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