Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-12-2013 - 1ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 12, 2013 1 Action Agenda Item No. 1 SUBJECT: Cedar Grove Community Center Schematic Design Presentation DEPARTMENT: Asset Management Services PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) ( "AMS "), Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation ( "DEAPR" ) ATTACHMENT(S): A) Charge for the Northern Human Services Center Informal Resident Design Advisory Work Group B) Informal Resident Design Advisory Work Group - July, August, September and October 2013 Meetings Minutes C) Schematic Design Presentation, MBAJ Architects D) Project Cost Estimate E) Classroom Wing "Mothball" Option Cost Estimate INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Thompson, (919) 245 -2658 David Stancil, (919) 245 -2522 PURPOSE: To: 1) Receive a schematic design presentation and provide feedback for the Cedar Grove Community Center; 2) Receive a cost - benefit analysis presentation and provide guidance for the classroom wing "mothball" option; BACKGROUND: On June 18, 2013, the Board authorized the engagement of MBAJ Architects, Inc. of Raleigh, NC to work with the staff and the Northern Human Services Center Informal Resident Design Advisory Work Group (note Attachment A, "Charge for the Northern Human Services Center Informal Resident Design Advisory Work Group ") to begin schematic design of the facility as well as a cost benefit analysis of preserving the two classroom wings in a "mothball" status for future use. The following joined Commissioners Barry Jacobs and Renee Price as members of the Resident Design Advisory Work Group: Melinda Bradsher Luther Brooks Sue Florence Jacqueline McConnell -Graf Nancy Graves Malcolm Hester Sucovis Hester Vivian Herndon Latta Sheila Vanhook McDonald David Ogburn Clifford Rogers Roger Traynham Brenda Vanhook Hattie Vanhook Cumilla White 2 More in depth background and history related to the Northern Human Services Center Community Center can be found within the June 18, 2013 Agenda Abstract as Item 7 -e, located at http:// orangecountync .gov /occierks /130618.pdf. Through the summer and early fall, staff from Asset Management Services, the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation, and the County Manager's Office worked with the consultant and the Resident Advisory Work Group in a diligent, thoughtful and productive manner to achieve consensus on a schematic design for the Board's review, comment, and potential authorization to move forward with construction document preparation and construction bidding in the spring of 2014. Attachment B includes the meeting minutes of these work group meetings. John Thomas of MBAJ Architects will present the schematic design consensus to the Board for feedback and guidance, as well as the cost benefit analysis of the classroom wing mothball option. General schematic site and space plans are described in Attachment C, "Schematic Design Presentation, MBAJ Architects ". The project cost estimate prepared by MBAJ Architects is described in Attachment D, "Project Cost Estimate ". Attachment E, entitled "Classroom Wing Mothball Option Cost Estimate ", illustrates the design and construction costs for the mothball option. As a reminder, should the mothball option be selected by the Board, deconstruction costs in the amount of $250,000 budgeted within the Capital Investment Plan would potentially inure to the benefit of the project and the potential execution of the mothball option. This point is highlighted in the mothball option cost estimate. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Board approved the FY2012 -17 Capital Investment Plan ( "CIP ") that included $250,000 in FY 2012 -13 for deconstruction of sections of the facility in preparation for the future use on the site. The Board also approved $2.0 million in FY2014 -15 for the design and construction of the new facility that, when combined with the $250,000 authorized in FY 2012 -13, brings the total project capital budget to $2,250,000. The Board - authorized MBAJ Architects' current engagement will not exceed $173,500 and includes the incremental cost of $6,500 for the mothball option cost - benefit analysis the Board approved during the regular meeting on June 18, 2013. Should the Board consider the mothball option design cost of $28,800, the amended amount would increase to a not -to- exceed amount of $202,300. The current CIP project could cover this cost. The estimated project cost for the Cedar Grove Community Center does not exceed $2,000,000 as described in detail within Attachment C, "Project Cost Estimate ". The estimated additional cost for the mothball option design and construction approaches $608,800, and is described in Attachment D, "Classroom Wing "Mothball" Option Cost Estimate ". Crediting the approved $250,000 budgeted for deconstruction of the wings reduces the $608,800 mothball option estimate to $358,800. Since the Board may be presented with the mothball option alternate as part of the bid award consideration during the spring of 2014, a potential decision on moving forward with this option could be made during the normal annual Capital Investment Planning process and schedule. Should the Board choose not to invest in the mothball option construction alternate, the design remains valuable and can be constructed at some point in the future. The estimated cost, should the construction not occur as part of the main community center project, will be 3 approximately 10 -20% more expensive in current dollars because of the need to mobilize and set up for the project separately. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Interim Manager recommends the Board: 1) Receive a schematic design presentation and provide feedback for the Cedar Grove Community Center; 2) Receive a cost benefit analysis presentation and provide guidance for the classroom wing "mothball" option, 0 Attachment A Charge of the Cedar Grove Community Center Work Group The Charge for the Cedar Grove Community Center Work Group will be to work with County staff and MBAJ Architects of Raleigh, NC to provide recommendations to the Board on interior space design, utilization, and functionality of the new Community Center that best serves the residents of Orange County within the Board approved estimated 10,000 square foot adaptive re -use renovation area and a Capital Investment Plan budget of $2,250,000. The recommendations for the facility that will include but not be limited to the following contextual topics: 1. Recognition of the rich cultural and historical significance of the former Cedar Grove School, 2. The history and content of past public input for the facility, as well as future public comment during the Work Group's Charge duration, 3. The previous Board of County Commissioner decisions regarding the deconstruction of the classroom wings and the adaptive re -use renovation to yield an estimated 10,000 square foot community center facility on the site within a Capital Investment Plan project budget of $2,250,000, 4. Physical and operational limitations to the site and the property, to include but not be limited to sanitary sewer constraints that govern the intensity of use for the facility in a manner consistent with a community center use. The Work Group is directed to work with staff and MBAJ Architecture to present a schematic plan for the interior and grounds of the facility to the Board of County Commissioners by October, 2013. Approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 18th 2013. 5 Attachment B Cedar Grove Community Center Informal Resident Design Advisory Work Group Organizational Meeting Minutes July 9, 2013, 7:00 p.m. — 9:00 a.m. 306 Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC Present: Melinda Bradsher Luther Brooks Nancy Graves Malcolm Hester Sucovis Hester Vivian Herndon Latta Jacqueline McConnell -Graf Sheila McDonald VanHook Clifford Rogers Hattie VanHook Brenda VanHook Barry Jacobs Renee Price Earl McKee Jeffrey Thompson David Stancil Lori Taft Peter Sandbeck Stephen Witt A. Welcome & Introduction (Barry Jacobs) Barry welcomed everyone to the 15Y Work Group Meeting. Everyone was asked to introduce themselves and give some background of your interest in this Work Group. B. Review of Board Adopted Charge House. (Barry Jacobs) Barry reviewed the Charge of the Northern Human Services Center Resident Designed Advisory Work Group that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 18, 2013. This Charge was mailed to each of the Work Group Members. C. Housekeeping Items Discussed (Jeff Thompson) Jeff Thompson gave general information about the building that the meeting was held in (restroom locations, food, etc.). Jeff also informed the group that a 15- passenger van would be at Cedar Grove School at 5:30 p.m. each meeting date to transport Work Group members and citizens to the meeting location at 306 Revere Road. The van will leave from Cedar Grove School at 5:40 p.m. and will transport people back to Cedar Grove School after the adjournment of the meeting. Nancy Finnell will provide members and support staff with minutes for review. You will receive the minutes via mail /e -mail approximately 2 -3 days after the meeting. Members of the Work Group proposed to have the meeting time changed from 7:00 p.m. — 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. — 8:00 a.m. This was agreed upon. It was questioned why the meetings were not 0 scheduled to be at Cedar Grove School instead of the EAC building in Hillsborough. Jeff Thompson explained that most of the building utilities were setback to save energy because of the vacant space in the building. It was suggested that in September the meeting location could be changed to Cedar Grove with adjustments made to accommodate the Work Group. Jeff said that he would look into making this happen. D. Proposed Meeting Schedule (Jeff Thompson) Meetings will be held every other Tuesday in the EAC Lab at 306 Revere Road, Hillsborough from 6:00 p.m. — 8:00 p.m. Meeting dates: July 16th, July 30th, August 13th, August 27th, September 10th and September 24th Phase 1: July, August: Information with be gathered for space programming; site education; and Cultural and Historic Commemoration. Phase 2: September: Bubble sketching, informal space plan graphics, illustrations October 15, 2013: Schematic Design Presentation to BOCC, Requests to go to Construction Document Overview of Design Process (Jeffrey Thompson) Space Functions and Uses Space Decor, Themes Sustainability Budget Soft Bubble Uses Landscape F. Work Group Comments: Mr. Rogers asked about demolition costs. Mr. Thompson stated that there was now $250,000 in the deconstruction budget, and that this had to include asbestos abatement that had to take place before they did the deconstruction. There is $2 million available for construction in addition to the $250,000. Mr. Rogers asked about land contamination issues. This has been discussed and anticipated but none is expected with this sort of facility. There were other sources of asbestos contamination, such as the glazing compound of the cafeteria windows, the mastic under the floor tiles in the cafeteria, and pipe insulation, and roof deck. Mr. Talbert clarified that these sources of asbestos were not currently creating a hazard but that the asbestos was only an issue when it was disturbed such as during deconstruction. Mr. Rogers asked if the designers were aware that there was interest in saving and reusing some of the materials. Could the bricks be re -used? Discussion followed and there was general agreement that some materials could be used in a creative manner in the new facility. Also, some group members felt that the materials not being re -used should be offered to anyone in the community who may want some. Mr. Thompson explained that the County will seek to recycle the old brick and other materials. Mr. Rogers raised the question of the lack of a good grocery store in the northern part of the county and how much they would like to have such a store. Could a portion of the school house this? Mr. Thompson explained that the county is not in that business but that they could speak with developers of such stores to see if there was any interest. 7 General Conditions of the building: windows, roof, Deconstruction of the building — would like to see brick used in new building or sold to community for sentimental value Group would like to preserve as much as possible of the original structure of the school. Group would like to have more activities for youth, handicapped and senior citizens. Group would like to set up a sub - committee to begin an Oral History of Cedar Grove. Employment and volunteer opportunities for the community within a community center. A broader range of Park and Ride Transportation System Group would like the link to the summary report from June 18th concerning comments about Cedar Grove Reconstruction G. Public Comments H. Meeting Adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 9131 Anson Way, Suite 204 Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Office: 919- 573 -6400 �� Wcu Toll-free: 800-590-MBAJ Fax: 919-573-6495 MEETING MINUTES Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center July 16, 2013 MBAJ No.: 1315 File No.: B -2.0 DISTRIBUTION: All Attending Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Members not in Attendance ATTENDING: Advisory Board Members Cumilla White Melinda Bradsher Jacqueline McConnell-Graf Support Staff Members Jeff Thompson, Asset Management Nancy Finnell, Asset Management Michael Harvey, Planning Lori Taft, Parks and Recreation Pierre Henwood, MBAJ John Thomas, MBAJ Call to Order • The meeting was commenced at approximately 6:00 PM • Sign -up sheet was circulated • Next meeting is scheduled for July 30, 2013, 6:00 pm at the Cedar Grove Center. 0 On July 16, 2013 a meeting of the Cedar Grove Community Center Informal Resident Advisory Work Group was held at the Environmental and Agriculture Center. The following items were discussed; • Jeff Thompson opened the meeting with some housekeeping items • Michael Harvey from the Orange County Planning Review and Transportation Department stated that would be a public meeting at the Cedar Grove Center on August 8a' from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm to discuss transportation options for the northern portion of Orange County and that these options would include a possible "park and ride" lot being located at the site as well as potential for bus service to the site. • MBAJ was directed to send all information to Nancy Finnell with the county for distribution to the group. o There was a discussion regarding "mothballing" versus "demo' of the classroom wings. Jeff Thompson stated that the $250,000 budgeted for deconstruction could be used for "mothballing" if that was what undertaken. • Jeff gave a brief history of the site. o The School was built in 1950. o In 1976 the facility was taken over by Orange County and used to provide county services until 2008. R: \Projects \1315 - Northern Human Svcs Ctr \B \B2.0 Owner Correspondence \MM20130716ph_Advisory Committee.docx Informal Resident Advisory Work Group 9 Cedar Grove Community Center July 16, 2013 Page 2of4 • John Thomas Reviewed some of the project constraints o Site plan was reviewed. o The 10,000 sf renovation that has been funded. That area does not include the existing bathrooms. o Mothballing of the wings would require installation of minimal HVAC to maintain conditionig, upgrade of the fire alarm to meet code and fire rated isolation of the classroom wings. o To meet the direction from the Commissioners, two alternate approaches will need to be developed, the mothball plan based on reusing existmg bathrooms and a no mothball plan developing new replacement bathrooms. o The existing septic tank has a 2,400 gallon a day capacity, the building if fully utilized requires 3,500 gallon a day capacity. The bathroom building constructed with the park has been allocated 1,000 gallons a day for its septic system. Therefore there is 1,400 gallons of capacity available for the renovated facility. • There was discussion regarding whether the 1,000 gallon a day figure included die planned bathrooms in Phase 2 of the park. The Michael and Lori stated that they would research this and report back. • Phase 2 of the park is not planned to be constructed for at least 5 years. • The architect requested a copy of the phase II plan for the park. o Jeff Thompson indicated the county environmental health department had done a preliminary review of the septic system and believed that 1,400 gallon a day was enough capacity for a "reasonable" 10,000 square foot community center. ■ That assessment assumed the facility would not have a commercial kitchen, but could have an "instructional" or "church kitchen ". • Currently the existing building is only occupied by Parks and Recreation. The have one park employee is using an office space. This space will be required in the renovated facility. ■ It was stated that there would also need to be an office for a recreation department employee who would be running the facility. • Who will be running the facility is undetermined at this time. • The existing playgrounds adjacent to the classroom wing have to remain or be replaced as these were erected using grant money. • Michael stated that the site is within a "critical' watershed and that this meant that there could only be 6% impervious surface. Gravel parking lots are counted as "impervious" surface. Site area is 40 plus acres as it includes the entire park. ■ As site across road is not "contiguous" and could not be used to off set impervious surface, but could be the site for a proposed "park and ride" lot. • John Thomas led a discussion of the programs and spaces envisioned for the facility. o Meeting spaces are needed. A variety of different size spaces are needed for different groups to use within the facility. Some of these group could be • Family reunions up to 100 people • Meetings ± 12 people • Scouts • 4H • It was stated that at the Hillsborough public library that there was a 600 sf meeting room that has the ability to be shut off from the rest of the facility and has an exterior entrance with access to toilets. • Lori Taft agreed to review the former bookings at the facility to see who and what size groups have rented the space in the past. • Large groups (100 ± people) would probably only occur 5 -6 times a year. • County Government would potentially use meeting spaces 15 -20 times per year. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center July 16, 2013 Page 3of4 10 • The final solution needs to examine the relationship between the park uses and the building uses, especially the kitchen and restrooms ■ Possible use of a pass -thru window so food could be cooked outside and served inside. • The need for Classroom spaces was discussed. Classrooms should be available for some of the following uses • Durham Tech • Computer Access • Distance Learning • Arts Programs • Science Programs • Continuing Education thru Duke, UNC -CH and NCSU • Internet Cafe o The group discussed the possibility of large spaces with movable walls to form smaller rooms like library in Chapel Hill ■ The facility needs to include an athletic component. Athletic /Recreation programs would include: • Pick -up Basketball • Existing space only 78'x 43' with only 14' -8" clearance to structure above the floor. • A full size basketball court requires a space 104'x60' minimum with 20' clear to the structure. • The • Zumba /exercise classes o Requires a space with good acoustics • Senior activities • Checkers • Chess • Cards • Pool • Ping Pong o The group discussed the question, "What programs and amenities will bring people to the center ?" — ■ "If you build it will they come" or does the building need to be more. • Public Transportation to the center will be a key to encouraging use its programs and spaces. • This part of county has a high concentration of seniors and programs geared toward seniors would be beneficial. • Programs that are geared toward local interests • This part of the county is heavy agricultural district o A teaching kitchen would be something good to have that could be used to teach canning or other activities. o A Farmers Market o Food Bank — one is already held in park picnic shelter once a month o Voting / Voting Drives ■ A potential "internet cafe/ social lounge" was discussed and that this should have soft chairs and access to coffee. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center July 16, 2013 Page 4of4 11 ■ Concern was expressed about "doubling" up on other facilities or programs already offered in other parts of county. • The amount of traffic that passes the site was discussed and it was stated that NCDOT probably had a traffic count study that could be obtained to help with working out these numbers. Michael suggested that the architect contact Chuck with NCDOT. • Need to explore the possibility of the toilets having exterior access that could allow them to be used without having to grant access to entire building. • Michael stated that the parking requirements needed to be studied closely as these would be determined by the use of each space. Also could not count a "park and ride" lot in parking counts. The group discussed the "memorial' aspect of the project. • The county cultural resources coordinator Peter Sandbeck is working on this with a sub - committee. • The following elements had been stated in the past as important • Important to have physical elements remain • Colors will be important • Preserving views will be important o Some elements could include: ■ Museum style elements • Displays • Oral histories (maybe on "touch" screen technology) • Graphic timeline • Recreating the Maypole o Memorial could be a room, a space in corridor or the whole building. Jeff Thompson stated that the architect needed to review online "Rural Centers of Excellence" for ideas and possible uses for the building. Minutes Recorded By: Pierre Henwood Date: 7/16/2006 This report is the writer's understanding of the major topics and conclusions of the meeting. If this does not correspond with the understanding of anyone in attendance, please contact MBAJ Architecture in writing. Unless written notice disputing the information contained in this report is received within seven (7) days of the report issue, it shall be assumed that all parties are in agreement that this information is true and correct. N Existing Cedar Grove Facility "r Wce 13 Existing Cedar Grove Facility UMNU 0 Wce 9131 Anson Way, Suite 204 Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Office: 919- 573 -6400 �� Wcu Toll-free: 800-590-MBAJ Fax: 919-573-6495 MEETING MINUTES Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center July 30, 2013 MBAJ No.: 1315 File No.: B -2.0 DISTRIBUTION: All Attending Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Members not in Attendance Support Staff Members not in Attendance ATTENDING: Advisory Board Members Cumilla White Melinda Bradsher Jacqueline McConnell-Graf Hattie VanHook Brenda VanHook Shelia VanHook McDonald Sue Florence Sucovis Hester Malcolm Hester Commissioner Barry Jacobs Commissioner Renee Price Interested Community Members Mary Burt Harold VanHook Donald VanHook Barbara Breeze Frances Beasley Commissioners & Staff Members Commissioner Earl McKee Nancy Finnell, Asset Management David Stancil, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation Lori Taft, Parks and Recreation Pierre Henwood, MBAJ John Thomas, MBAJ Call to Order • The meeting was commenced at approximately 6:00 PM • Sign -up sheet was circulated • Next meeting is scheduled for August 13, 2013, 6:00 pm at the Cedar Grove Center. R: \Projects \1315 - Northern Human Svcs Ctr \B \B2.0 Owner Correspondence \MM20130730ph_Advisory Committee.docx 14 Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center July 30, 2013 Page 2of5 15 On July 30, 2013 a meeting of the Cedar Grove Community Center Informal Resident Advisory Work Group was held at the Northern Human Services Center. The following items were discussed; • David Stancil opened the meeting with some housekeeping items • The group was reminded of a public meeting at the Cedar Grove Center on August 8th from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm being held by the Orange County Planning Review and Transportation Department to discuss transportation options for the northern portion of Orange County. The options discussed will include a possible "park and ride" lot being located at the site as well as potential for bus service to the site. It was also stated that transportation would be provided to this meeting and Mr. Stancil provided a phone number to the group to call if they needed transportation. • Copies of the background information for the project will be available for the advisory board members at the next meeting. • John Thomas reviewed some of the project constraints that were discussed at the last meeting for those that did not attend the last meeting • Only 10,000 square feet of renovation that has been funded. That area does not include the existing bathrooms. • The concept of "mothballing" versus "deconstruction" of the classroom wings. Jeff Thompson stated at the last meeting that the $250,000 budgeted for deconstruction could be used for "mothballing" if that was what undertaken. • Mothballing of the wings would require installation of minimal HVAC to maintain conditioning, upgrade of the fire alarm to meet code and fire rated isolation of the classroom wings. • To meet the charge from the Commissioners, two alternate approaches will need to be developed, the mothball plan based on reusing existing bathrooms and a no mothball plan developing new replacement bathrooms. • The existing septic tank has a 2,400 gallon a day capacity, the building if fully utilized requires 3,500 gallon a day capacity. The park has been allocated 1,000 gallons a day of the capacity for its septic system. Therefore, 1,400 gallons of capacity are available for the renovated facility. ■ There was discussion regarding whether the 1,000 gallon a day figure included the planned bathrooms in Phase 2 of the park. Lori stated that she would research this and report back. • Phase 2 of the park is not planned to be constructed for at least 5 years. • Copies of the phase II plan for the park where made available at the meeting for all member of the group. • The county environmental health department has done a preliminary review of the septic system and believed that 1,400 gallon a day was enough capacity for a "reasonable" 10,000 square foot community center. ■ That assessment assumed the facility would not have a commercial kitchen, but could have an "instructional" or "church kitchen ". o Currently the existing building is only occupied by Parks and Recreation. The one full time park employee is currently using the largest existing office space. Space for the park employee will be required in the renovated facility. ■ In addition there will need to be an office for a recreation department employee if Parks and Recreation are managing the Center. ■ Who will be running the facility has not been determined. • The existing playgrounds adjacent to the classroom wing have to remain or be replaced as these were erected using grant money. • The site is located within a "critical" watershed and the impervious surface will be limited to 6% of the total area. Gravel parking lots are counted as "impervious" surface. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center July 30, 2013 Page 3of5 16 The additional land purchased across Hwy 86 for a future septic field is not "contiguous" and cannot be used to offset impervious surface requirements, but could be the site for a proposed "park and ride" lot. o It was asked if a police substation had been discussed as a possible use of the building. At this point it has not been included. John Thomas led a discussion of the programs and spaces envisioned for the facility. • A program of spaces was distributed and reviewed. The program was developed discussions at the last meeting and past community input sessions. The total space required to meet the programs desired is greater than the 10,000 square feet available for renovation. • Each of the program areas were reviewed in more detail. ■ The existing Cafeteria is approx 2,554 square feet in area which allows an occupancy of 171 persons. It was noted that the occupancy sign on the door stated that the room was only certified for only 100 people. Lori stated that they will discuss this with the fire department to see why they space was rated so low. The existing gym space is not sized for basketball. A basketball court requires a minimum floor area of 60' x 85' x 20' high and the existing space is only 43' wide x 78' long and only has 14' -8" of clearance. • The possibility of lifting the roof was suggested and the architect stated that they would review this option. • Basketball was noted as being very important to the community. It was also noted that in the list of reservations from 2009 -2011 for the building shows the reservations for basketball were 3 times greater than for any other program. • John Thomas reviewed the option of turning the basketball court 90 degrees to create a correctly sized half court gym. This option would also leave 800 square feet for other uses. o The group felt that a full size or as near to full size court as possible was a priority for the project. • It was stated that the basketball goals would need to have the ability to be raised and lowered. • In summary it was noted that maintaining a full size gym is a priority but there will need to be trade -offs based on the budget constraints. ■ The need for the existing stage was reviewed. • The majority of the group supported the need for a stage of some sort, either the existing stage remaining or a portable stage being provided for flexibility. • The architect stated that they were still investigating the construction of the existing stage and this may limit the ability of the existing area to be removed within the budget. • The possibility of adding a movable wall to the existing proscenium arch to the stage was discussed. • It was noted that if the stage was to remain it would need to be made ADA accessible and this would require a large ramp to be added to the building or a wheelchair lift added. ■ It was stated that the Parks and Recreation department would need an office in the new facility for 1 full time staff position with room for 2 additional seasonal staff positions. A storage area for small tools is also required. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center July 30, 2013 Page 4of5 17 Lori indicated a smaller office could be adequate for the current needs if the storage were accommodated. • The possibility of the larger office becoming a conference was discussed. ■ The majority of the group agreed that a Kitchen was needed. It was stated that this Kitchen should be a warming /catering Kitchen and require the following elements: • Large refrigerators • Ice Machine • Lots of counter space • Storage for large hot trays from caterers or Golden Corral • Multiple 4- burner residential stoves • Dishwasher (commercial versus large residential) ■ The group was reminded the septic limitations would not allow for a commercial dishwasher. o Pass thru window to Gym and Cafeteria ■ The technology /computer center was discussed • It was stated that wireless connectivity needed to be provided thru -out the entire building. • There is a need for a computer center accommodating 5 -7 computer work stations in the facility. o The use of lap tops would be preferred for flexibility. o The computer center should include the following elements: ■ a projector and projection screen ■ printers ■ fax machine ■ copier /scanner ■ video conferencing capabilities • John Thomas explained the data infrastructure (conduit, outlet boxes and wiring) would be in the contract but the equipment would not be in the building contract. • The group discussed entry into the facility and what would constitute the "front door ". • It was noted by the former students that the door facing Highway 86 was not the entry for students when the building was a school. • It was stated that there may end up being a "ceremonial' front door on Hwy 86 and an functional front door adjacent to the Cafeteria that is used on a daily basis. • John Thomas suggested the existing covered walkway adjacent to the gym should be enclosed so that the building users did not have to go outside to enter the Cafeteria. • The group suggested the toilets be provided with an exterior access that would allow use during outdoor programs without having to grant access to entire building. • The Architects will have sketches of potential development options for review at the next meeting. The group discussed the "memorial' aspect of the project. o It was noted that the county cultural resources coordinator Peter Sandbeck is working on this with a sub- committee. o The following elements have been stated in the pastas being important ■ Allowing the physical elements remain Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center July 30, 2013 Page 5of5 • Color and material selection • Preservation of views o Some elements of a memorial could include: ■ Museum style elements • Displays • Oral histories (maybe on "touch" screen technology) • Graphic timeline • Recreating the Maypole o Memorial could be an exterior element, a room, or the whole building. Minutes Recorded By: Pierre Henwood Date: 7/30/2013 im This report is the writer's understanding of the major topics and conclusions of the meeting. If this does not correspond with the understanding of anyone in attendance, please contact MBAJ Architecture in writing. Unless written notice disputing the information contained in this report is received within seven (7) days of the report issue, it shall be assumed that all parties are in agreement that this information is true and correct. Cedar Grove Center 9 =z Preliminary Space Program July 30, 2013 Space Qua Size Subtotal Meeting Large Group (100 +) 1 1,500 1,500 Small Group (40) 1 600 600 Conference 2 250 500 2,600 Classrooms Classroom 1 700 700 Computer Center 1 800 800 1,500 Recreation Basketball 1 3,300 3,300 Exercise Room 1 800 800 Rec Room 1 800 800 4,900 Social Internet Cafe 1 800 800 800 Subtotal 9,800 Walls, Toilets, Circulation, Mechanical 40% 3,920 Total 13,720 1 9131 Anson Way, Suite 204 Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Office: 919- 573 -6400 �� Wcu Toll-free: 800-590-MBAJ Fax: 919-573-6495 MEETING MINUTES Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 13, 2013 MBAJ No.: 1315 File No.: B -2.0 DISTRIBUTION: All Attending Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Members not in Attendance Support Staff Members not in Attendance ATTENDING: Advisory Board Members Melinda Bradsher Hattie VanHook Brenda VanHook Shelia VanHook McDonald Roger Traynham Clifford B. Rogers Vivian Herndon -Latta Sue Florence Interested Community Members Mary Burt Commissioners & Staff Members Jeff Thompson, Assent Management Nancy Finnell, Asset Management Peter Sandbeck, Cultural Resource Coordinator Lori Taft, Parks and Recreation Pierre Henwood, MBAJ John Thomas, MBAJ Call to Order • The meeting was commenced at approximately 6:20 PM • Sign -up sheet was circulated • Next meeting is scheduled for August 27, 2013, 6:00 pm at the Cedar Grove Center. 20 On August 13, 2013 a meeting of the Cedar Grove Community Center Informal Resident Advisory Work Group was held at the Northern Human Services Center. The following items were discussed; • Jeff Thompson opened the meeting with some housekeeping items o Copies of the background information for the project are available for the advisory board members from Nancy Finnell. John Thomas handed out an updated program of spaces o The program includes a full size gymnasium (4,680 square feet) and this made the overall program 14,260 square feet. R: \Projects \1315 - Northern Human Svcs Ctr \13\132.0 Owner Correspondence \MM20130813ph_Advisory Committee.docx Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 13, 2013 Page 2of7 21 • John Thomas stated the program showed a 40% factor for walls, toilets, circulation, mechanical and other spaces and explained that this was standard factor that was used for non - program space at the programming stage. However, because this project is a renovation project, the final number for this factor will likely be lower. • The group was reminded that only 10,000 square feet of renovation has been funded. • The concept of mothballing versus deconstruction of the classroom wings was discussed. Jeff Thompson stated that the $250,000 budgeted for deconstruction could be used for mothballing if that approach was undertaken. ■ Mothballing of the wings will require installation of minimal HVAC to maintain a temperature above 55 degrees in the winter and below 80 degrees in the summer, upgrade of the fire alarm to meet current codes and fire rated walls and doors to provide isolation of the classroom wings. • To meet the charge from the Commissioners, two alternate approaches will be explored, a mothball plan based on reusing the existing bathrooms and a deconstruction plan including new replacement bathrooms. • However no final decision or recommendation had been made on whether the wings are to remain and be mothballed or if the wings are to be removed had been made at this stage. • The Committee will make a recommendation to the Commissioners in October for a preferred approach. The final decision to mothball or deconstruct the wings will be made by the Commissioners • The group was reminded about the septic field limitations. The existing septic tank has a 2,400 gallon a day capacity, the building if fully utilized requires 3,500 gallon a day capacity. The park has been allocated 1,000 gallons a day of the capacity for its septic system. Therefore, 1,400 gallons of capacity are available for the renovated facility. • There was discussion regarding whether the 1,000 gallon a day figure included the planned bathrooms in Phase 2 of the park. Lori provided the architect with information at the meeting that stated this number was only for Phase 1 of the park. • Phase 2 of the park is not planned to be constructed for at least 5 years. • The county environmental health department has done a preliminary review of the septic system and believed that 1,400 gallon a day was enough capacity for a "reasonable" 10,000 square foot community center. • The site is located within a "critical" watershed and the impervious surface maybe limited to 6% of the total site area. The architect needs to review this with the Orange County Planning Department and verify is this correct as several of the support staff members in attendance believed that this was not the correct number. Gravel parking lots are counted as "impervious" surface. ■ The additional land purchased across Hwy 86 for a future septic field is not "contiguous" and cannot be used to offset impervious surface requirements, but could be the site for a proposed "park and ride" lot. • It has been asked previously if a police substation had been discussed as a possible use of the building. At this point it has not been included. • John Thomas presented four preliminary options for the rehabilitation of the building to the group. The preliminary plans were conceptual in nature and intended to prompt discussion about the relationships between spaces and their sizes. The group was encouraged to look for elements in the various plans they like and do not like. As the plans are developed and refined over the next few weeks furniture and other items will be added to the plans to show how each space could be used and laid out. • The highlights and differences in each option were discussed. These included the following; o Option "A" ■ The existing Gymatorium remains in place and the roof is not raised Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 13, 2013 Page 3of7 22 • A folding partition is added to the front of the stage to allow this space to be used both as a Stage and a Classroom. • Existing stage cannot be removed as it is a concrete slab on fill and is integrally connected to the adjacent walls. • Handicapped access to the stage is provided by a new ramp created by renovating the existing storage area north of the stage. • The group discussed the need for a separate office for a facility manager (in charge of the inside programs) in addition to the Parks and Rec Office (in charge of the outside grounds and programs). • The existing wings remain but are mothballed. • New group toilets are provided in the same location as the existing toilets but are enlarged, made handicapped accessible and provided with exterior access. • The exterior and interior door to the bathrooms would be designed to allow them to be secured to prevent unwanted access to the interior of the building. • The existing library becomes an exercise room, as the classroom wings remain in place in this option and this space is accessible from outside the area that would be cut -off and mothballed. • Internet Cafe is provided adjacent to ceremonial front door by removing a portion of the existing masonry walls to create a large open space. • Wireless internet is to be provided thru -out the entire building. • A Conference Room is provided adjacent to Internet Cafe • The existing breezeway between the existing main building and the Dining Room would be enclosed and made into a Lobby /Corridor • A new Kitchen is created in the west half of the existing kitchen area. • The Kitchen is provided with direct access to the Large Group Meeting Room with a pass thru window with counter top and roll up door. • A concern was raised by the group about the Can Wash being located in the Kitchen and the possibility of smells invading the Kitchen from this space. • The Health Department will require a can wash adjacent to the Kitchen and the location shown in this option will minimize changes to the plumbing. • The Can Wash will be designed with an exterior ventilation fan and that • It was suggested that the Can Wash location could be switched with the storage area shown in the Kitchen. The architect stated that they would review this option. • A new Can Wash could be constructed outside the kitchen, but this option would cost more. o A Janitors Closet and storage will need to be provided in the building for the storage of paper goods and cleaning supplies. This function can be combined with the Can Wash area. The architect explained to the group that plumbing costs could be a major cost driver for the project. The existing dining space is subdivided into three spaces, a Large Group Meeting Room, Small Group Meeting Room and Rec Room. • The Large Group Meeting Room is able to be expanded into the Recreation Room for larger events by opening a movable wall between the two spaces. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 13, 2013 Page 4of7 23 • Large Group Meeting Room can hold 91 people and when the movable wall is opened up to include the Recreation Room it can hold up to 144 people seated at tables and chairs. • An individual accessible toilet is provided off the Large Group Meeting Room. • The group asked for clarification of the difference between an exercise room and rec room. • The Rec Room is a space for low energy game activities with furniture such as ping pong, pool, chess and cards. The larger furniture can be placed on casters to facilitate movement of the furniture for larger events • The exercise space is an active space for aerobics, yoga, zumba or other activities that could be "noisy" and need specialty flooring, but did not require a lot of large furniture or equipment. • Members of the group questioned why a library was not included in the program or plans. • Jeff Thompson stated that the need for a space had been discussed with the library system and it was his understanding that any library functions would be provided thru a combination of a book drop and electronic services. • It was suggested a quiet space could be provided and include multi -media access, similar to Greensboro and Chapel Hill libraries. • This space can be provided within the building and integrated within another program space. Book shelves and media storage could also be provided in designated program spaces. o Option `B" ■ The existing Gymatorium remains in place and the roof is not raised • A folding partition is added to the front of the stage to allow this space to be used both as a Stage and as an Exercise Room. • Handicapped access is provided to the stage by a new ramp located in the existing storage area north of the Stage. • The existing breezeway between the existing main building and the dining room would be enclosed and made into a Lobby /corridor • The existing wings remain but are mothballed • New group toilets are provided in the same location as the existing toilets but are enlarged, made handicapped accessible and provided with exterior access. • Existing library becomes a Rec Room. • A Small Group Meeting Room /Classroom is provided adjacent to the ceremonial front door. • A Conference Room provided adjacent to the Small Group Meeting Room • The existing dining space is subdivided into three spaces, a Large Group Meeting Room, Kitchen and Internet Cafe. • The Internet Cafe has direct access to the exterior Kitchen is located adjacent to the Internet Cafe and is provided with a pass thru counter with roll up door. o The location of the Can Wash was discussed and it was stated that it could be provided in the area currently labeled as Kitchen Storage. • Large Group Meeting Room is located adjacent to the Internet Cafe and is smaller than in Option A (86 people). o It was stated by the group the Large Group Meeting Room was too small. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 13, 2013 Page 5of7 24 o A folding partition could be provided between the Large Group Meeting Room and the Internet Cafe space and the space could then accomodate up to 150 people. ■ The existing kitchen area is subdivided into space for Parks and Recreation and building support spaces. • The Parks and Recreation office and storage areas are provided at the back of the existing Kitchen so they had easier access to the existing park. • The group expressed concerns the Parks and Recreation offices and storage areas were too large. o Option "C" ■ An expanded Gymnasium is provided and the roof is raised to provide 20' -0" clearance over the court. • The basketball court would be full width (50� but not full length (68' -0'�; a regulation high school court is 84' -0" long. • It was stated that no bleacher seating was being provided in the new gym, but the width could be increase to accommodate bleachers. • It was stated that the architect had reviewed raising the roof with a structural engineer and based on the information that they had provided it would be less expensive to remove the existing roof and provide a new roof with new supporting structure. • This new gymnasium could still be provided with access to the existing stage. • The cost of expanding the gymnasium and raising the roof will be $180,000 - $200,000 • A folding partition is added to the front of the stage to allow this space to be used both as a Stage and as a Classroom space. • Handicapped access is provided to the stage by a new wheelchair lift located in the existing storage area north of the Stage. This approach allows additional storage to be provided in the adjacent area as the lift does not require as much floor space as the ramp. • The existing south wing with the smaller classrooms would remain but be mothballed. • The existing north classroom wing will be deconstructed to allow the gymnasium expansion to be built. • New group toilets are provided in the same location as the existing toilets but are enlarged, made handicapped accessible and provided with exterior access. • The existing breezeway between the existing main building and the dining room would be enclosed and made into a Lobby /corridor • Existing library was rehabilitated in this scheme due to the anticipated cost of enlarging the gymnasium and raising the roof. • The existing space adjacent to ceremonial front door is redeveloped as a Recreation Room • The existing dining and kitchen areas are redeveloped to provide a new Kitchen, Conference Room, Large Group Meeting Room, Small Group Meeting Room, Internet Cafe and Parks Office. • The Kitchen is provided with direct access to the Large Group Meeting Room using a pass thru window with counter top and roll up door. • The Large Group Meeting Room is able to be expanded into the Small Group Meeting Room for larger events by opening a movable wall between the two spaces. • The Large Group Meeting Room can hold 93 people and when the movable wall is opened up to include the Small Group Meeting Room it can hold up to 125 people seated at tables and chairs. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 13, 2013 Page 6of7 25 Parks and Recreation office is located at the back of the existing Kitchen to provide visual connection and easier access to the existing park. o Option "D" ■ A new Gymnasium is provided and the roof is raised to provide 20' -0" clearance over the court. The basketball court would be full width (50� but not full length (68' -0'�; a regulation high school court is 84' -0" long. • No showers or locker rooms are provided 'many option. • A folding partition is added to the front of the stage to allow this space to be used both as a Stage and as an Exercise Room. • Handicapped access is provided to the stage by a new ramp located in the existing storage area north of the Stage. • The existing breezeway between the existing main building and the dining room would be enclosed and made into a Lobby /corridor • Both the existing wings are deconstructed. • New toilets are provided and these could have exterior access provided if required. • Internet Cafe is provided adjacent to "ceremonial" front entry by removing a portion of the existing masonry walls to create a large open space. • Parks and Recreation office is provided adjacent to Internet Cafe • The group expressed concerns that the Parks and Recreation office was too large and that too much storage was shown for Parks and Recreation. • It was determined that some of this storage would be general storage. • Jeff Thompson stated that at some of the other community facilities within the county have nearly 10% of the building used for storage. ■ The existing dining and kitchen areas are redeveloped to provide a new Kitchen, Conference Room, Large Group Meeting Room, Small Group Meeting Room and Rec Room. • The Large Group Meeting Room is able to expand into the Small Group Meeting Room for larger events by opening a movable wall between the two spaces. • Large Group Meeting Room can hold 68 people and when the movable wall is opened to include the Small Group Meeting Room it can hold up to 102 people seated at tables and chairs. o The group stated this was not large enough. • Kitchen is provided with direct access to the corridor adjacent to the Large Group room. A pass thru window with counter top and roll up door is provided to the corridor to facilitate serving. ■ The group expressed major concerns about the wings being removed in this scheme. • Jeff Thompson reviewed the budget which is $2,000,000 (based on $200 per square feet). The budget includes design fees as well as construction costs. This budget does not include any costs associated with the operation of the building after construction was complete. • An additional $250,000 has been budgeted for hazardous material abatement and deconstruction of the wings. • If the wings are mothballed then this funding could be used for the work to mothball the wings. • The county has a 2 -year old estimate of $161,000 for the abatement of asbestos, lead paint and other materials throughout the building and the deconstruction of the wings. • John Thomas then asked the group to review the elements they liked from the concepts presented and which items need further development. o There was not a consensus about expanding the Gymnasium. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 13, 2013 Page 7of7 26 ■ Some of the group thought expanding the gym was an important element for the project and asked that a plan with a full length gym (84'4 be explored. • The architect stated that this would require the court to be rotated 90 degrees. ■ Some of the group stated that having a full sized gym would compromise the ability to retain the existing classroom wings and did not want to have the larger gym. o The group agreed that they liked many of the features of Option "A" but would like to see this developed further but with some small changes including • The stage being used for exercise with a cushioned floor system • The existing library space being used as a classroom • The use of a wheelchair lift rather than a ramp to provided handicapped access to the stage • Another office being provided for a Facility Manager. • Exterior access such as a pass thru window from the exterior to the Kitchen. • Additional space in the Kitchen (closer to 340 square feet). • The Architects will have revised and further developed sketches incorporating the elements discussed above for review at the next meeting. • The "memorial" aspect of the project was not discussed at this meeting o As stated previously, Peter Sandbeck is working with a sub - committee on ideas for this memorial. Minutes Recorded By: Date: 8/13/2013 Pierre Henwood This report A the writer's understanding of the major topics and conclusions of the meeting. If this does not correspond with the understanding of anyone in attendance, please contact MBAJ Architecture in writing. Unless written notice disputing the information contained in this report is received within seven (7) days of the report issue, it shall be assumed that all parties are in agreement that this information is true and correct. Cedar Grove Center 7 =z Preliminary Space Program August 13, 2013 Space Qua Size Subtotal Meeting Large Group (100 +) 1 1,500 1,500 Small Group (30) 1 450 450 Conference 1 250 250 2,200 Classrooms Classroom 1 600 600 600 Recreation Basketball (Full Court) 1 4,680 4,680 Stage 1 816 816 Exercise Room 1 800 800 Rec Room 1 800 800 7,096 Social Internet Cafe 1 500 500 Warming Kitchen 1 400 400 County Parks And Recreation Office 1 140 140 Storage 1 150 150 290 Subtotal 10,186 Walls, Toilets, Circulation, Mechanical 40% 4,074 Total 1 14,260 Option A Stor 96_SF KitcWen Rec Large Group 314 SF �anw Sn Room 1,362 SF _ anW 797 SF Small I Group -'-'----- 490 SF Cedar Grove Facility LAI i� Option B P&R Stor Large Group Mtg 249 SF 1,286 SF --d- P&R Office T- 249 SF !J KitchN Electrical 8t.' 19 [1 145 7SF 7'1: SF M:, 7119 71 Cedar Grove Facility Stage/Exercise 'I 738 SF Sm Group Mtg/ Conference Classroom 403 SF 274 SF IE Option C F-1-71 Cedar Grove Facility r Option D w =C �I Cedar Grove Facility P8R Storage P8R Stor Stage /Exercise I 144 SF 112 SF 738 SF I Internet Cafe ;� t r. 1,175 SF P& Ofc ' P8R Storag 261 SF 99 SF - _ I Large Group Mtg Rm Rec Room 1,015 SF 530 SF -------------- n f - -- — — Stor 131 SF I Small Group SF F�2 Mtg Rm Kitchen 511 SF X342 SF corridor Gymnatorium 4,718 SF =C �I Cedar Grove Facility P8R Storage P8R Stor Stage /Exercise I 144 SF 112 SF 738 SF I Internet Cafe ;� t r. 1,175 SF P& Ofc ' P8R Storag 261 SF 99 SF - _ I 9131 Anson Way, Suite 204 Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Office: 919- 573 -6400 �� Wcu Toll-free: 800-590-MBAJ Fax: 919-573-6495 MEETING MINUTES Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 27, 2013 MBAJ No.: 1315 File No.: B -2.0 DISTRIBUTION: All Attending Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Members not in Attendance Support Staff Members not in Attendance ATTENDING: Advisory Board Members Melinda Bradsher Hattie VanHook Brenda VanHook Jacqueline McConnell-Graf Clifford B. Rogers Vivian Herndon -Latta Sue Florence Sucovis Hester Malcolm Hester Nancy Graves Interested Community Members Mary Burt Commissioners & Staff Members Commissioner Renee Price Jeff Thompson, Assent Management Nancy Finnell, Asset Management David Stancil, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation Lori Taft, Parks and Recreation Pierre Henwood, MBAJ John Thomas, MBAJ 32 Call to Order • The meeting was commenced at approximately 6:00 PM • Sign -up sheet was circulated • Next meeting was re- scheduled to Thursday September 12, 2013, 6:00 pm at the Cedar Grove Center. On August 27, 2013 a meeting of the Cedar Grove Community Center Informal Resident Advisory Work Group was held at the Northern Human Services Center. The following items were discussed; • Jeff Thompson opened the meeting with some housekeeping items o Copies of the background information for the project are available for the Advisory Work Group from Nancy Finnell. C:\ Users \jthomas\AppData \Local \Microsoft \Windows \Temporary Internet Files\ Content. Outlook \3Q6QNIRU \MM20130827ph_Advisory Committee.docx Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 27, 2013 Page 2of7 33 • There are two scheduled meetings of the Advisory Work Group remaining before a proposed plan, recommended by the group, is to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 151". • The meeting scheduled for September 101h was rescheduled to Thursday September the 12t', due to a scheduling conflict for the Architect. • The other remaining meeting is scheduled for September 241". • The Group was told that the information to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 1511, had to be submitted to the clerk by September 3011, so, if necessary, another meeting could be added but would need to be held before September 29t',. The Sue Florence stated that while the information documented by the minutes was accurate, she was concerned that the meeting minutes of the previous meetings did not include all of the concerns and discussions expressed by the work group members. The architect stated that the minutes as presented were to reflect the design decisions that had been made and not a transcript of the meeting, but they would make sure that all future minutes reflect and attribute the concerns raised by the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group members during the discussion. John Thomas reviewed some of the items that had been discussed at the previous meeting o The group was reminded that the charge from the Commissioners was 10,000 square feet of renovation has been funded. This had been funded with a budget of $2,000,000 from July 1, 2013 until June 30, 2014 and that this budget included design team fees, surveys, geo tech reports as the building construction costs. • The concept of mothballing versus deconstruction of the classroom wings was reviewed. Jeff Thompson stated that the $250,000 budgeted for deconstruction could be used for mothballing if that approach was undertaken. ■ Mothballing of the wings will require installation of minimal HVAC to maintain a temperature above 55 degrees in the winter and below 80 degrees in the summer, upgrade of the fire alarm to meet current codes and fire rated walls and doors to provide isolation of the classroom wings. • To meet the charge from the Commissioners, two alternate approaches will be explored, a mothball plan based on reusing the existing bathrooms and a deconstruction plan including new replacement bathrooms. ■ However no final decision or recommendation has been made on whether the wings are to remain and be mothballed or if the wings are to be removed. The Informal Resident Advisory Work Group members stated that they were strongly opposed to the removal of the existing wings. • The Informal Resident Advisory Work Group members stated that they wanted to maintain the look of the school as this was important to the community. • It was stated by the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group members that the Cedar Grove School was a very important part of the historical and cultural heritage of the Cedar Grove Community. • The Committee will make a recommendation to the Commissioners in October for a preferred approach. The final decision to mothball or deconstruct the wings will be made by the Commissioners o The septic field limitations were discussed, the existing septic tank only has a 2,400 gallon a day capacity, the building if fully utilized it would require 3,500 gallons a day capacity. The park has been allocated 1,000 gallons a day of the capacity for its septic system. Therefore, 1,400 gallons of capacity are available for the renovated facility. ■ There county has provided the architect with information that the 1,000 gallon a day figure was only for Phase 1 of the park. ■ Phase 2 of the park is not planned to be constructed for at least 5 years. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 27, 2013 Page 3of7 34 The county environmental health department has done a preliminary review of the septic system and believed that 1,400 gallon a day was enough capacity for a "reasonable" 10,000 square foot community center. • The site is located within a watershed and the impervious surface is limited to 12% of the total site area (this has been verified with Orange County Planning). Gravel parking lots are counted as "impervious" surface. • The additional land purchased across Hwy 86 for a future septic field is not "contiguous" and cannot be used to offset impervious surface requirements, but could be the site for a proposed "park and ride" lot. • The Informal Resident Advisory Work Group members stated that as the additional land across Highway 86 had been purchased for the future septic tank needs that they felt that this land should only be used for this purpose. • Members of the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group also requested that the County look at providing more regular maintenance of this additional land as it was overgrown and an "eyesore ". The county stated they would look into this matter. • The members of the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group stated that while they liked the fact that the numbers of occupants had been added to the spaces on the plan they would like to see spaces also labeled with letters so it was easier to identify where each space occurred within each option. • John Thomas presented two more refined options for the rehabilitation of the building to the group. The refined plans are still conceptual in nature and intended to prompt discussion about the relationships between spaces and their sizes. The group was encouraged to look for elements in the various plans they like and do not like. As the plans are developed and refined over the next few weeks furniture and other items will be added to the plans to show how each space could be used and laid out. The highlights and differences in each option were discussed. These included the following; o Option "E" was discussed first • This option is a refinement of option "C" presented at the last meeting but with a full sized basketball court provided to the gym. • The creation of the full sized basketball court required that the gym be rotated 90 degrees parallel to the classroom wing. • This allows for the court to be placed closer to the stage end of the space and bleacher seating added to the opposite side. This bleacher seating shown would seat approx 200 people. • The new full size gym would have a raised roof with the full 20' -0" required clearance over the basketball court. • The creation of a full size gym would add 3,801 new square feet to the project scope and approximately $650,000 to $700,000 to the project cost. To proceed with this approach either the budget would need to be increased or the scope of the remaining renovations significandy reduced. • A folding partition is added to the front of the stage to allow this space to be used both as a Stage and an Exercise Room. • Handicapped access to the stage would be provided by a wheelchair lift. • The first classroom in the north classroom wing would have its entire window area in -filled with masonry to accommodate the additional gymnasium space. • The existing north and south wings could remain and be mothballed. • New group toilets are provided in the same location as the existing toilets but are enlarged, made handicapped accessible and provided with exterior access. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 27, 2013 Page 4of7 35 • The full size gym will require the group toilet to be enlarged and two individual handicapped toilets will need to be provided adjacent to the Internet Cafe. • The former library space becomes the Recreation Room. • Internet Cafe is provided adjacent to ceremonial front door by removing a portion of the existing masonry walls to create a large open space. • Wireless internet is to be provided thru -out the entire building. • A Conference Room is provided adjacent to Internet Cafe • The existing breezeway between the existing main building and the Dining Room would be enclosed and made into a Lobby /Corridor • The Kitchen is provided in the west half of the existing kitchen area and is 342 square feet and has more counter space as requested at the last meeting. • The existing dining space is subdivided into three spaces, a Large Group Meeting Room, Small Group Meeting Room and Classroom /Multi -Media Room. • Large Group Meeting Room can hold 91 people and when the movable wall is opened up to include the Recreation Room it can hold up to 145 people seated at tables and chairs. • An individual accessible toilet is provided off the Large Group Meeting Room. • The Informal Resident Advisory Work Group members stated that they liked the full size gym. • Information previously provided by Parks and Recreation indicate the Gym was the most used space in the last few years the center had been open. • Some Informal Resident Advisory Work Group members expressed concern that the cost of adding a full size gym could cause the project not to be funded by the Commissioners. • Several members of the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group stated that the entire facility needed to be designed looking towards the community's future needs and creating an amenity to help attract people into the community. • The Informal Resident Advisory Work Group members asked if they were any other potential sources of budget available, Jeff Thompson stated that he did not know of any. • Commissioner Price indicated she also did not think that Option "E" would be approved by the Board of Commissioners as it was beyond the scope of the original charge that had been approved by the commissioners. • The Informal Resident Advisory Work Group members asked about the county's long -term plan for seniors in the northern part of the county and the possibility that this community center would become a senior center. It was stated by the county employees present that they did not know the answer to this question but they would try and find out. • Several members of the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group stated that they would like to see a multi -media space provided within the building and that this space needed to be located near the front of the building near the internet cafe so all of the "quiet" activities where located together. • It was also stated by members of the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group that any computers that were provided needed to be able to be locked up and preferably in locked storage area of a locked classroom space especially if they were laptops. • The Informal Resident Advisory Work Group members stated that if any value engineering or other cost cutting measures were undertaken they wanted to make sure they were involved. • It was explained that project recommended for presentation to the County Commissioners must reflect the charge and be within the budget of $2,250,000 that had been approved. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 27, 2013 Page 5of7 36 ■ Members of the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group asked about the level of charges for use of the proposed spaces. There are full size gym spaces available to rent from the school system, but the level of charges are cost prohibitive. It was stated that the use charges need to reflect a rate that members of the community could afford. o Option (which was originallpresented at the last meeting was reviewed again as a potential option just for the G ■ An expanded Gymnasium is provided and the roof is raised to provide 20' -0" clearance over the court. • The basketball court would be full width (50� but not full length (68' -0'�; a regulation high school court is 84' -0" long. • It was stated that no bleacher seating was being provided in the new gym, but the width could be increase to accommodate bleachers. • It was stated that the architect had reviewed raising the roof with a structural engineer and based on the information that they had provided it would be less expensive to remove the existing roof and provide a new roof with new supporting structure. • This new gymnasium could still be provided with access to the existing stage. • The cost of expanding the gymnasium and raising the roof will be $180,000 - $200,000 • The existing south wing with the smaller classrooms would remain but be mothballed. • The existing north classroom wing will be removed to allow the gymnasium expansion to be built. • There was some discussion on the possibility of doing the enlarged gym and leaving the existing wing in place and it was stated that this could not be achieved within the budget. o Option "Al" (which is a revised version of Option "A" presented at the last meeting • The existing Gymatorium remains in place and the roof is not raised. • A folding partition is added to the front of the stage to allow this space to be used both as a Stage and a Classroom. • Handicapped access to the stage would be provided by a wheelchair lift. • A separate office for a facility manager has been added • The existing wings remain but are mothballed. • New group toilets are provided in the same location as the existing toilets but are enlarged, made handicapped accessible and provided with exterior access. • The existing library becomes a recreation room. • Internet Cafe is provided adjacent to ceremonial front door by removing a portion of the existing masonry walls to create a large open space. ■ Wireless internet is to be provided thru -out the entire building. • A Conference Room is provided adjacent to Internet Cafe • The existing breezeway between the existing main building and the Dining Room would be enclosed and made into a Lobby /Corridor • A new Kitchen is created in the west half of the existing kitchen area. • The Kitchen is provided with direct access to the Large Group Meeting Room with a pass thru window with counter top and roll up door. • The existing dining space is subdivided into three spaces, a Large Group Meeting Room, Small Group Meeting Room and Classroom. There are operable walls provided between all of the Large Group meeting Room and each of the adjacent spaces so that can be opened up into one large space. This space would a large "U" shaped space Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 27, 2013 Page 6of7 37 Large Group Meeting Room can hold 94 people and when the movable wall is opened up to include the Small group Meeting Room this adds another 32 people and if the Classroom is also opened up then another up to 57 people are added to the space seated at tables and chairs. • After some discussion the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group stated that they would like to see the Classroom space relabeled as the Recreation Room. • There was some discussion as to what exactly would be occurring in the recreation room and it was stated that this space could be equipment for the following activities • Darts • Pool Table • Table Tennis • Foosball Table • Table for card and board games • The members of the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group unanimously preferred the reconfiguration of the existing cafeteria in Option "Al" due to the potential for greater flexibility. • Several members of the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group stated that they would like to see the Multi -Media space located near the Internet Cafe so all of the "quiet" activities where located together. It was suggested that this space be located in the former library space. • It was suggested by the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group that the Gymatorium be relabeled as a Multi- purpose Room as this space, with the existing roof remaining, would not be ideal for adult basketball. It was suggested an athletic floor system be incorporated to allow a variety of activities to occur within the space. • There was discussion about the need for the Kitchen to open directly into the Gym, but it was noted that as this was not a full kitchen and that if an event was held in the gym the food could be catered and served at end of the space as had occurred in the past. • In previous meetings a desire for a pass thru "concessions" window from the Kitchen to the exterior was discussed. The Informal Resident Advisory Work Group discussed this concept and determined it was not required. • There was some discussion about storage especially for tables and chairs and it was stated that there did not seem to be enough space shown for this. The architects stated that they would review this before the next meeting. • The members of the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group asked who would be managing the facility and the county representatives stated that at the moment it was presumed that it would be the Parks and Recreation Department. • The Informal Resident Advisory Work Group discussed the merits of each option. ■ Option E • The members of the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group asked if it would be possible to present the Board of Commissioners a plan based on Option "Al" with the smaller existing Multi- Purpose room and then also Option "E" with the full size Gym. Commissioner Price stated she did not think that this idea would be approved by the Commissioners as it outside the scope of the original project. • There was discussion among members of the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group about the importance of the full size gym and whether or not other factors such as improved wireless access and the internet cafe were more critical. • After much discussion, members of the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group voted and by a split vote decided not to proceed with Option "E" due to the budget concern. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 27, 2013 Page 7of7 M Members of the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group requested that it be noted that they felt like this would be the best option in the long term for the community. ■ Option C • The Informal Resident Advisory Work Group members stated that the removal of the wings was not an option that they wanted to consider, so Option C was not a feasible option. • After much discussion, members of the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group decided not to proceed with the Option "C ". ■ Option Al After much discussion, members of the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group voted unanimously to proceed with Option Al. • The Architect will proceed with the development of Option "Al" for the next meeting. o The following items need to be included or investigated as part of the development of Option "Al" • The stage should have a cushioned floor system • The Multi- Purpose Room should have an athletic floor system similar the Orange County Senior Center • The building should be provided with wireless internet access throughout • The ability to use spaces within the "mothballed" wings for storage • The entire building will be handicapped accessible • Incorporate the existing secondary entrance at the front of the school into the office space for the Parks and Recreation Department to increase the size and provide access directly from the exterior of the building. It was stated that the Parks and Recreation office and storage could be within one space as that is what was happening presently. • Commissioner Price stated that she would like to see the Conference Room become part of the Park and Recreation area. • The Architects will have revised and further developed sketches incorporating the elements discussed above for review at the next meeting. • The "memorial aspect of the project was not discussed at this meeting o As stated previously, Peter Sandbeck is working with a sub - committee on ideas for this memorial. Minutes Recorded By: Pierre Henwood Date: 8/27/2013 This report is the writer's understanding of the major topics and conclusions of the meeting. If this does not correspond with the understanding of anyone in attendance, please contact MBAJ Architecture in writing. Unless written notice disputing the information contained in this report is received within seven (7) days of the report issue, it shall be assumed that all parties are in agreement that this information is true and correct. aiassroom 54 Occup 1 797 SF Stor 98 SF i ;1 Large Group i Kitchen 91 Occupants 342 SF w n 1,362 SF 42St� Small Group 31 Occupants Corridor 461 SF Lobby r Gy n toi urd ;1L0 466 Occupants IMd "�N 6,990 SF -..� Corridor; —,ranI r) -Stor 4i 61 SF I; 147 S Rec Room i' 75M IT III! II!'1 =`: Story f Ofc .!� °N Exercise 144 SF 74 Occupants _t(l5_S_E__ 1,096 SF 54 Occupants s t ,\ ; j Stor 810 SF.` l 157 SF - - = Internet Cafe Corridor 48 Occupants j p Conf Rm Parks SIF 15 Occup O i 709 fc !' 218 SF 123 SFI Option E Cedar Grove Facility 39 I i � � I 40 Option C e � � I Cedar Grove Facility �' Stor Large Group Kitchen 75 SF 1,397 SF 298 SF j Stor Wash 43 SF, 42 SF Small Group Internet Cafe 715 Parks Conf 475 SF SF Ofc 203 SF 140 SF Lobby_ Gymnatorium _. i 4,898 SF - - -- W M � � I Cedar Grove Facility �' Large Group 94 Occupants 1,394 SF Small Group/ Quiet Rm Corridor 32 Occupants 478 SF 74 Occupants il / U1 bt- 1,096 SF Stor 157 SF ii Cedar Grove Facility 98 SF Kitchen 343 SF&�—w Can ih Classroom 57 Occup 844 SF Gymnatorium 224 Occupants 3,364 SF Exercise 54 Occupants 810 SF Internet Cafe 48 Occupants 707 SF bto r btor 145 SF 145 SF Corridor C onf Rm Parks 21 Occup i Ofc 304 SF 1123 SF,- ------------------ 41 Option Al aMre �Wla 9131 Anson Way, Suite 204 Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Office: 919- 573 -6400 �� Wcu Toll-free: 800-590-MBAJ Fax: 919-573-6495 MEETING MINUTES Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center September 12, 2013 MBAJ No.: 1315 File No.: B -2.0 DISTRIBUTION: All Attending Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Members not in Attendance Support Staff Members not in Attendance PDC Engineers CLH Design ATTENDING: Advisory Board Members Melinda Bradsher Hattie VanHook Brenda VanHook Jacqueline McConnell-Graf Sue Florence Shelia McDonald Cumilla White Commissioners & Staff Members Nancy Finnell, Asset Management David Stancil, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation Lori Taft, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation Peter Sandbeck, Cultural Resources Coordinator Pierre Henwood, MBAJ John Thomas, MBAJ Call to Order • The meeting was commenced at approximately 6:00 PM • Sign -up sheet was circulated • Next meeting is scheduled to Tuesday September 24, 2013, 6:00 pm at the Cedar Grove Center. 42 On September 12, 2013 a meeting of the Cedar Grove Community Center Informal Resident Advisory Work Group was held at the Northern Human Services Center. The following items were discussed; • David Stancil opened the meeting with some housekeeping items o Copies of the background information for the project are available for the Informal Advisory Group members from Nancy Finnell. o The remaining scheduled meeting is set for September 241i. o After the meeting an additional meeting for the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group was scheduled for October 151i. R: \Projects \1315 - Northern Human Svcs Ctr \B \B2.0 Owner Correspondence \MM20130912ph_Advisory Committee.docx Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 27, 2013 Page 2of5 43 o The presentation to the Board of Commissioners has been moved to the November 51h County Commissioner meeting so that the presentation can be made in Hillsborough. David Stancil stated that Board of Commissioners meeting will be held at Hillsborough Commons (DSS Building) beginning at 7:00 pm John Thomas reviewed some of the items that had been discussed at the previous meeting • The group was reminded that only 10,000 square feet of renovation has been funded. This had been funded with a budget of $2,000,000 from July 1, 2013 until June 30, 2014 and that this budget included design team fees, surveys, geo tech reports as well as the building construction costs. • The water for the existing building is provided by a well located at the edge of the woods near the existing outdoor basketball courts and the prefabricated concrete panel building at the rear of the existing Kitchen is used for water treatment. The well only has a pressure of 12 -15 gallons per minute but the county is going to confirm this. It was stated that the county believed that there was a pressure tank in the water treatment building but that they would confirm this also. John Thomas presented the plan that had been revised as discussed at the previous meeting and reviewed the changes; o Option "A2" • The existing Gym remains in place, the roof is not raised and the space is now called a Multi- purpose Room. • A folding partition is provided at the front of the stage to allow this space to be used both as a stage and an exercise room. • Mirrors will be provided at the rear wall of the stage to allow for the space to be used for dance or exercise programs. • Curtains will be provided at the front of the stage for use during performances. Roll back cycloramas will be provided on the sides and back to hide the mirrors and stage wings during performances. • One set of existing access steps from the Multi- purpose Room to the Stage has been removed to provide a storage area on the stage for exercise equipment. • The architect stated that due to low water pressure issues and the expense of adding a fire pump and water storage tank, a fire suppression system for the building is not feasible. Therefore, the capacity of the Multi- purpose room will be restricted to 299 people. This approach will need to be coordinated and approved by the county. • Handicapped access to the stage will be provided by a wheelchair lift. • The existing wings remain and are mothballed. • New group toilets are provided in the same location as the existing toilets but are enlarged, made handicapped accessible and provided with exterior access. The Informal Advisory Group discussed the security of the group bathrooms. There is concern about security if there are events being held both within the building and in the park and both groups need access to the bathrooms at the same time. • The members of the Informal Advisory Group suggested the toilet could be open to the exterior during set hours for public use. • A suggestion was also made to provide a dividing wall within the group bathrooms that would allow for the exterior bathrooms to be "locked" off from the interior bathrooms and only opened up when required. The architect explained that this approach would require 2 handicapped stalls to be provided for each sex and that there was not enough room for this option. • After further discussion it was suggested by the Informal Advisory Group that a single stall individual toilet with exterior access be provided in the north -west corner of the existing kitchen as this would be easily accessible to park users. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group 44 Cedar Grove Community Center August 27, 2013 Page 3of5 o The exterior doors to the group toilets will be eliminated. • The Informal Advisory Group also stated that an individual toilet room did not need to be provided directly off the Large Group Meeting Room but should be accessible from the Kitchen. • The Architect sketched a plan showing how two toilets could be provided and a smaller storage area provided for the Kitchen. The members of the Informal Advisory Group stated that this storage area of the Kitchen could be reduced in size as it was not for storing food but reusable items. • The Architect explained that the Can Wash area had been removed from the Kitchen and would be provided as part of the Janitors area near the group bathrooms. • The existing library becomes a Multi -media Room with a computer storage area provided directly of this space. • After some discussion members of the Informal Advisory Group recommended that the Facility Office and Computer Storage area be switched so that the Facility Office has an exterior window for better site supervision and also a window to the corridor for better interior supervision. • There was some discussion about the security of the building and the members of the Informal Advisory Group asked if the exterior doors would be provided with cameras and buzzers for secure entry to the building. David Stancil stated that the building security features have not been finalized at this time, but the Architect and the Informal Advisory Group should assume that security cameras would be provided at all of the entrances to the building. • Internet Cafe is provided adjacent to ceremonial front door. This space will be a more informal relaxed gathering space with access to vending machines and coffee. • Wireless internet is to be provided thru -out the entire building. • A Conference Room is provided adjacent to Internet Cafe. • The Parks and Recreation office area has been expanded and provided with a direct access to the exterior of the building. • The existing breezeway between the existing main building and the Dining Room is to be enclosed and made into a Lobby /Corridor The Kitchen has slightly increased in size and is still provided with direct access to the Large Group Meeting Room through a pass thru window with counter top and roll up door. • The existing dining space is subdivided into three spaces, a Large Group Meeting Room, Small Group Meeting Room and Recreation Room. • There are operable walls provided between the Large Group meeting Room and each of the adjacent spaces so that can be opened up into one large space. This space would be more off a "U" space • Large Group Meeting Room can hold 90 people and when the movable wall is opened up to include the Small Group Meeting Room this adds another 35 people and if the Recreation Room is also opened up then another up to 51 people are added to the space seated at tables and chairs. • Storage closets have been added in the Small Group Meeting Room and Recreation Room for storage of tables and chairs recreation room equipment. • John Thomas then reviewed the preliminary site plan. o It was stated that the site was presently close to its limit for impervious area and not a lot of additional paved area and sidewalks can be added to the project Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 27, 2013 Page 4of5 45 • The plan depicts the existing gravel parking lot being paved and new sidewalks being added from the parking lot to both the ceremonial entry facing Highway 86 and the new main entry adjacent to the Multi- purpose room. • It was stated that as the site plan was developed further, the area in front of the new main entry would be refined to enhance the entry experience. • It was noted that all entries to the building will be handicapped accessible. • The Informal Advisory Group asked if the parking lot driveway could be relocated. The current driveway location has been an area of concern for some time due to limited sight distance created by the inclined approach on NC -86. The architect agreed to contact the local NCDOT engineer Chuck Edwards. • The members of the Informal Advisory Group requested that there be adequate exterior lighting provided not only for security, but also to enhance the experience at night for visitors to the facility. • The members of the Informal Advisory Group requested that landscaping be adding on the Highway 86 side of the project. County representatives stated that any landscaping would need to include drought tolerant plantings and it was also noted that the location of these plantings would need to be coordinated with the location of the existing septic tank and drain field. • John Thomas stated that the location of the future cell tower was not known at this time but this information has been requested. • The members of the Informal Advisory Group stated that would like a site feature where the original flagpole was located. ■ There was discussion and agreement among the Informal Advisory Group that a plaque and gathering area should be located at the flagpole commemorating the "maypole" tradition that had been a part of the school. John Thomas reviewed the furniture layout plans of the Meeting Rooms and the Multi -media Room. • The Architect explained the furniture for the center is not part of the contract, but furniture layouts need to be discussed so that the required infrastructure can be coordinated. • The Architect presented 3 different layouts for the meeting rooms showing how the space could be used as three individual rooms or as 1 large room. The capacity for meetings can range from 90 to 176 people depending upon the room configuration and style of seating. • The members of the Informal Advisory Group agreed that the Meeting Rooms seemed to function well as laid out and had a great deal of flexibility for different events. • Storage cabinets should be added to the Recreation Room for the storage of games and other items and to provide countertop space. • The Architect presented 3 options for the furniture layout in the Multi -media Room. The consensus of the Informal Advisory Group was that Option 3 was the preferred layout as it offered the most flexibility within the space to support multiple simultaneous activities. ■ Sue Florence stated that she was very pleased with the flexibility offered by Option 3. • There was discussion regarding the funding of computers and technology equipment for the project. Architect reminded the group that Technology equipment is not part of the construction contract. The Informal Advisory Group stated that someone will need to investigate possibility of obtaining grant funds to pay for the technology equipment for the project. • The Informal Advisory Group also discussed the need for a technical support person on site. The County Representatives explained that an on -site person would not be likely but that a local server would be provided and county technical support could be available to address issues. ■ The members of the Informal Advisory Group asked the County Representatives if it would be possible for training to be provided for local volunteers so they could help with any minor issues that may arise when the facility was being used. The County Representatives stated that they will need to discuss this with the IT department. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center August 27, 2013 Page 5of5 W John Thomas then opened the floor for a discussion on the appearance of the building and the finishes that are to be used in the spaces. • The Informal Advisory Group stated that they wanted the building to maintain as much of the original look as possible. • The Informal Advisory Group also requested that the name of the facility be provided in a prominent location on the exterior of the building. • The Architect stated that due to the new energy code, not all of the windows may be replaced with glass. • The floor finishes where discussed. • No carpet should be provided in the Meetings Rooms. • The Informal Advisory Group requested that VCT not be the primary floor finish. The Architect agreed to review alternative floor finishes, such as Luxury Vinyl tile, which have longer wear capabilities and require less maintenance than VCT. • The Multi- purpose room will be provided with a cushioned rubber floor system that will support multiple functions. • The members of the Informal Advisory Group asked about the status of the mowing of the Benson property. The County Representatives stated that the topic was scheduled to be discussed at a meeting of the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation on September 13. o The meadow in the rear of the property is only scheduled to be cut once a year so as to limit the disturbance to the indigenous wild life. o Members of the Informal Advisory Committee stated that the grounds needed to be mowed on a more regular basis. • The Architects will have revised and further developed sketches, incorporating the elements discussed above, for review at the next meeting. o The Informal Advisory Group also asked if a walk -thru could be conducted as part of this meeting and the Architect stated that they would provide signs to show what each of the existing spaces was to become. • The "memorial' aspect of the project was discussed after the meeting as a separate meeting with Peter Sandbeck and the sub - committee that is working on ideas for this memorial. Minutes Recorded By: Date: 9/12/2013 Pierre Henwood This report A the writer's understanding of the major topics and conclusions of the meeting. If this does not correspond with the understanding of anyone in attendance, please contact MBAJ Architecture in writing. Unless written notice disputing the information contained in this report is received within seven (7) days of the report issue, it shall be assumed that all parties are in agreement that this information is true and correct. F, /I ----------- -------- ------------ Stor 7q 98 SF Large Group 90 Occupants Kitchen 1,349 SF 'n 371 SF Stor I 73S Small Group/ t sr Quiet Rm !_- s . z Recreation Room 35 Occupants 51 Occup 517 SF 751 SF W M Multi-Media Room Ofc 74 Occupants 101 SE� 1,096 SF ) - Compute Storage 157 SF Cedar Grove Facility Exercise/Stage 42 Occupants 624 SF Option A2 St",Stor 1145 SF 11453 r_� I Conf Rm Parks &Rec- 21 Occup Ofe & Storage 304 SF 235 SF 47 AL Liz 9 � \\ II�IIIII "� ��Iliilll' i� architecture m one smom a 0 • i • • ■ ■ ■ ■ • • a'� III 1 ��� i� architecture m IE II I WA9 elm 1 y � ' JANITORS MULTI -MEDIA O F157 ROOM 74 OCCUPANTS FA FILE O � OFFICE 1,096 SF 101 8 8 13 IMR O MULTI -MEDIA ROOM FURNITURE LAYOUT OPTIONS xlcitWecure 50 FL= 'O.OIY PROPERTY SURVEYED FOR 1 W REITA BROOKS PLAT BOOK 81 PAGE 103 24! PAVEMENT i� _ 1444.76 = rD LLJ (p8 4 STOMGE'INN ��'I' J O Uw uNZ PE]ICE I I �I I i- -FUEL OIL U f /�1 LJ_ } (APPROX w O LOCATION) •� SANSEWER • - j T- z SEWElt Y GROUND L X` \C' 1- - _ _ O (o U c/) (APPROX LOCATION) +f m /LL /(Doo'� 29'COM lO %O 1 aAnvn, vnv "—P"S: AN 'S�EWL_E E�� R MANHO 2FlEp a (APP Oa LOCATO) O E STORY BRICK BUILDING evi.ev $ ° - E91.E4 690 1 1 I I ` 6r I 1I • Ir 6 +a ®unor+ ens 't I IGN ' co ,) G A °LP m ca BALL FIELD •1 4, zn i m .. .. :, b� - - d �( GRAVEL PAR • wen y l 'I� - _ _ __;. � _ __'_'� -` (,/'= O St • -'�� - x'76'2635 "w1 � ... ,'_,. >.:�:•� _- NCGS STATION 'CEDAR " m .u• - �/ NORTHING (NAD 83) 883750.2437' ■ EASTING (NAD83) 1959856.8021 ^ j ELEVATION (NGVD29) 695.00' ..J 57315 SCALE FACTOR 1.0000032 "V PROPERTYOF RUTH L. TRVNHAM DEED BOOK 127 PAGE 242 ' F C 9131 Anson Way, Suite 204 Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Office: 919- 573 -6400 �� Wcu Toll-free: 800-590-MBAJ Fax: 919-573-6495 MEETING MINUTES Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center September 24, 2013 MBAJ No.: 1315 File No.: B -2.0 DISTRIBUTION: All Attending Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Members not in Attendance Support Staff Members not in Attendance PDC Engineers CLH Design ATTENDING: Advisory Board Members Melinda Bradsher Hattie VanHook Brenda VanHook Jacqueline McConnell-Graf Clifford Rogers Shelia McDonald Cumilla White Commissioners & Staff Members Nancy Finnell, Asset Management Jeff Thompson, Asset Management Lori Taft, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation Peter Sandbeck, Cultural Resources Coordinator Pierre Henwood, MBAJ John Thomas, MBAJ Call to Order • The meeting was commenced at approximately 6:00 PM • Sign -up sheet was circulated • Next meeting is scheduled to Tuesday October 15, 2013, 6:00 pm at the Cedar Grove Center. 51 On September 24, 2013 a meeting of the Cedar Grove Community Center Informal Resident Advisory Work Group was held at the Northern Human Services Center. The following items were discussed; • Jeff Thompson opened the meeting with some housekeeping items o Copies of the background information for the project are available for the Informal Advisory Group members from Nancy Finnell. • An additional meeting for the Informal Resident Advisory Work Group has been scheduled for October 1511i. At this time a draft copy of the presentation to the Board of Commissioners will be presented to the group so that this can be reviewed. • The presentation to the Board of Commissioners is scheduled for the November 511, County Commissioner meeting at Hillsborough Commons (DSS Building) beginning at 7:00 pm R: \Projects \1315 - Northern Human Svcs Ctr \B \B2.0 Owner Correspondence \MM20130924ph_Advisory Committee.docx Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center September 24, 2013 Page 2of5 52 • John Thomas reviewed some of the items that had been discussed at the previous meetings o The group was reminded that only 10,000 square feet of renovation has been funded. This had been funded with a budget of $2,000,000 from July 1, 2013 until June 30, 2014 and that this budget included design team fees, surveys, geo tech reports as well as the building construction costs. • John Thomas presented the plan that had been revised as discussed at the previous meeting and reviewed the changes; o Option "A3" • The existing Gym remains in place, the roof is not raised and the space is now called a Multi- purpose Room. • A folding partition is provided at the front of the stage to allow this space to be used both as a stage and an exercise room. • Mirrors will be provided at the rear wall of the stage to allow for the space to be used for dance or exercise programs. • Curtains will be provided at the front of the stage for use during performances. Roll back cycloramas will be provided on the sides and back to hide the mirrors and stage wings during performances. • One set of existing access steps from the Multi- purpose Room to the Stage has been removed to provide a storage area on the stage for exercise equipment. • The architect stated that due to low water pressure issues and the expense of adding a fire pump and water storage tank, a fire suppression system for the building is not feasible. Therefore, the capacity of the Multi- purpose room will be restricted to a maximum of 299 people. This approach will need to be coordinated and approved by the county. • Handicapped access to the stage will be provided by a wheelchair lift. • The existing wings remain and are mothballed. • New group toilets are provided in the same location as the existing toilets but are enlarged, made handicapped accessible and provided with exterior access. • The exterior doors to the group toilets have been eliminated. • Two toilets and a smaller storage area have been provided near the Kitchen. One of the toilets opens to the exterior for park use and one opens to the Kitchen.. • The existing library becomes a Multi -media Room with a computer storage area provided directly of this space. • A Computer networking and storage area has been provided of the Multi -media room • The Facility Office has been relocated so it has an exterior window for better site supervision as well as a window to the corridor for better interior supervision. • Internet Cafe is provided adjacent to ceremonial front door. This space will be a more informal relaxed gathering space with access to vending machines and coffee. • Wireless internet is to be provided thru -out the entire building. • A Conference Room is provided adjacent to Internet Cafe. • The Parks and Recreation office area has been expanded and provided with a direct access to the exterior of the building. • The existing breezeway between the existing main building and the Dining Room is to be enclosed and made into a Lobby /Corridor • The Kitchen has slightly increased in size and is still provided with direct access to the Large Group Meeting Room through a pass thru window with counter top and roll up door. • The existing dining space is subdivided into three spaces, a Large Group Meeting Room, Small Group Meeting Room and Recreation Room. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center September 24, 2013 Page 3of5 53 • There are operable walls provided between the Large Group meeting Room and each of the adjacent spaces so that can be opened up into one large space. • Large Group Meeting Room can hold 90 people and when the movable wall is opened up to include the Small Group Meeting Room this adds another 35 people and if the Recreation Room is also opened up then another up to 51 people are added to the space seated at tables and chairs. ■ Storage closets have been added in the Small Group Meeting Room and Recreation Room for storage of tables and chairs recreation room equipment. • John Thomas then reviewed the updated site plan. • It was stated that the site was presently close to its limit for impervious area and not a lot of additional paved area and sidewalks can be added to the project • The plan depicts the existing gravel parking lot being paved and new sidewalks being added from the parking lot to both the ceremonial entry facing Highway 86 and the new main entry adjacent to the Multi- purpose room. o It was stated that as the site plan had been developed further, and the area in front of the new main entry had been refined to enhance the entry experience and some bench seating would be provided here as well. o It was noted that all entries to the building will be handicapped accessible. o Additional landscaping has been shown on the Highway 86 side of the project.. o John Thomas stated that the location of the future cell tower was not known at this time but this information has been requested. o The location of the original flagpole was discussed as the architect had been unable to uncover any information of the original location. • The members of the Informal Advisory Group stated that the flagpole was located in line with the north wing wall at the "ceremonial' entrance and located approximately halfway between the building and Highway 86. • A plaque and gathering area will be located at the flagpole commemorating the "maypole" tradition that had been a part of the school. • Landscaping is shown adjacent to the building and this will be co- ordinated to ensure that it does not interfere with the septic drainage field. o Lettering is shown on the face of the existing high wall at the Gym and this lettering would be provided with lighting so it visible at night. It was noted that the name shown on the building was not necessary the name that the facility would end up being called. John Thomas then reviewed a preliminary elevation of the Highway 86 side of the building. • The Informal Advisory Group stated that they wanted the building to maintain as much of the original look as possible, including reusing any of the old brick if possible in any new additions. • It was also stated that the Informal Advisory Group would like to see the existing exterior doors retained it was stated that this might not be possible as the doors did not met current codes but that the new doors could potentially be painted the same color as the existing doors. • The Informal Advisory Group requested if the name of the facility have been decided at this time. The county representatives stated that it had not but that they thought that this would be something that the group could propose to the Board of Commissioners but it was suggested that this was not does as part of the presentation on November 511, but as a separate action item. • The Architect stated that due to the new energy code, not all of the windows may be replaced with glass, and that the existing clerestory windows would most likely be replaced with a translucent material (such as Kalwall) that allowed light in but reduced glare. • It was stated that the existing roof would be replaced with a new roof across the entire facility. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center September 24, 2013 Page 4of5 54 o It was stated as part of reroofing the project that the gutters and downspouts would be replaced and that the new downspouts would be tied into a new underground system to allow for them to be piped off from the building and not cause issue with the septic drain field. • John Thomas then led the Informal Advisory Group on a tour of the facility to review the spaces and their future uses. • The Informal Advisory Group stated that they wanted the building to maintain as much of the original look as possible. • The floor finishes where discussed. ■ The Multi- purpose room will be provided with a cushioned rubber floor system that will support multiple functions. This same floor finish will also be provided to the stage /exercise room. • In the Multi- purpose Room it was stated that the Informal Advisory Group and the County would prefer to have overhead retractable basketball goals and backboards. • The Informal Advisory Group stated that they would prefer to see the 2 pair of existing doubles to the corridor remain at the Multi- purpose Room so these could be used for in /out doors during events but that it was acceptable that these be provided with doors. • The county requested that in floor sleeves be provided in the Multi- purpose Room for volleyball and badminton net posts. • It was stated by the architect that there would be a light bar with LED spot lights provided at the stage but this would be a small system only and not designed for theatre productions. • A small system would be provided at the Multi- purpose room as well as a cabinet with connections for microphones and an auxiliary player like an I -pod. • It was discussed that acoustical treatments would need to be provided to the Multi- purpose to allow the space to be used for multiple events. This treatment could be provided by banners in the roof structures and wall panels. • The Informal Advisory Group asked if the existing lights would be retained in the Multi- purpose room it was stated that they would not but that either compact fluorescent lights or LED lights would be provided and they would have a similar look to them. • The Informal Advisory Group and the county both suggested that the door between the Facility Office and the Multi -media Room be retained so that the person in the Facility Office has easy access to the Multi -media room to "trouble- shoot" any computer issues. • It was stated that Luxury Vinyl Tile (LUT) flooring products as discussed previously would be provided throughout the rest of the project but that either carpet or loose rugs could be provided at the Internet Cafe to provide it with a more "soft living room" feel. • The heating and cooling of the building was discussed and John Thomas stated that at the moment the engineer was investigating options but was looking at provided the air handlers in one of the classrooms within the "mothballed" area and then ducting thru the existing exposed roof structure to the different spaces. The county stated that had had issues with "noise" from exposed ductwork, the architect stated that they would look at using dual wall ductwork to request this. The county stated that they had had good success with the use of Mitsubishi ductless mini split systems on other projects. • The Informal Advisory Group asked if the architect had investigated geothermal HVAC for the project. The architect stated that they had had preliminary discussion on the use of geothermal with the engineer and that they had done preliminary calculations which showed that the project would require approximately 120 — 200 feet deep wells. • The Informal Advisory Group also asked if the county had considered solar energy for hot water heating, the county stated that the payback period on this would be approximately 25 years. The county stated that they had no issues with the use of tankless water heaters. Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center September 24, 2013 Page 5of5 55 • The Informal Advisory Group asked about the colors of the walls and the floors and it was stated that these where not being finalized at this time but that the group would have input when these decisions were made. • The exterior concrete in front of the "ceremonial" entry was discussed and it was stated that this concrete could be either be replaced or "coated" with a concrete coating. • The "memorial" aspect of the project is being worked on by Peter Sandbeck and a sub - committee and it was noted that while this information is not required at this time that any power and /or specialty lights needs that may be required for this, will need to be incorporated into the project before it goes out to bid in spring of 2014. Minutes Recorded By: Pierre Henwood Date: 9/24/2013 This report is the writer's understanding of the major topics and conclusions of the meeting. If this does not correspond with the understanding of anyone in attendance, please contact MBAJ Architecture in writing. Unless written notice disputing the information contained in this report is received within seven (7) days of the report issue, it shall be assumed that all parties are in agreement that this information is true and correct. 9131 Anson Way, Suite 204 Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Office: 919- 573 -6400 �� Wcu Toll-free: 800-590-MBAJ Fax: 919-573-6495 MEETING MINUTES Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center October 15, 2013 MBAJ No.: 1315 File No.: B -2.0 DISTRIBUTION: All Attending Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Members not in Attendance Support Staff Members not in Attendance Pierre Henwood, MBAJ PDC Engineers CLH Design ATTENDING: Advisor: Board Members Melinda Bradsher Hattie VanHook Brenda VanHook Clifford Rogers Sue Florence Cumilla White Commissioners & Staff Members Nancy Finnell, Asset Management Jeff Thompson, Asset Management Lori Taft, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation Peter Sandbeck, Cultural Resources Coordinator John Thomas, MBAJ Call to Order • The meeting was commenced at approximately 6:00 PM • Sign -up sheet was circulated 59 On October 15, 2013 a meeting of the Cedar Grove Community Center Informal Resident Advisory Work Group was held at the Northern Human Services Center. The following items were discussed; • Jeff Thompson opened the meeting with some housekeeping items • The presentation to the Board of Commissioners is scheduled for November 511' at Hillsborough Commons (DSS Building) beginning at 7:00 pm • Tonight's meeting is a dry run of the presentation for the commissioners to receive consent and feedback from the Advisory Work Group • Jeff Thompson and John Thomas presented the material proposed for the November 5, County Commissioners meeting • Following the presentation the Advisory Work Group had the following comments and suggestions. • The presentation of the site plan should emphasize the buildings importance as the entry to the park. • The park master plan should be included to reinforce the ongoing development of facilities on this site. R: \Projects \1315 - Northern Human Svcs Ctr \13\132.0 Owner Correspondence \MM20131015jt_Advisory Committee.docx 56 Option A3 901 Occupants 349 F Large P - 47, F Toilet Toiled - - Stor - - - - - - -- Kitchen 371 SF - - - - - - - - Stor Small Group/ - 73S Quiet Rm 35 Occupants ,. 517 SF - for t;,, st . 1 {t!y - ( ,_; Recreation Room s 2 F' 510ccup 751 SF -- _ - / -- -- Multi- purpose Room - -, Y 299 Occupants I r 3,364 SF I :` C I LM I Lin, `� ? i 1-0'r- Jan , -F - = = = W� 65 SF �. Stor Stor I 4r ; Ii 145 SF 145 SF , "�, f - C.7 for: i iLT — Networking I �� I - -, Exercise/Sta e 4i 157 SF Stor 97 g - 42 Occupants ._0 T Facility i 624 5FI f Ofc 157 SF, Jr ow`rwao _µ_.. _..._ . ............... .........__........_ Internet Cafe ulti -Media Room = „� - - -� 48 Occupants F - -- - -.__ 74 Occupants 707 SF - Parks & Rec 1,096 SF I. Ofc & Storage z 235 SF Conf Rm 21 Occup 304 SF t Cedar Grove Facility a"r e e e E e i ij 57 EZ -ooir PROPERTY SURVEYED FOR I W RECTA BROOKS 1 PLAT BOOK ✓ 1 PAGE 103 v t 24' PAVEMENT Io IN •! I i 444.78' Vj N 84�- E EIEV iteffi _ LINE d NIN P<NOE— / --'I LOCATION) •/�\ ('ti I _—SAN SEWER 1 Y GROLIND N LIG ELEC..LINE 1 1 a (APPROX LOCATION) /\ f , WE 6 5 8 t zrcmeoxa �TA+mF ,,It 1 ':, SVENT 7E ss•wITr- auv ®..ASIOr«o _�llL- -- 000���'•A Q _ 1 /1 ` xsmN. earn rAMNNOLE R '•- 1 7VERT PPE0 1 1 1 I LOCATIONrovav ' 1 1 1 t FFE ONE STORY 1 BRICK BUILDING FLM ❑ ` CREATE A SEATING AREA FOR FLAOPOIEi 690 ` . LOCAT ON. T..; . ... DETERMINEp 0. •If � I 1`t _ I + 5y0 1 •IP _ pNRDA oavea r` I t , OD 1 .' BALL FIELD _ I .1 •IP ` - 1 • '.. :' t .i y 35 - 76 °Z "W! _ - NCGS STATION "CEDAR" rn • Ir `�� NORTHING (NAD 83) 8837502437' ■ EASTING (NAD83) 1959856.8021 �j 1 - ELEVATION (NGVD29) 695.00' O __1 - ' SCALE FACTOR 1.0000032 �Zpp 77 °3� I GRAPHIC SCALE v' r dg, S 1 M ., 11 PROPERTY OF - y�yy� - J � -_ -� - �- �❑ tt C RUTH L. TRYNHAM DEED BOOK 127 PAGE 242 1 D+ FEET ) c❑ % I ,.I, - 40 [L. r O to AJ Informal Resident Advisory Work Group Cedar Grove Community Center October 15, 2013 Page 2of2 .1 • The old walking track that used to be located in the front lawn should not show up on the site plan. • The site plan should include an asphalt walking path connecting the east side of the center with the existing walking trail in the park. • A copy of the floor plan should be provided on the image sketch slides to orient the viewer to the room being depicted. Jeff Thompson reminded the Advisory Work Group the importance of the group and the community showing up to support the project at the Commissioners meeting. o Jeff encouraged Sue Florence and /or other members of the Advisory Work Group to speak for the community at the presentation. • The meeting was adjourned. MEETING CHANGE • Subsequent to the meeting the date of the Commissioner meeting was reissued. The presentation will take place at the Tuesday, November 12th BOCC Meeting. The meeting will be held at the Government Services Center, 200 S. Cameron Street in Hillsborough — 7:00 p.m. o Transportation will be provided from Cedar Grove and will leave promptly at 6:00 p.m. on November 12th. Minutes Recorded By: John Thomas Date: 9/24/2013 This report is the writer's understanding of the major topics and conclusions of the meeting. If this does not correspond with the understanding of anyone in attendance, please contact MBAJ Architecture in writing. Unless written notice disputing the information contained in this report is received within seven (7) days of the report issue, it shall be assumed that all parties are in agreement that this information is true and correct. E„ w Selective Deconstruction Attachment C Cedar Grove Community Center Schematic Estimate Summary October 15, 2013 61 Mirc Wectire $294,881 Building Renovation $1,029,247 Site Work $253,255 Construction Subtotal $1,577,383 Contingency 8% $105,930 Professional Fees $173,500 Cultural & Archaeology Study $5,000 Construction Testing & Inspections $15,774 Permits & Fees $2,000 Audio Visual Equipment $20,000 Signage $3,500 Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment $94,643 Project Total $1,997,730 8 �N �. Cedar Grove Community Center Schematic Estimate October 15, 2013 �. General Conditions 1 is $172,712 $172,712 Selective Abatement & Deconstruction Interior Walls 269 if $3.50 $942 Floor Finishes 13,268 sf $0.25 $3,317 Windows 238 if $15.00 $3,570 Plumbing 1 is $8,000 HVAC 1 is $10,000 Electrical 1 is $15,000 Hazardous Material Abatement 13,268 sf $5.00 $66,340 Misc 11s $15,000 $294,881 Renovation New Gyp Bd Walls 3,665 sf $7.20 /sf $26,388 Furr Walls with Gyp Bd 12,500 sf $4.50 /sf $56,250 New Exterior Walls 321 sf $34.00 /sf $10,914 Windows 1,560 sf $62.00 /sf $96,720 Doors, Frames & Hardware 50 ea $1,200.00 /sf $60,000 Folding Walls 850 sf $45.00 /sf $38,250 Floor leveling compound 15,700 sf $3.25 /sf $51,025 Luxiory Vinyl Tile 5,200 sf $3.50 /sf $18,200 Carpet Tile 210 sy $32.00 /sf $6,720 Sport Flooring 4,000 sf $10.50 /sf $42,000 Ceramic Tile 2,580 sf $12.00 /sf $30,960 Rubber Base 1,860 if $2.00 /If $3,720 Epoxy Flooring & Base 370 SF $9.00 /sf $3,330 8 �N �. VCT Manufactured Stone Paint Walls & Ceiling Acoustic Wall Panels Casework Toilet Partitions Roof Replacement Kitchen Equipment Plumbing System Mechanical System Electrical Fire Alarm Site Construction �. Cedar Grove Community Center Schematic Estimate October 15, 2013 739 sf $2.50 /sf $1,848 270 sf $22.00 /sf $5,940 33,900 sf $0.80 /sf $27,120 1 is $16,000 1 is $23,500 1 is $4,500 14,035 sf $8.50 /sf $119,298 1 is $16,000 1 is $43,565 1 is $152,000 1 is $163,000 11s $12,000 $1,029,247 $253,255 $253,255 m LTr Attachment ,D Schematic Estimate Mothballing of the Wings October 15, 2013 General Conditions 1 is $68,765 Window Deconstruction /Replacement 2,322 sf $68.00 /sf $157,896 Clearstory Deconstruction /Replacement 711 sf $68.00 /sf $48,348 Roof Replacement 21,152 sf $8.50 /sf $179,792 Mechanical System 1 is $45,000 Electrical 1 is $14,500 Fire Alarm 1 is $12,900 Mothball Subtotal $527,201 Contingency 10% $52,720 Professional Fees $28,800 Mothball Total $608,722 NORTHERN HUMAN SERVICES CENTER Schematic Design Presentation VtT "01 LL01 `® ATTACHMENT E Methodology Informal Resident Advisory Work Group — 7 Meetings over 3 Months • Perceptions and Dreams • Programming • Concept Development — 8 Concepts Explored Existing Conditions Survey — Through inventory of existing conditions — Code compliance review 66�5¢n$e ` Cu111p �z 5z d Milk Existing Conditions 679`an4e 6arirb 41 _o b x atttl ti:acD`t» 7L I _ vv anae `nr 9` °b Conditions � Existin g - o b xatttl ti:acD`t,� Pav@4I I.Ighted I Measured Walking Trail 1 Track Picnic Sheller wJ I 1 °''b; Rest ROOMS arkln Area Mulll- PurpoarFlelJ I •� - 'Futurc" ' Play AfOi Mail RM i 1 —Typic sl '' _ `� Possible Skate Park Area - - + Crap -bKS r x PI i Spacesl "FUw`o" f r%Future" z� 1+ P is ill r. 9 Ilk! lie f % PI {IIic shelter - Future -- – y / �J R..1 ROf11111 ; 1 y Measured ing - _ Twll i Lack I I r Fa,Bllilding r.,rkirig.' iglowbail + J, ' Existing Ball Bald - - -- - F�rlating Gravef,� II it{ Parking Area "Future" r -��- Ball Hold rr -- Park Master Plan ar ec e tin g Conditions 699 an4e 6arirb 41 _o b x atttl ti:acD`t» 7L I _ xisting Conditionj 709 an4e 6arirb 41 _o b xatttl ti:acD`t» Office lib SF Office ' 134 SF Cowumd Parch &1G SF Office. 343 SF ■ J .� ... ... .. . .. 7 ` a- 1-1 Pnges Septic Capacity — 1,400 gals /day • Limited Occupancy • No Commercial Kitchen Lot Coverage — 12% Impervious Surface Memorializing Community Significance Historic Aesthetic 719 arse ° a „rb 41 _o b xatttl ti:acD`t» -,r■ i_ ose Solu L y l 1 1 i 4 h 1 1 • l I 'h 4 h 729 arse ° a „rb _o b x atttl ti:acD`t» r r` J� — roposed Solu Recreation Room 51 Occup 751 SF Floor Plan �nr Multi- purpose Room 299 Occupants 3.364 SF I:Mw Mr � Lobby S � j ExercisafStage 42 Occupants 42 624 SF ....... d ti fntemel Cafe 48 Occupants 707 SF MuIU -Media Room 74 Occupants 1,096 SF 73gtan4e 6arirb -o b xatttl ti:acD`t» I Parks & Rae Ofc t Storage 235 SF Conf Rm 21 Occup 304 SF i_ 749 arse ° a „rb Proposed Solution b xatttl ti:acD`t» Elevation Proposed Solution Cafe 75 _o %ec Je .:,z oposed Solution Multi -Media Room 769 an4e 6arirb _o ��atttl ti:ac °`tab i_ oposed Solution L I�I�JIL III M 77 _o L-.-i j Small Group Room M ec 6 Je roposed Solution 0 - ... _ !a, `__ ti - .� is •� t '" j. 6z {::'; ; °: _tip'.. �•; f� .l 78 9tan4e 6a!!rb _o b xatttl ti:a(Dyttt Recreation Room ar ec e Proposed Solution 0 _ I ter.... = 799 an4e 6arirb _o b xatttl ti:acD`t» Piz I� i L--41=j . Large Group Room I arfAec6'e ccupancy Septic Capacity — 1,400 gals /day Full Day Use (8 hours) 140 persons Half Day Use (4 hours) 220 persons :1 1_ roposed Solution Preliminary Cost Estimate General Conditions Selective Abatement & Deconstruction Building Renovation $172,712 $294,881 $1,029,247 Site Work $253255 Construction Subtotal $195779383 Contingency Professional Fees Cultural & Archeology Study Construction Testing & Inspections Permits & Fees Audio Visual Equipment Signage $105930 $173500 $5,000 $15774 $2,000 $20,000 $3500 FF &E $94643 Project Total $19997730 41 _o b xatttl ti:acD`t» Mothballing of Classroom Wings Moths 'ling • Objective — Preservation of Existing Space • Minimum Scope — Window Replacement — Roof Replacement — HVAC — Fire Alarm — Smoke Detection 839 ano 6arirb 41 _o b xatttl ti:acD`t» ti R. =4 . ' • 849`an�e� 6arirb 11 1' Mo ing �z b xatttl ti:acD`t» • Cost — Additional Cost: $358,00 • Mothball Cost: $579900 • Mothball Design Fees:$28,800 • Less Deconstruction Budget: ($250,000) • Benefits — Preserves 21,000 s.f. for future use — Replacement Cost: $3 -4 Million — 1,10o s.f. Classroom available as Multi -Media Room in Project — Preserves Historic Appearance i_ NORTHERN HUMAN SERVICES CENTER Schematic Design Presentation ` fzlvll