Design Considerations. The design for the Project undertaken and performed by the Project Company shall:
Design Considerations. Designers must consider interior design compatibility with the local environment, functional requirements, ergonomics, and economy of construction, energy conservation, interior details, sustainable design and life cycle costs. Additionally, facilities must be designed in harmony with the architectural character of existing facilities that are to remain, especially those that are considered historically or architecturally significant. Design excellence must not add to project costs but balance the functionality, aesthetics, quality, sustainability and maintainability of facilities. Designs must comply with each installation design guide. Functional Design: Facility designs will be governed by the functional requirements of the project, will conform to the appropriate criteria and standards, and will be consistent with applicable funding limitations. Provide facilities and furnishings that achieve optimum life‐cycle savings. Conduct comparisons as needed to determine the most life‐cycle cost effective, materials, finishes, methods of construction, furnishings and services. Design for Flexibility: Flexibility in architectural and interior design facilitates the accommodation of changing functional requirements while conserving resources. The District may own or lease a facility from its time of construction until the end of its useful life. During this long tenure of use, functional requirements of buildings will change, often drastically. For this reason, flexibility is a significant design requirement for buildings, except for those with highly specialized functions where adaptive reuse would be cost prohibitive. Cost Engineering: Cost Engineering (CE) will be an integral part of the design process. Apply the CE principles and practices in the pre‐design and programming development stage relative to establishing costs. Initiate more CE costs relative to the scope and requirements at the concept design on program documents and use throughout the design and construction of projects.
Design Considerations a. All Rooftop Equipment shall be properly screened from view for aesthetic reasons, and must not be visible from street level.
Design Considerations a. Establishment’s theme/cuisines/experience.
Design Considerations. 10.5.1 The Parties must take into account the following design considerations during the Detailed Site Design process:
Design Considerations. Once Conceptual Plans are approved, Concessionaire may move forward with the design for the Concession Space. The design shall include all tenant finish requirements including but not limited to lighting, power, plumbing, HVAC distribution from main air supply, HVAC controls for the tie in to the base building system, supplemental HVAC if needed, life safety systems, interior finishes, all furnishings, fixtures, trade fixtures, equipment, and signage necessary to operate in a first-class manner. Special attention must be given to the design of the HVAC and electrical systems. For a concept that creates odors, the mechanical system must be designed or configured to prevent the transmission of said odors to other portions of the Concourses or the Terminal. All plans and specifications, materials and color selections are subject to review and approval by the Manager’s authorized representative.
Design Considerations. The Additional Equipment shall be properly screened from view for aesthetic reasons, and must not be visible from street level. Tenant, at Tenant's sole cost and expense, shall install and maintain such fencing and other protective equipment and/or visual screening on or about the Additional Equipment as Landlord may reasonably determine. The Additional Equipment shall be clearly marked to show the name, address, telephone number of the person to contact in case of emergency.
Design Considerations. Pilot Questionnaire In order to optimise the response rate, it was felt essential to make the questionnaire as compact and easy to answer as possible, whilst obtaining sufficient data to satisfactory answer all the questions identified in the design phase. For this reason, the length of the questionnaire was limited so that it would not extend beyond a single two-sided page and the majority of questions were closed, to aid both responses and data collection / analysis. Following the gathering of initial demographic data, care was taken to ensure that subsequent questions were not leading in their context and that the respondents were free to dismiss the concept of intra-abdominal pressure, as they felt appropriate. Wording was made as simple and direct as possible to ensure face validity and some data equivalent to previous surveys were included to ensure content validity. Internal reliability was not anticipated to be a problem and therefore, for the sake of brevity, repetition of data acquisition for the sake of testing internal consistency was not attempted. In order to compare differences in clinical approaches to the problem of raised intra- abdominal pressure between anaesthetists and surgeons, it was felt that the clinical scenarios presented by Xxxxxxxx in 1999[146] remained highly appropriate. These scenarios were therefore included with their Likert-type scale responses and this added criterion validity to the survey. The initial questionnaire was piloted locally amongst general surgeons and intensive care physicians (10 of each) in the host institution, in order to identify any areas of ambiguity and also to gauge a feel for the time burden incurred by responding to the questions. The pilot resulted in the removal of an ambiguous question, the identification of a spelling mistake and confirmed that the questionnaire could be completed in less than 10 minutes. Responders were also asked to gauge their “satisfaction” in completing the survey as a score of 1 – 10, with 1 being completely dissatisfied and 10 being completely satisfied. The mean satisfaction score was 8 with a range of 6 – 10. The final questionnaire is included in Appendix 1.
Design Considerations. A. The design of any utility installation will be the responsibility of the Utility Owner. An installation within the RAILROAD property must be reviewed and approved by the RAILROAD with regard to location and the manner of adjustment. This includes the measures to be taken to preserve the safety and flow of rail traffic, structural integrity of the roadway or structure, ease of maintenance, and the integrity of the utility facility. Utility installations on, over, or under RAILROAD property shall conform with requirements contained herein and/or, as a minimum, the appropriate requirements outlined in the following:
Design Considerations. After the survey is complete, we will prepare a preliminary set of construction drawings, showing a layout that will identify the existing site amenities and will identify proposed project features including the sidewalk, ramps, and any grading required to provide positive drainage. It is assumed that the cemetery fence will not be disturbed, nor will the existing culvert be extended. If the existing culvert needs extending, a supplemental scope and fee proposal will be prepared to perform hydraulic analysis and associated design. This work will also include utility coordination in general conformance with 105 IAC-13 for the designed improvements. Once preliminary plans have been completed, we will meet with you to discuss and make any necessary adjustments. This plan will then be used to complete the design of the project and to coordinate any necessary utility relocations for the project. Construction drawings will be prepared in accordance with all state and local laws and ordinances and will include the following: ▪ Sidewalk profiles, including Grading, Construction Details, and ADA ramp details as necessary. ▪ Erosion Control Plans
