York, 1972. Gold, Seymour M., Urban Recreation Planning, Lea & Febiger, Philadel phia, 1973.

PAGE 85

-83DESIGN SOLUTION .

PAGE 86

,.:.. 58C : , ; \ . :: " ,.. "' 'c \ \ ,: 0 ..... p,.111fl .--;. / \J " <:. I I ';:, ( . "'680 _) d . " . . I !'--./ ./\ / Lf ' '• I ''r ' o • I ... ' ., I . . , I ,,• , ' ' \ --, . ! !: I. I . • ..Qt-. ,!} I • , .r: '\ f /• /. • g ; ( C I ' J D • t; IL.a5(.. ,,, ... p .,o -; c

PAGE 87

/ ' -• • • • parking J ' ••••••• n :IT -rr IJ lJ --rr Il n rr-IJ • parking _ parking • • -..... . • • • • •

PAGE 88

j • • • • ..... . ..--------... . a parking • • Q * 0 [] IT • • ' parking .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ....................... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • ................. . _ parking _ • • • • • _... .... --. • •

PAGE 89

. /' J . . . , . ---. : • • •• ....... • • • • parking _ _ 0 -----D IT • parking • • • •• • • • I : I • • • • ••• • • • _parking _ __ -. a . -.-. .-.. '. Q(

PAGE 90

W41. 0;-,A!..,6 ' . Y. d ' ::-' 11-d1 F2-1Fl.Z-,.:::;'-(H ;?.Ox-40 {) " c:c:;xcsG;J 6IL-iHT 11?-AJ HI 15x?O B 12-a+-1 -zoxzo 0Prl 0 RJPL -?::C:{? "'1a? "tW 0l6

PAGE 91

010k. ?, e;g , I./ D i '\./6 ?FP. L-0'....2 I 1a / ' l ' n -r UJ HvJJv C:::W I HM I He--! fa?v LA.H ...... DPFiv.::; f7 L..Ot. '0 iW?F :5;) eautR1eHf JAH 11012. Z:;() 1400 ZO::> Z20 1

PAGE 92

?;:51012-. ?(2.AP(.:j t.?'LK He H L.DUHL..t-6 CM:7.i ! . 1 1 / 1 o . . i , v' L../L.. .... / 1 e; r-1w-n 12.001-1 lr::5 :>
PAGE 93

I Mea-l. 14tzl?.

PAGE 94

e-reAu---W::t.eR.. I;:: 'X BIZ... J .AJta:::: Cj'YH Q2.N-1T-? Of=FiL-e C.r2APP 0 'JPU3' Met.H &rF.-Lcut t1e I"'I6Brtt-l I H 1--1 .? ..Jief!. . C9

PAGE 95

c+2AFI M W -

PAGE 96

fZAU. -BIPAAL .-L..-C::r-111 :Pa7v C\'Uie-r zot-te L-C0E:>Y ' " I " ' I ' e:! tlk' ( ' I ' ' I ' ' I "" I " '------____ ..J

PAGE 97

RIA F
PAGE 98

CjYM -?IO!?Ay8 / I / I / gJFLe ZON e I / I / I / r12.'( ' 1::::: I e9 :: t::::AL-6 = " 1 / dJ' 11 -D11

PAGE 99

gym lockers {# rifle quiet zone lobby pool deck 000 QQQ viewer access athlete access ------. / / /

PAGE 101

_j L -.1 .. .. : ., • i . : . • • I'EDES'mAH ACCESS ' I !1!1:1---,.ULJ-•R .-

PAGE 102

. , , , ... •, ..---------------------------,, ,-r -' -----I I I I .. I fiFl EXEAOSE "' 1 _ , I I !' ' ! r:w: _f_l_ fNTR'( ',,'',,, ) • fHTRY •.MP . .__.,• • .. . . .. . . --• • ••• ='; t lilllilil Jil L '] • I H::ru-tl l • ) flHllU ' fillllil • • ----J ------------------------. .... ABST A..OOR PLAN SCALE 1 : 10 CIRCULATION 0 VIEWUI N::CESS • ATIUTE ACCESS ( ' .>:, ',.,:;, 4 •• :.; t it.

PAGE 103

D UPPER LOUNGE S ' \

PAGE 104

Lobby Area Racketball Courts

PAGE 105

SECTION A-A SECTION B-B

PAGE 106

_Aj \ , L I __llJJtU_J __ _ STRUCTURAL LAYOUT

PAGE 107

SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCAU 1 :10 STRUCTURAL LAYOUT

PAGE 108

• • I I I / . (j.L_/ t ••• t , ' • .:1 : . • 3 f'A/ih H/ VAJ1.VIel Jt1f,Aj:ji' Tlii!.U i
t" Ra>f' ?6il.1Ht..t F\..eHIJM Ue-r\Jl>H .... rere-,F -!il.f>I>LY RTUAN I EXHAUST

PAGE 109

• • "' IAilf IU!.AflSR e.u>lleR'? l?l:ctiOI " IL!el< C.'1U.f0 l'lVI" f'*IAIJ'if" • • • • D 1'11160 l'<>IL..eR Dll"f"LI'.> e)(IIAIJt?T tli1:1URe11JQH I'IR .:;RitA-=SE=Co...:Oc:...::N=.D __ _ MECHANICAL LAYOlJT -..::. SUPPLY -= llHIM< I EXHAUST

PAGE 118

GREELEY COMMUNITY RECREATION CEN T E THESIS SUSAN WEST • • ' . . .. . . . . . , . . . . . : I , . . . ' . . . .. . . . . . [