Bruce, We need an update on this and the impoundment permit. Thanks, Eric From: Bruce Dunne [mailto:bdunne@icon-engineers.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 3:54 PM To: Eric T. Little; Joel Massey; Barnett, Clay Cc: tforrest@addisontx.gov Subject: RE: Vitruvian - Ponte Bridge Elevations We will get with you later next week to address the issue. From: Eric T. Little [mailto:ELittle@udr.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 1:50 PM To: Bruce Dunne; Joel Massey; Barnett, Clay Cc: tforrest@addisontx.gov Subject: FW: Vitruvian - Ponte Bridge Elevations Importance: High Bruce/Joel: See HALFF’s response to the stair issue brought up yesterday. Please give me some more specific information as to what your concern was. Thanks, Eric From: Christiansen, Eric [mailto:echristiansen@halff.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 1:42 PM To: Barnett, Clay Cc: Eric T. Little; Caldwell, Stan Subject: Vitruvian - Ponte Bridge Elevations Importance: High Clay, As you are aware, Halff was informed that some concerns were raised by Icon at yesterday's Phase 1C meeting regarding elevations at the Ponte Bridge abutments (Phase 1D) and the adjacent stairs. We have reviewed the documents we were provided earlier this year by Icon concerning these areas, and we are unsure of Icon's concern. The attached drawing, Sheet L2-05 from Phase 1C, shows an elevation of 568.60 immediately in front of a ramp (slope 8.1%) that leads to the stair adjacent to Abutment 1. In order to meet this elevation, a slope of 1.4% was established from the top of curb (elevation provided by Sheet 24 from Phase 1B) and then continued toward the wingwall. The resulting elevation at the wingwall is 568.64, which matches Elevations H and L on Sheet S1-14 of our Phase 1D drawings. Since drawings of the south abutment were not available, the same slope (1.4%) was used from the top of curb to determine the top of wall elevations at Abutment 2. We believe our interpretation of the available drawings was appropriate and that our elevations work well with the adjacent stairs. It should be noted that we spoke with Robyn Jacobson of Kevin Sloan Studio and were informed that these elevations have not changed, so we believe we're working with current data. In addition, it should be noted that Sheet L4-02 from Phase 1C has some elevations at the top of the same stair that appear to be in conflict. Sheet L4-02 shows an elevation of 569.48 for the top step and an elevation of 569.17 immediately in front of the adjacent stair wall (assuming we're interpreting that correctly). This doesn't seem feasible as those points are too close together for the necessary slope to be within the ADA-acceptable range. If Icon has a specific elevation they'd like us to reconsider, we presume that such information will be made available. Otherwise, we trust that this issue will be considered closed for Halff and Phase 1D construction. Sincerely, Eric P.S. Have a safe and fun Christmas and New Year! Our office is closed for the next two days and I'll be on vacation next week, so I'll talk to you again in January. Eric S. Christiansen, P.E., SECB, LEED AP Senior Structural Engineer HALFF ASSOCIATES, INC. 1201 North Bowser Road Richardson, Texas 75081 Phone 214-346-6284 Fax 214-739-0095 Cell 972-955-2996 www.halff.com ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 1435/3331 - Release Date: 12/22/10 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 1435/3331 - Release Date: 12/22/10