MADISON, WI
|
MILWAUKEE, WI
|
SHEBOYGAN, WI
MEETING MINUTES
Project:
University of Wisconsin Eau Claire Campus – New Student Union
Project No.:
DSF #07E2D, Bray #2934
Meeting Date:
February 18, 2010
Present:
Russ Van Gilder, DSF
Terry Classen, UWEC
Charles Farrell, UWEC
Rick Gonzales, UWEC
Susan Harrison, UWEC
Beth Hellwig, UWEC
Mike …?, UWEC
Randy Palmer, UWEC
David Hatton, Burt Hill
Ray Maggi, Burt Hill
Shawn Plum, Burt Hill
Ashraf Sadek, Bray Architects
Tena Bolstad, Bray Architects
Rick Zahn, Rettler Corporation
Reported By:
Ashraf Sadek/tb, Bray Architects
Purpose of Meeting:
Steering Committee - “Where we are now in the process” meeting to review updated
building design and confirm program
Discussion/Action
1.
2.
3.
Introductions
Any last revisions to meeting minutes from the January 28, 2010 steering committee meeting should be sent to Dr.
Hellwig by Friday, February 19, 2010 at 4pm. She will compile and forward all comments to Ashraf Sadek, Bray, for
inclusion in the final meetings minutes from 01/28/10; the minutes will then be posted on the project website.
CIVIL SITE OVERVIEW, Rick Zahn, Rettler
What has changed since last January and also address concerns from side site meeting during last steering committee
meeting (01/28/10).
a. Building footprint has compacted
b. East end
i. stays the same
c. West end
i. gained 10ft with buffer for the Council Oak Tree
d. Infiltration was at north end and has moved to small island
e. PARKING has changed considerably
i. KSD created a composite drawing with 4 options
212 East Washington Avenue | Suite 101 | Madison, Wisconsin 53703 | Phone 608.441.2575 | Fax 608.441.2580
www.brayarch.com
UWEC New Student Union
Steering Committee and Design Team Meeting
February 18, 2010
Page 2 of 9
f.
g.
ii. reconfigured bus loop
iii. cut down number of lanes of traffic pedestrians cross, students will still cross parking lot, but not extra
bus lane, cross before buses enter the loop
iv. OPTION B, preferred option by KSD and DSF
v. Triangle nature of parking mimics triangular plaza.
vi. Gives nice access and maximizes number of parking spaces, space for handicap and allows bioswale
infiltration area
vii. Mike, UWEC, OPTION A-bioswale is close to primary switchgear and pit for switchgear and steam
pit, 2 electrical conduits are near to this and according to regulations these need to be moved
viii. David, Burt Hill, prefers Option A; feels dropoff is too close to handicapped parking with Option B
and entrance-people will park by front door and dropoff
ix. Options A, B & C – bus dropoff is basically the same, the parking changes
x. Option D, reduces parking spaces, won’t work, can’t get buses through
xi. Remove several parking spaces and create dropoff close to entrance
xii. Rick, UWEC
1. Bus dropoff is not typically used during the day so there would be no bus dropoff in parking
unless special event
2. People tend to park and wait, if there is a drop off people will park and sit
xiii. Possibly reserve the lot for GF and handicap usage
1. GF – guaranteed faculty spaces, for which the faculty pays a fee and receives a permit, there
are a set amount of spaces on campus
EAST END OF PARKING (Utilities)
i. Mike – steam tunnel now in the middle of the bus line
ii. Can existing steam conduits and pits be abandoned in place
iii. Need to be removed per Rick.
iv. Switchgear is primary electric above ground now-can it go underground?
v. Steam project designed by Ayres, submitting final documents next week.
1. Rettler and Ayres need to resolve before Ayres documents are submitted.
vi. Within the plaza, can create landscape pods to disguise electrical boxes
vii. Steampits are distance sensitive, existing can’t be moved far from where they are now
viii. Need to develop utility corridors
ix. 2 steampits need to be cut off and either removed or abandoned in place
WEST END OF PARKING (Utilities and dryland access)
i. Building grade is 780, need to maintain 779 up to 15’ out from building and then slope down
ii. Match in to existing roadway
iii. 3 considerations:
1. Dryland Access
2. Utility Corridors
3. Buffer around tree
iv. Utility Corridor for chilled and potable water, it now crosses Little Niagara, without touching the
tree’s zone, runs around the side of the building
v. Existing storm sewer:
1. 50 years old and corrugated metal
2. Can leave alone and deal with the situation later when the sewer fails
3. Can reconstruct in place
4. Can reconstruct portion under new roadway
5. Can reinforce areas to deal with added structural loads
212 East Washington Avenue | Suite 101 | Madison, Wisconsin 53703 | Phone 608.441.2575 | Fax 608.441.2580
www.brayarch.com
UWEC New Student Union
Steering Committee and Design Team Meeting
February 18, 2010
Page 3 of 9
Steamline project – making short term connections assuming existing will not be existing for
very long
7. Storm sewer has a bend in front of nursing
vi. Dryland access
1. Roadway now comes off Putnam through corner.
2. Need to hit 776.5 for dryland access; small portions were slightly less than that.
3. Revisit dryland access from the East, per meeting on 28 th
4. Can push drive lane farther north.
5. Can put a bend in it near Nursing.
6. If were to come around back of Nursing, would have to raise the grade.
7. Previously: couldn’t come from the East (dips in areas south of Phillips would be too cost
prohibitive to rectify, so created the option from the West) condition of Putnam and
connection were in too poor of condition to upgrade.
8. NO SEGREGATED FEE $ CAN BE USED FOR PARKING OR ROADWAYS = UW
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS.
9. Per Rick G. UWEC, the campus was not consulted on dryland access from the east.
a. Had previously understood the south of Phillips (parking) would be untouched with
dryland access from the west, now will need to go back to the campus and notify
them more parking spots will be affected if dryland access comes from the east.
10. Costs would be about the same if dryland access comes from the east or west.
11. 12’ piece of art to be located south of Phillips may be affected depending on location of
dryland access.
12. Snow removal-bioretention swale in middle of parking may be a spot to put the snow.
13. TO DO:
a. Rick Zahn, Rettler-will do a cost estimate analysis on various options for dryland
access; will also do a quick cost analysis for the storm sewer and cost of extending
piping instead of leaving and how much roadway would be affected.
b. To do-work out location of electrical boxes, steam pits and plaza area so can sign
off on Ayres bid documents next week (week of 02/22/10).
c. Still need direction to confirm the configuration of the parking lot, triangle vs. drop
off. As long as the bus loop and plaza don’t change the details can be adjusted and
worked out at a later date.
d. Open question: which end to bring dryland access in from?
i. East or west?
ii. Look at possibility of south of Nursing
iii. To remove the road north of Nursing would be a good thing.
e. There will be another meeting to specifically discuss the parking lot/dryland access.
Site plan notes per Randy, UWEC
i. SW corner of library (north of creek) they don’t like the steps, will just be more work to maintain,
revise to put in ramp. Steps are more work and ramp will also facilitate snow removal.
ii. North of Phillips sidewalk needs to be looked at…doesn’t work well, concept doesn’t allow
pedestrian traffic from Schofield to Phillip.
NURSING
i. During construction, Nursing will be completely cut off from campus, so there was a commitment to
Nursing to improve road access package to the west as this will be their only access to parking. If the
access road to the east is improved, will still need to address the west?
ii. Block with construction fence needs to be rethought-patients need to get to the clinic, nurses need to
get to parking lot
iii. Can there be a separate project to clean up the west end and culverts?
6.
h.
i.
212 East Washington Avenue | Suite 101 | Madison, Wisconsin 53703 | Phone 608.441.2575 | Fax 608.441.2580
www.brayarch.com
UWEC New Student Union
Steering Committee and Design Team Meeting
February 18, 2010
Page 4 of 9
4.
REVIEW OF 1st FLOOR PLAN-Shawn & Ray, Burt Hill
a. Ray – general strategy
i. Looked at efficiencies, brought net to gross ratio closer to acceptable
ii. Looked at opportunities to keep every bit of program intact
iii. Looked at circulation spaces: example-main entry was 20 ft. originally, 15 ft. now
b. Shawn:
i. Entrance basically the same
ii. Lounge, vending, cyber café still the same
iii. Pulled desk back and curved to achieve more gracious appearance
iv. Bank service asked for conference meeting room with desk, chairs and counter for max card system
v. Incorporated curved stair, which adds sense of “wow”; opening follows curve of stair to create an
elegant focal point
vi. David-note there is a premium to be paid for a curved stair, this may be an area to look at for
alternates
vii. Shawn-counter under stairs will prevent people from knocking their heads into the stairs
viii. Charles-possible issue-first 3-4 tables at entrance to dining will probably be moved, simply put
placeholder for 3-4 tables in L shape on floor, they will most likely use the area for vendors of some
type, i.e. t-shirts, bake sale, etc.
ix. Note-Build up columns with table top cantilevering and put chairs around
x. Servery discussions:
1. Talk of possibly flip flopping the Green Bean (to the right) and main coffeeshop (to the left),
will have another coffee shop in cabin, (will be something along the lines of Dunkin’ Donuts
Express facing the hallway) this will help shrink the other coffee shop to make room for dish
machine in dish room, also shrink deep drop off for garbage to help make more room for dish
machine.
2. Coffeshops were switched to help make room for dish machine, was originally on 3 rd, now
with changes there is no room. Intermezzo may move to cabin area. This move will vitalize
whole space during day. Limit what machines are used to reduce noise.
3. Need reason for people to go to cabin, coffee not enough, donuts and specialty drinks would
be more of a go, still have to investigate this, idea is still in “what if” stage.
4. Mike/Tim afraid of losing “cool performance space” feel of cabin; be very careful not to turn
cabin into a coffeehouse.
5. Dishroom was ignored for a long period of time as the idea was that they would be going
dishless-now realized that everything doesn’t fit and have the flexibility needed. When really
going over the kitchen spaces there were many items that needed to be fit in. Charles’ staff
has identified the equipment that can be reused, Porter Khouw is redoing the budget with the
new equipment and equipment that is being moved over-the next reiteration of the budget
will have much better information.
6. Counter were designed with a single point of connection, per Rick, this hasn’t worked in the
past, he asked Porter Khouw to come back with different design options for this.
7. Cereal World space eliminated; cereal sold will be prepackaged
8. Pizza area eliminated
9. Sandwich and salad bar rotated
10. Desert bar eliminated
11. Carvery was eliminated due to no interest
12. Make more behind counter space
13. Significant concern with how wide openings are, Porter Khouw looking at turnstiles; current
Marketplace has a tremendous amount of loss, turnstiles should help minimize this.
212 East Washington Avenue | Suite 101 | Madison, Wisconsin 53703 | Phone 608.441.2575 | Fax 608.441.2580
www.brayarch.com
UWEC New Student Union
Steering Committee and Design Team Meeting
February 18, 2010
Page 5 of 9
5.
6.
14. New Marketplace over twice the size of current marketplace; note per Christian from
Sodexo, due to size of kitchen labor cost will increase 38%. Rick notes-can’t have labor costs
increase by this much.
15. A la carte in new space is a labor intensive operation; will this new space be enough of a
draw that sales will offset the increased costs?
xi. Shawn-Lounge entryway, Delaney, toilet rooms stayed the same.
xii. Added per DSF a larger chase that a person can fit in
xiii. 1st level (and 2nd) – café height seating in corridor, due to amount of traffic and width of corridors,
best to keep the level of seating high, remove soft seating (where people are walking by, wouldn’t
want to be sitting low). Where the corridors are wider, soft seating will work better. Per Dr. Hellwigthey really liked the soft seating and living room/lounge type spaces in the corridors at St. Kates.
xiv. Added a dressing room, carved out of the cabin storage, for pre-performance people can hang out.
xv. Bar is now smaller and has a curve, design still in flux as they work with Albin
xvi. Cabin – has storage area behind the stairs, under landing.
xvii. Cabin drawings show columns in the cabin, don’t know at this point if the columns will be there,
needs to be coordinated with structural engineer.
xviii. Beer-now set up to have bottles of beer, a tap is expensive, sell such a little amount of beer and is such
a big cost per Charles, tap is not justified at this time.
xix. Mike and Tim –the new cabin space will be a draw in sales, can make the space and connections for at
least 1 kegerator, can increase if the sales go up.
ST
1 FLOOR ELECTRIC YARD
a. 2 ways in and out and access door
b. Fenced in area with dumpsters
c. Distance clear is approximately 42’
d. North, west and south are solid walls with open top
e. Will hold primary generator, switchgear, transformers and emergency generator
f. Height of walls is 12’ tall, not easily accessible
g. Where is refrigerator pack for walk in coolers?
i. On the roof now
ii. Per Porter Khouw – the vertical distance won’t work on the roof
iii. Size is approximately 12’ x 5’ x 4’
iv. Exterior north/south wall, curvilinear wall can increase if needed for additional items in the electric
yard
h. Loading dock completely covered with solid CMU
i. Trucks will completely pull inside the dock
ii. Fans inside
iii. How will the noise affect the area by the tree?
i. Steam, condensate return, chilled water and geothermal pipes coming in to the right of steps on South
j. Utility engineering functions should have direct access to whatever area/room
GEOTHERMAL/SUSTAINABILITY
a. JDR Engineers are running an energy model and life cycle cost analysis now, geothermal doesn’t appear to
have a pay off in twenty years.
b. While some “green features” showcase “energy efficiency” these are not always the most energy efficient
features and best practices, often the features that aren’t seen are the ones that are most effective. Visible
features such as geothermal and photovoltaic panels can be an effective advertisement for energy efficiencies
within the building and used as an educational tool.
c. Money has been allocated within the RFP for sustainability features.
212 East Washington Avenue | Suite 101 | Madison, Wisconsin 53703 | Phone 608.441.2575 | Fax 608.441.2580
www.brayarch.com
UWEC New Student Union
Steering Committee and Design Team Meeting
February 18, 2010
Page 6 of 9
d.
7.
The roof can be wired to accommodate solar panels in the future; would be a simple matter to add photovoltaic
option later if desired. Would have to build a substructure off the beams to support the mass. Per Rick G.-there
are limitations on the roof as only a portion may support structure for photovoltaics, as designed there are 17
exhaust fans which take a lot of room.
e. Dr. Hellwig-Make the building as energy efficient as possible by any means available.
f. Question-when will these decisions be made, when does the steering committee get to decide which
sustainability options will be utilized or if an item will be added as a statement/demonstration/educational
feature.
g. DSF has a standard payback requirement based on life cycle components; if payback is beyond 15 years then
recommendation would be to not do it.
h. Ash will send the JDR reports (energy modeling, geothermal analysis) to the steering committee; be certain
that if the geothermal is out as an option there is still time to add in photovoltaic panels, or other features.
i. Green roof is still in.
SECOND FLOOR
a. FISHTANK
i. Should it go in campus living room.
ii. Fishtank needs separate adjacent room for maintenance
iii. Russ – project can do this:
1. Make structural accommodations necessary, at least a 10,000lb item, which has significant
structural impact
2. Make utility infrastructure such chase space for power, plumbing
3. Won’t provide tank; tank and equipment moveable equipment purchased by ASE
4. DSF typically doesn’t put large tank of water or water features in a project because of
number of circulation and problems with damage/maintenance
iv. Michael-idea started with matching height cabinet with water access and water purifier with enough
storage for filter systems; possibly locate in the hallway by south side of grand staircase. Could also
located on the north side of student organization office area, in the wall; this would be viewable from
hallway, accessible from the student organization area and definitely would have locked cabinets.
v. This tank will contain 120 cubic feet of water
vi. Tim – met with president of Reef Team to get specs for tank and equipment
vii. Tim – this tank will facilitate student/faculty collaboration; UWEC designated as Wisconsin Center of
Excellence for Undergraduate Research, this tank would be an invaluable addition to the
undergraduate research program.
b. STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS
i. A&P-areas are settled
ii. SRI- moved offices
iii. Added storage to activity room
iv. Added mailboxes
v. Increased size of legal office
vi. Added a walkable chase
vii. Corridor stayed the same
c. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
i. Reception desk large enough for 2 people
ii. Met the office counts
iii. Increased size of breakroom
iv. Moved student workrooms into the center
v. Graphics services area enlarged
1. Per Charles, they get very little traffic, can move the area down in the layout
212 East Washington Avenue | Suite 101 | Madison, Wisconsin 53703 | Phone 608.441.2575 | Fax 608.441.2580
www.brayarch.com
UWEC New Student Union
Steering Committee and Design Team Meeting
February 18, 2010
Page 7 of 9
8.
9.
vi. Area open on each end, glass sliders may be a good solution for that.
vii. Charles –entrance at one end, with long corridor of offices will not work as efficiently as entering
suite of offices in middle.
viii. Now have windows which allow for daylighting in the suite
ix. Sustainability vs. reduced daylighting = better layout reduces the amount of daylighting
1. Could it be made more square instead of rectangle?
2. Push into bookstore?
3. L-shaped suite?
4. Previous design that showed an additional corridor and central entrance reduced the
efficiency of the building
x. Russ-current layout is about as efficient as you can get without reconfiguring by reducing the
assignable area and increasing circulation
d. UTILITIES question – piping, how does it come from chase to mechanical room (from below 1st floor, through
1st up to 3rd floor)? How is piping getting from right side of steps to left side of steps?
i. JDR is looking at equipment layouts at this time, which will affect the utilities layout
THIRD FLOOR
a. Core has stayed the same for the most part.
b. Projection booth moved adjacent to multipurpose room, removed from 4th floor.
c. Irwin Seating did seating layouts and viewing angles for the design
d. Added lactation room
e. Meeting room is now in a 2-story space
i. 36 people around the table
ii. ? around the sides
iii. Will work well for Student Senate meetings
f. Question –Should teledata and A/V be centralized?
i. No-building is too long to have this centrally located
g. Increased chases, required per code
i. Space between sink and stalls now at ADA standards, spaces were generous before, this reduction was
needed to increase the size of the chase
ii. 42” is ADA requirement for a wheelchair to pass
CARD ACCESS CONTROL
a. Know will swipes on some exterior and possible interior doors.
b. Comments
i. Don’t have a viable campus standard
ii. Dorms are only locked 6 hours a night, anyone could walk in, codes still work that were issued 3
years ago
iii. Some keys haven’t been changed for 40 years
iv. With a card access system, need the person in charge to be conscientious of reprogramming cards
c. Campus security in charge of card reader and card access
d. Electric strikes on doors – authorized personnel should be able to access from any computer at any time and be
able to authorize the locking of doors (outside doors?)
e. Question-with teledata on each end, is it close enough to be effective for card system? Is an intermediate room
on each level needed to accommodate card access?
f. A campus standard has to tie into the campus blackboard system
g. If a card system is not in the budget, will need pricing: what is the exact scope of work? Exterior perimeter
doors or more? How much would it cost? University will define the spaces and scope.
h. There isn’t a central standard on campus, this project will set the standard for the campus.
212 East Washington Avenue | Suite 101 | Madison, Wisconsin 53703 | Phone 608.441.2575 | Fax 608.441.2580
www.brayarch.com
UWEC New Student Union
Steering Committee and Design Team Meeting
February 18, 2010
Page 8 of 9
i.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
UW-Madison standard has Andover system on campus to monitor exterior doors, utility doors, user occupant
room (labs); system is monitored centrally by campus police and controlled by physical plant. Who is
responsible for programming?
j. Charles-Keywatcher system has been successful for student managers and food services workers-once
someone has entered through loading dock, with thumbprint access and code, can open keybox and take only
the keys they are authorized to.
PA System – Building wide system as requested by UWEC
BACK OF HOUSE, THIRD FLOOR
a. Need back of house for ballrooms. Per Charles, this has always been a requirement, if the back of house for the
ballrooms isn’t included in the plan, it is not acceptable
b. If there is an event in the large ballroom and small ballroom is partitioned, there is no back of house, would
have to walk back to catering kitchen.
c. The current design doesn’t have back of house and is unacceptable – doesn’t allow presentation of the
University in an appropriate way.
d. Discussion as to where to locate the back of house and ramifications; area layout will be revisited.
BALLROOM, Seating
a. 250 small ballroom
b. 504 large ballroom
c. Storeroom 1,320 SF and accommodates all tables and chairs.
EXTERIOR-SOUTH ELEVATIONS – OPTIONS
a. Ray presented various options
b. CONSENSUS – SOUTH ELEVATION OPTION 4 PREFERRED
i. Semi-truck bays are enclosed
ii. Darker brick
iii. Brought metal panel back
iv. Design team will come back with dollar amounts for various finishes for Option 4 (South)
v. Comments
1. doesn’t look like a prison anymore
2. Metal panels more exciting than color, like break up of color
3. Could there be circular windows with an arch (like an eyebrow)?
4. Can there be cool accents with different colors of brick (like Schofield)?
5. Don’t forget the bird concern/problem.
c. CONSENSUS – WEST ELEVATION OPTION 2 PREFERRED
i. Comments
1. achieved different coloration with brick
2. Option – split face might be more economical
d. Question-when will the group be able to focus on finishes and materials?
i. Lori from Burt Hill will prepare 3 themes and present the colorboards, palettes and textures. Any
ideas from anyone on the committee-please bring forward asap so that the designers can incorporate
them in their concepts.
ii. The meeting for finishes and materials will probably occur the 1st part of April. Note-spring break is
Psalm Sunday through Easter.
BUDGET PRESENTATION
a. Rick has verified total SF from the drawings
i. GSF 169,930 SF
ii. ASF 101,182 SF
iii. Efficiency at 60%
b. Note-ficm uses assignable not net SF
212 East Washington Avenue | Suite 101 | Madison, Wisconsin 53703 | Phone 608.441.2575 | Fax 608.441.2580
www.brayarch.com
UWEC New Student Union
Steering Committee and Design Team Meeting
February 18, 2010
Page 9 of 9
c.
d.
This calculation does not include corridors, which can be included
Ash explained his budget breakdown by floor (different functions on each floor affect the cost per SF):
i. 1st floor – 59,186 SF - $235/SF
ii. 2nd floor – 49,334 SF - $175/SF
iii. 3rd floor – 44,704 SF – $230/SF
iv. 4th floor – 16,706 SF - $110/SF
v. Average – 168,000 SF - $229/SF
vi. Site work/utilities - $1,500,000 (potential of early bid package to lock in the market and show
progress)
vii. Landscaping - $1,000,000
viii. Renewable energy - $328,660
e. Ash note – Ayres’ services were reimbursable, A/E fees stayed same until design change order
f. David-keep looking at efficiencies, materials, savings, program space is sacred, good news is the current
market
15. ALTERNATES POSSIBILITIES
a. Example: Amphitheater
b. Should define 1 million to 1.5 million in alternates
c. Russ-Once bids are in can move dollars within project
d. Must be cautious with alternates as we don’t want the bids to come in low or people will ask-Why did you
remove program items?
e. Last 12-16 months have seen:
i. More bidders
ii. Lower margins
iii. Tighter spread i.e. 2-3% between low bids
16. BIDDING/GENERAL CONTRACTOR
a. Question-how can UWEC be assured that quality contractors will be handling the project if they must accept
the lowest bid?
i. DSF has precautions in place to prevent problematic contractors – list of debarred contractors is
included in the specifications
***
The above information is the interpretation of the meeting activities and comments; and should be reviewed by all
attendees. Please comment on any discrepancies and inform the writer as soon as possible of any changes required.
Date issued: March 1, 2010.
BRAY ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, INC.
Ashraf Sadek/tb
cc:
All Present
212 East Washington Avenue | Suite 101 | Madison, Wisconsin 53703 | Phone 608.441.2575 | Fax 608.441.2580
www.brayarch.com