Loading...
03/26/1988 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SATURDAY, MARCH 26, 1988 Chairman Carroll called the Commission meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. Present were Members Carroll, Hennes, Swanson, Porter, Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa and Parks Planner, Steve Sullivan. Purpose of the meeting was to review the proposed R.F.P. so that the City Council could take action on April 5th. The Commission then went through an anticipated time frame for the community center study through the end of Phase I. Staff also reviewed with the Advisory Commission the proposed Phase I architectural services. - The Director then reviewed the draft R.F.P. with the Advisory Commission noting minor changes. He responded to the questions concerning establishment of a $35,000 fixed fee for first phase architectural services. Commission discussed the fixed fee proposal and the consensus was that this was a workable and preferable option. Mr. Carroll questioned that there might be a problem with the selected site particularly with sufficient parking space? He continued saying that the City should set an example to the developers in regard to the impervious surface materials and screening. Mr. Vraa responded that there is concern for the size of the selected site but that the architectural Phase I program will be responsible for reviewing the entire municipal campus concept to integrate the already existing facilities and to insure the center will work on the site. Mr. Carroll then asked what facilities impressed Director Vraa and Landscape Architect Sullivan on their recent Chicago trip. Director Vraa and Landscape Architect Sullivan then briefly reviewed several of the visited facilities including the Hoffman Estates facility which was built in 1986. They stated that this facility was significant in that it was composed of an activities gymnasium, track, fitness center, program room and administrative staff offices. Staff also felt there was excellent use of materials, good staff/building orientation. Discussion of Northbrook indicated that good management and broad diversified programs were the success to this facility. Mr. Vraa and Mr. Sullivan also discussed Robert Crown Center, which was an example of unique architecture and good materials but that the facility did not work well and that maintenance was a serious issue. Addition of a studio rink, approximately 60' x 100' in size was used in many facilities. Staff stated that these were used primarily for lessons, children's programs and open skating. 1 Adivsory Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of March 26, 1988 Special Meeting Page 2 Youth hockey up to the middle age groups also used this for instruction. The use of the studio rink was financially successful and took burden off the main ice sheet. It also complimented different ice users. Director Vraa then went on to explain the importance of the internal organizational structure to deal with the planning process and the architect. He then explained the establishment of several sub-groups within specific topic and facility areas. The focus groups would have direct access to the architectural team, through the Project Manager, the Advisory Commission, Administrator and City Council. The focus groups would continue through the entire design process, and if approved for construction, would also be available to insure quality construction techniques. The Commission then reviewed the concepts of architectural objectives. There were general questions from the Advisory Commission concerning the process, time lines, facility priorities and work groups. There was agreement by the Advisory Commission for the materials presented by the Staff. On a motion by Porter, seconded by Swanson, with all members voting in favor, it was a recommendation of the Advisory Commission to the City Council to accept the draft R.F.P. THOMAS LAKE BUILDING Director Vraa reviewed an issue that had recently arisen with the Thomas Lake Park building. He distributed amemorandum addressed to the Advisory-Commission concerning the history - of the facility, noting that the architects estimates for construction costs exceeded planned budget. Mr. Vraa stated that the total park budget as contained within the project,was $450,000. The construction costs to date were approximately : $171, 00,0--- and.: that _ additional -services -were in ~ the neighborhood of. $22,000.:, The remaining construction was estimated between $116,0010 and $125,000.--,. He-;-then reviewed four alternatives..;for the Advisory Commission to deal with the possible cost for the building. .These included the supplement from Park .;Site .Fund, a reduction of the building size, redesign a new program for development, or proceed with bid with deduct,, alternaiYes:•. There wereseveralquestions_,regarding the proposed budget and the: cost for., remaining park.-development. activities. ~,,Mr.:-.Carrol,1 questioned. , which ,.items, . might, .be ; . reducgd, frpm the. structure Commission -:agreed ; ,that the learning area and pit would be the most logical. This could be an add or deduct alternative. r.. Porter,. suggested that.. perhaps the project, should. be. allowed %.t~ 2 tiavisory earxs anu xecreanion commission Minutes of March 26, 1988 Special Meeting Page 3 proceed through the design and bid stage in order that the Commission could deal with real numbers, rather than estimates. He went on to state that perhaps an additional $10,000 from the Park Site Fund would be appropriate noting the increase in the program statement the Commission has made. There were additional questions by the Advisory Commission members, after which a motion by Carroll, seconded by Hennes, with all members voting in favor that the Council approve the plans and specifications for the Thomas Lake building with alternatives for deducts including the learning area. The architect is to review the main structure's open air window for cost, aesthetics and alternatives to compliment the prairie setting. And,. finally, if the bid exceeds $160,000, the items should appear at the Advisory Commission meeting on May 5th. There being no further business, the Advisory Commission adjourned at 10:50 A.M. Date 1,7 Secretary ..3 .X- -L L4