05-06-1991 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

mmm. Sites 2 and 3 on tne scnool oropertv wera worKacle ajtnougn cufteni statements by tne school site planner maKes Site 2 cirectly across from the school potentialy not available due to their requirements for that area to be used as a new elementary school. Site 3 was viewed by the committee to be somewhat less visible and too removed. The school site planner stated that this area of the school site was for secondary functions and the architect took that to mean that there was some room for discussion on the availaoiiity of this site. Site 4 Is a part of a 50 acre track and with the frontage road access, cuts a portion or the area such that the city hall and the public works would be across the street from each other. The comer site proposed for the city haU would be at a higher cost premium in the S40 000 + /* per acre. The site does not seam readily avalable since the owner wants to keep the track intaa Ftom the geological maps there appears to be poor soU immediately adjacent to the public works area to the north. The committee direaed the con.-uitant to look at two more sites at Willow and Highway 6. BUILDING COST/QUAUT/'' EVIEW The committee reviewed the same options as the council reviewed with ail the respective materials and samples. The committee had questions on various items most of which were answered at the meeting. The discussion of floor materials brought up the issue of quarry tUe versus terrazzo. There were some discussions about cost maintenance and safety in regards to these hard surface lobby materials. The architect's concern Is ttie slipperiness of terrazzo. and the its respective cost Quarry tile Is somewhat less expensive arid can be installed with a texnra to maintain a less stippery surface when wet The cost comparisons from Qrazzini Brothers for these two materials presented that quarry tile is approximately S5.50 per s.f.. with terrazzo ranging from SS.50 up to S9.00/s.f. depending on the size of the installation The small lobby areas for this project would be in the S9.00 range. The attach ed list of cost/quality items illustrates the committee ’s concensus. Speciffcaily, the committee felt that the 18.000 s.f. projncted building size should be the maximum buPdIng developed, and earlier design schemes should be revised to maintain this 18.000 s.f. limit The committee rejected the use of interior brick proposing that the intenors be vinyl of a light and open feeling as opposed to dark and institutional. Several items were put on hold (l.a basement modular brick, lobby skyiight. and elevator) until a site has been picked. The committee felt that the overall cost of the project could be reduced If the respective site would allow a first floor and lower level design with windows into the lower level. This could create some savings, but would require an elevator. AU of the other items on the list were acted upon by committee. The committee reviewed 16 different dty hall projects as presented by the architect in the slide show that they prepared. Similar to the councP’s tour of facPities. the committees concern was to have a quality looking buPdIng but not one that was too General feelings were that the buPdlngs should have varying height sloped roofs with brick and stone exterior wall finishes. ^.1 • 4 ! I I