memorial student center renovationminneapolis, mn 55403 foodservice consultant: mackesey &...
Post on 16-Sep-2020
6 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Memorial Student Center Renovation University of Wisconsin-Stout
Menomonie, Wisconsin
Date Prepared: October 2008
DSF Project #: 07 J1 M | SDS Project #: 0804
Prepared by:
SDS Architects
205 N. Dewey Street
Eau Claire, WI 54703
Student Center Consultant:
Perkins + Will
84 10th St. South, Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Foodservice Consultant:
Mackesey & Associates
6000 Gisholt Drive, Suite 200
Madison, WI 53713
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................Tab 1
Study Parameters ...............................................................................Tab 2
Space Needs Program Information....................................................Tab 3
Building Condition..............................................................................Tab 4
Programmatic Limitations and Observations ...................................Tab 5
Summary of Proposed Improvements...............................................Tab 6
Budget Information .............................................................................Tab 7
Sustainable Design Opportunities.....................................................Tab 8
Design and Construction Schedule...................................................Tab 9
Work Session Notes .........................................................................Tab 12
SDS Architects | Page 3 of 52
October 2008
Executive Summary
Project Name: Memorial Student Center Renovation Pre-Design
Location: University of Wisconsin - Stout
DSF#: 07 J1 M
Study Parameters - The purpose of this study was to establish the potential scope
for improvements to the Memorial Student Center within the limits of a pre-
established budget of $15 million. The study findings will be used to communicate
the proposed project scope by way of a program summary, functional block
diagrams, a budget, schedule, and image sketches. The intent of this
communication will be to provide the students enough information to allow student
approval of funding for the project. After funding is approved, the study findings
will be used as a basis for design and implementation of the project.
Space Needs - Previously developed visioning and program information were
verified and found to be valid during the study. The Program indicated a need for
100,786 GSF and the existing building is approximately 101,000 GSF.
Building Condition – Future major projects should include:
� Addition of a fire protection system – Proposed remodeling modifications
are dependant on the addition of this system for code compliance.
� Complete upgrade of the HVAC system – Deferred maintenance, age of
system, interior lined ductwork, and an opportunity for greater energy
efficiency all contribute to this recommendation.
� Major upgrades to the electrical and telecommunications systems –
Deferred maintenance, original construction and the inability to meet the
needs of the current technology contribute to this recommendation.
� Window replacement – This work was identified by Campus as being
necessary prior to this study. Windows are original to the building.
� Corrections to exterior drainage issues at building perimeter – Based on
conversations with Campus, it is understood that the majority of this work
will be corrected with a separate project in the future and therefore is not
budgeted in the scope of this project.
Programmatic Limitations and Observations -
� Exterior Building Form: The major design components affecting the
exterior appearance of the building are the large sloped metal roof, the
landscaped berms around the lower level, and minimal use of exterior wall
fenestration.
� Compartmentalization: The interior of the building is heavily
compartmentalized with solid walls and cast-in-place concrete. Meeting
spaces and other active areas are completely hidden from view behind
solid walls and doors with small windows.
� Hierarchy of Space: There are 7 primary entrances to the building none of
which are identifiable as the main entry. All of these entries are connected
SDS Architects | Page 4 of 52
October 2008
by similar interior corridors that lead to an understated skylit area in the
center of the building.
� Wayfinding: Stairs and elevators in the building are not visible and are
difficult to locate.
� Upper Level Foodservice: Design is outdated, inefficient, and does not
allow for proper merchandising of food items. Current building circulation
does not allow operation in the late afternoon and evenings. Level
separation also causes considerable limitations.
� Flexibility and Size: Upper level foodservice does not provide flexibility to
allow foodservice options for all meal periods and special events. Lower
level foodservice is not adequately sized and is not flexible to serve all
meal periods as well as student programming events.
� Modernization: Foodservice areas are outdated and need to support a
variety of menu items and service styles, including an efficient convenience
store concept.
Summary of Proposed Improvements
Three primary improvement concepts were developed. Each included a major
design gesture to create an order forming, open, daylit space within the existing
building along with major remodeling to visually connect surrounding areas to this
open and central space. The concept selected is cognizant that a significant
portion of the budget will be required to address infrastructure items. It was
decided early in the process to focus the remaining construction dollars on a
primary design gesture in an effort to get as much impact as possible for the
investment. Therefore, this focus was given to what was called the “Union Square”,
budget dollars are strategically steered toward the high impact areas around the
Square.
The Union Square design concept intends to create the opportunity for a dynamic
place where students can gather to see and be seen. This concept will create a
warm, vibrant, light-filled, double height interior space that is easily visible through
intuitive and simple wayfinding. It will increase the transparency between the most
active and lively functions of food, recreation and active study. In addition, a
renovated Student Organization space will also be featured along the square.
Reconfiguration and re-equipping of the upper level foodservice servery area will
be included to support a marketplace delivery style. The lower level foodservice
will be expanded and reconfigured to provide a food production and serving area to
support all meal periods and student programming needs. The renovated lower
level foodservice must be seen as a popular destination by student customers. The
convenience store concept will be expanded within the lower level foodservice area
to further support student needs. The foodservice configuration must be fully
integrated with the convenience store to minimize staffing during non-peak periods.
SDS Architects | Page 5 of 52
October 2008
Budget Summary
Construction Cost $11,600,000
Contingency 800,000
Furnishings/Equipment/Fees 2,600,000 Estimated Total Project Cost $15,000,000
Sustainable Design Opportunities
LEED® Certification was used as the evaluation tool for sustainable design
opportunities for this project. Initial analysis indicates that of the 69 possible points
available, 44 are possible for pursuit with the scope of work identified. Some of the
specific sustainable design strategies that are able to be provided though the
proposed concept include:
� Increased energy efficiency though HVAC system replacement
� Improved indoor air quality through HVAC system replacement
� Increased energy efficiency though lighting replacement
� Increased daylighting opportunities through introduction of clerestory
windows
� Decreased water usage through plumbing fixture replacement
� Reuse of all of the existing exterior envelope
� Improved indoor air quality though use of low-emitting materials
Schedule
The following schedule has been developed to illustrate a “best case scenario” for
the project.
Project Approval and Architect/Engineer Selection Spring 2009
Design and Bidding Mid 2009 through Early 2010
Construction May 2010 through July 2011
Proposed Proposed
SDS Architects | Page 6 of 52
October 2008
Study Parameters In April 2008, the Department of State Facilities (DSF) retained SDS Architects
(SDS) to conduct a pre-design study for the Memorial Student Center located on
the University of Wisconsin-Stout Campus (UW-Stout) in Menomonie, Wisconsin.
SDS retained consulting services from Perkins+Will (P+W) for Student Center
Planning and Mackesey Associates for Foodservice Consultation. Consultants for
mechanical and electrical systems were not involved in this study, as it was
understood that these systems would likely need to be replaced entirely
The purpose of this study was to establish the potential scope for improvements to
the Memorial Student Center within the limits of a pre-established budget of $15
million. The study findings will be used to communicate the proposed project scope
by way of a program summary, functional block diagrams, a budget, schedule, and
image sketches. The intent of this communication will be to provide the students
enough information to allow student approval of funding for the project. After
funding is approved, the study findings will be used as a basis for design and
implementation of the project.
The study was not to consider remodeling for the back-of-house Kitchen, the
Ballrooms, and the Great Hall. It should be noted that although the final scope of
the project does not include reconfiguration of these spaces, remodeling of the
HVAC system and addition of a fire protection system necessitated some
remodeling in these areas.
The campus provided previously developed visioning and program information
developed by Brailsford & Dunlavey (B&D) as background information for use by
the Consultant team. Although this study did not include full program development,
the space needs program information developed by B&D was to be verified during
this study process.
Three primary Work Sessions were used to collect and share information with the
Campus, UW Systems, the DSF and the Consultants. The agendas for each work
sessions were as follows.
SDS Architects | Page 7 of 52
October 2008
Work Session #1
Objective: Confirm previously developed Visioning and Program information
� Review procedures, schedule, and communication protocol
� Review previously developed goals and visions with Campus Committee
� Conduct consensus building brainstorming session with steering committee
� Review existing facilities, site, and Campus
� Introduce additional questions for consideration
� Confirm and establish goals and priorities
Attended by: University Centers Planning Committee
DSF and UW Systems Representation
Perkins & Will
Mackesey and Associates
SDS Architects
Work Session #2
Objective: Program Refinement and Concept Plan
� Review Program information with Committee for review and confirmation
� Review focus group data, findings and draft Benchmark Statement
� Present multiple schemes to Committee for feedback and direction
� Conduct concept design refinement charrette
Attended by: University Centers Planning Committee
DSF and UW Systems Representation
Perkins & Will
Mackesey and Associates
SDS Architects
Work Session #3
Objective: Final Concept Presentation and Report
� Present final concept for feedback and confirmation:
� Review final image sketches
� Review final forecast of probable construction costs and schedule
Attended by: University Centers Planning Committee
DSF and UW Systems Representation
Perkins & Will
Mackesey and Associates
SDS Architects
SDS Architects | Page 8 of 52
October 2008
Space Needs Program Information The Space Program information originally prepared by B&D was reviewed with the
Campus during Work Session #1. The matrix below was developed following this
review and presented at Work Session #2. This review confirmed that the
Brailsford & Dunlavey (B&D) program information was still valid.
SDS Architects | Page 9 of 52
October 2008
Building Evaluation BUILDING STATISTICS
Construction Dates and Floor Areas:
� Original Building Date: 1985
� Remodeling of Lower Level Shell Space: 1994
Commentary: The southeast portion of the lower level was originally bid as
an Alternate to the project. The base bid indicated unexcavated space in
this area. The Alternate provided a structural floor above and exterior walls
to provide the volume for this lower level area. The Alternate included
finished grading without a slab. This area was finished by a project in 1994.
Building Code:
� Occupancy Classification: B
� Type of Construction: Min. IIB
� Fire Protection: No
Commentary: It is assumed that a fire protection system will be added to
this building with any major infrastructure upgrade project. The addition of
fire protection will increase the allowable area by a minimum of 200%. The
addition of the fire protection system will also allow the addition of an open
stairwell in the building to improve circulation and wayfinding. Unless the
fire protection system is added to the entire building, fire separations will
need to be provided between areas with fire protection from areas without
fire protection.
Areas by Level:
Floor Levels:
� Level 1 Area: 48,500 gsf
� Level 2 Area: 48,500 gsf
� Penthouse: 4,000 gsf
Total Area: 101,200 gsf
Building Use:
� Diagrams 1-3:
SDS Architects | Page 10 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 1: First Floor Plan-Existing
SDS Architects | Page 11 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 2: Second Floor Plan-Existing
SDS Architects | Page 12 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 3: Penthouse Floor Plan-Existing
SDS Architects | Page 13 of 52
October 2008
BUILDING ANALYSIS
Substructure
� Foundations: Cast in place concrete with system of driven piles and grade
beams. Soil bearing capacity for miscellaneous foundations is indicated as
2,000 psf. Exterior side of foundation walls in occupied areas are treated
with damproofing covered by 6 mil. polyethylene film, covered by 2” of
closed cell polystyrene foam insulation
Commentary: Major remodeling involving redistribution of loads will need to
consider need for additional piling work or other subsurface improvement
strategy.
Superstructure
� Floor Construction: North wing (above Bowling Alley and areas east)
consists of 8’ wide x 32” deep precast concrete double tees with 4” topping.
Most other areas consist of cast in place concrete waffle slab with ribs 36”
o.c., 16” rib depth, and 3 ½” top slab depth. Reinforced slabs are also used
in miscellaneous areas.
Commentary: Existing floor to floor dimension is 13’-4” (except at Bowling
Alley which is 14’-5”). The dimension from the bottom of many of the cast-
in-place beams located in the Atrium area and exterior entries to the lower
level floor elevation is 7’-0”. Future plans for remodeling will need to either
work within these height limitations or include structural design provisions to
modify these beams.
� Roof Structure: Combination of open web steel joists with 1 ½” metal deck
(used for non-pitched areas), and sloped steel trusses supporting open web
steel joists with 1 ½” metal deck (used for 6/12 sloped metal roof areas).
Commentary: 6/12 pitched areas are supporting a metal roof system. Due
to the form, configuration, and structural layout of these roofs, modifications
should be carefully considered and designed if found to be necessary.
Exterior Enclosure
� Exterior Walls: The majority of the exterior walls are cavity walls consisting
of face brick on the exterior and a concrete masonry or cast in place
concrete back-up. The cavity is typically filled with 1” air space and 3” of
extruded polystyrene insulation set into parging on the face of the back-up
wall surface. Open cell weep ventilators and 60 mil. flexible flashing provide
a means for drainage at the base of the wall. In areas that are not below
grade, the brick ledge
SDS Architects | Page 14 of 52
October 2008
Commentary: Moisture infiltration has been an issue in this building in
locations around windows and near the brick ledge/flashing. These issues
have been specifically noted on the north wall of the Bowling Alley and the
south wall of Meeting Room 118C (room number from original building
drawings). The following issues may be contributing to the infiltration:
Brick Ledge Design: Today’s brick ledges are typically designed with
the top of the foundation stepped to allow the brick to be set below the
level of the CMU back-up and the floor slab. The top of wall foundation
condition at the MSC is a flat surface without a recess for the brick to be
set lower. This type of bearing is not ideal in that it creates a direct path
into the building for moisture that has worked its way under the through-
wall flashing located under the brick.
Caulking of Weep Vents: In some areas of the building it was observed
that the weep vents have been caulked shut (see Photos 1). This may
be contributing to the cavity wall system not draining properly.
Photo 1 – Caulked weep vent
SDS Architects | Page 15 of 52
October 2008
Caulking at Flashing: In some areas of the building it was observed
that caulking has been added above and/or below the through wall
flashing where it penetrates the wall at the brick/foundation wall juncture
(see Photos 2, 3).
Photo 2 – Previously caulked flashing
Photo 3 – Caulked flashing at base of wall
SDS Architects | Page 16 of 52
October 2008
Sloped Roof with No Overhang: Because this building has a sloped
roof with no overhang (See Photos 4), all snow and rain from these roof
areas is deposited to the base of the wall where the conditions listed
above exist. In the winter, this likely leads to the heaping of snow and
ice at the base of the exterior wall. Unless removed or given another
path to move away from the building, this moisture may enter the
exterior wall system between the flashing and the concrete foundation.
Flashing and Weep Vents Covered by Landscaping: In some areas,
retaining walls and planting beds cover weep holes and flashing. These
conditions may not allow the cavity walls to drain properly (See Photos
5-7).
All of these exterior conditions are seen as possible contributors to the
moisture infiltration problem in the identified areas. Without more extensive
testing (some of which might require opening portions of the exterior wall
system for observation) the absolute causes are not able to be identified for
certain. Other than the caulking issues, correction of some of these existing
conditions may be cost prohibitive. The Campus indicated that correction of
the drainage issues around this building will be addressed with a future
project that is focused on the exterior of the building and may also include
re-grading and additional storm sewer around the building.
Photo 4 – Overhang and base of wall condition
SDS Architects | Page 17 of 52
October 2008
Photo 6 – Covered weep vents and flashing
Photo 5 – Covered weep vents and flashing
SDS Architects | Page 18 of 52
October 2008
� Exterior Windows: Thermally broken aluminum windows with 1” insulating
glass (note that original documents indicate ¾” insulated glass in window
section and 1” insulated glass in glazing section) and integral blinds
mounted between the insulated glass and a removable ¼” glass panel.
Commentary: Gaps in the aluminum have been caulked. Weatherstripping
is detatched in some areas (see Photos 8, 9). The Campus indicated that
window replacement should be included in the scope of work addressed in
this Study.
� Exterior Doors: Hollow metal doors and frames.
Commentary: Other than paint chips, doors and hardware are in fair
condition but may be replaced during major project to reduce institutional
appearance.
Photo 7 – Covered weep vents and flashing
SDS Architects | Page 19 of 52
October 2008
Photo 9 – Caulking at windows
Photo 8 – Gaps and caulking at windows
SDS Architects | Page 20 of 52
October 2008
� Roofing:
Pitched Roof Areas: Batten type sheetmetal roof system with 6:12 slope.
Roofing system consists of 18 ga. Aluminum roofing with raised battens over
30# roofing felt over ¾” plywood fastened to 2x4 nailers at 2’-0” o.c. The 2
x 4 nailers are fastened directly to the 1 ½” metal structural roof decking.
The attic space is vented with a combination of blown-in and batt insulation
placed at the ceiling line of most areas. The blown in insulation is indicated
to be wool with an R value of 46 according to the original building plans.
Commentary: This roof system was installed with a 30 year Guarantee by
the General Contractor, the Roofing Contractor and the Sheetmetal Roofing
System Manufacturer. The roof should be covered by this until around 2015,
depending on the start date of the guarantee. The roof appears to be in
good condition at this time (See Photos 10).
Non-Pitched Roof Areas: The original roof was removed and replaced in 2007.
The new roofing system consists of a fully ballasted 60 mil EPDM membrane over
one layer of 2” polyicocyanurate insulation over 1 layer of 1 ½” polyicocyanurate
insulation for a total insulation thickness of 3.5 inches. This new roof system is
applied over the existing sloped structure. There is a large aluminum framed
skylight with clear acrylic glazing located within this area of roofing.
Commentary: This area of roofing is located over the center portion of the
building and is flanked at the north and south by the pitched roof system
described above. The new roofing system carries warranties and guarantees
that start in 2007. Any work in these areas will need to be coordinated to
keep existing warranties/guarantees valid if possible.
Photo 10 – Metal Roof from East
SDS Architects | Page 21 of 52
October 2008
Interiors
� Fixed Partitions:
Concrete Masonry Units: Most of the interior partitions are “heavy weight”
concrete masonry units. Where exposed to view in areas other than those
used for storage, mechanical, electrical, custodial, maintenance, and other
similar functions are vertically scored at the third point to simulate a raked
joint. In most public areas including corridors, toilet rooms, and large group
areas, the masonry surface is burnished as well as raked at the third points.
The interior concrete partitions are primarily 8”, 6” (smaller rooms, offices),
and 4” (chases).
Gypsum board: A limited number of gypsum board walls are used in several
back-of-house offices, miscellaneous soffits, and drop soffits.
Glass Block: Used in isolated areas for screen walls.
Commentary: The interior walls are generally in very good condition. The
burnished block has been well maintained and shows almost no wear.
However, the extensive use of the burnished burnished block as an interior
finish has created an environment of inflexible, compartmentalized, and non-
transparent space (See Photos 11, 12). Concepts for modifying the building
include replacing these opaque wall systems with open or transparent
storefront systems to allow a more “pourous” building.
Photo 11 – Corridor walls
SDS Architects | Page 22 of 52
October 2008
� Operable Partitions: Three types of operable partitions are used in this
building with STC ratings ranging from 38-42 in the smaller venue areas to
43-47 for the Ballroom areas. All of the systems are top supported,
manually operated and have a vinyl fabric finish.
Commentary: Many of the operable partitions are worn and in need of
replacement. Some of these are scheduled to be replaced by the Campus
with a small project. Others are in the Ballroom and are not to be included
in the scope of this study.
� Doors, Frames and Hardware: Hollow metal frames with either hollow metal
doors or solid core wood doors. Solid core wood doors are premium grade,
plain sliced red oak.
Commentary: Although doors and hardware are in good condition, they will
likely be replaced in areas scheduled for major remodeling.
� Steel Windows: Fixed steel windows, painted. Windows are used in interior
locations only, primarily as storefronts to foodservice and bookstore areas.
Commentary: It is anticipated that these windows will be replaced with a
major remodeling project as part of the interior design improvements.
Photo 12 – Interior Corridor
SDS Architects | Page 23 of 52
October 2008
� Overhead and Side Coiling Grilles and Fire Doors: A variety of coiling
overhead and sliding doors/grilles are used in this building for the following
applications:
a. Manually operated wood slat counter shutters and doors – primarily used
for storage of chairs in meeting rooms.
b. Manually operated fire shutters – used for separation of two floor
opening at skylight.
c. Manually operated aluminum slat service doors – used for back-of-house
areas.
d. Overhead and side coiling grilles – used for securing areas such as
foodservice after hours.
Commentary: Fire shutters may be eliminated with the addition of a building
wide fire protection system as proposed by this study. It is likely that all of
coiling grilles and fire shutters will be removed/replaced with the project
proposed.
� Sectional Overhead Doors: 16 gauge steel doors, electrically operated.
These doors are located in the loading dock area.
Stairs
� Public Stairs: Cast in place concrete
Commentary: All of the stairs in the building are enclosed stairwells. This
design was driven by the code in place at the time that limited the use of
open stairs between floors. Although the stairs are in good condition, the
lack of visibility and placement of the stairs contributes to wayfinding
problems in the building.
Interior Finishes
� Wall Finishes: Primarily burnished block for public areas, meeting rooms,
and large group areas. Painted gypsum board or concrete block in other
areas.
Commentary: See “fixed partitions” comments above.
� Floor Finishes:
Terrazzo: Primary corridors on upper level and Toilet Rooms
Brick Pavers: Primary corridors on lower level
Quarry Tile: Foodservice areas
Wood Floor: Large Meeting Rooms and Ballroom areas
Carpet: Small meeting areas and offices.
Concrete: Mechanical and back-of-house areas
SDS Architects | Page 24 of 52
October 2008
Commentary: All of the flooring has been well maintained and is in good
condition, especially the terrazzo and brick pavers. The proposed scope of
work will likely require replacement of the flooring in all areas receiving
major remodeling. It is anticipated that the majority of the brick pavers will
be replaced with another system.
� Ceiling Finishes: Ceilings in most areas are exposed with slab or lay-in type
systems. Some of the public areas have a linear metallic ceiling system.
Other areas such as toilet rooms have gypsum board ceilings.
Commentary: Most all ceilings will need to be removed and replaced to
accommodate the proposed HVAC and fire protection work.
Elevators
� Passenger Elevator: 4,000 # hydraulic, 3 stop.
Commentary: Minor ADA modifications anticipated.
� Service Elevator: 4,000 # hydraulic 3 stop, entry from two sides
Commentary: This elevator is located in the area receiving no/minimal work.
Mechanical and Electrical
Commentary: It is assumed that the majority of these systems will be
replaced completely with a major infrastructure upgrade project.
END BUILDING ANALYSIS
SDS Architects | Page 25 of 52
October 2008
Programmatic Limitations and Observations General Exterior Building Form: The major design components affecting the exterior
appearance of the building are the large sloped metal roof, the landscaped berms
around the lower level, and minimal use of exterior wall fenestration. The building
has also been sited with the first floor elevation placed below the surrounding
grade, creating below grade “cavelike” entrances to the first floor. The combination
of these design elements combined with the berms and landscaping hiding the
entrances, creates a building that “turns its back” to the surrounding campus,
providing no revelation of what is going on within or an invitation to visitors to enter
the building. The modest gable entries are understated and overshadowed by the
massive roof form (see Photos 13-16).
Photo 13 – Lower Level Entry, East Side of Building
SDS Architects | Page 26 of 52
October 2008
Photo 14 – West Entry
Photo 15 – West Entry
Entry
Entry
SDS Architects | Page 27 of 52
October 2008
Compartmentalization: The interior of the building is heavily compartmentalized
with solid walls and cast-in-place concrete. Meeting spaces and other active areas
are completely hidden from view behind solid walls and doors with small windows.
Similar to the exterior of the building, the interior corridors “turn their back” on the
visitor and do not allow visual interaction between the various spaces within the
building (see Photos 17-19).
Hierarchy of Space: There are 7 primary entrances to the building, none of which
are identifiable as the main entry. All of these entries are connected by similar
interior corridors that lead to an understated skylit area in the center of the
building. Although the skylit space serves as a light well to the floor below, it does
not serve as a destination, a central organizing space, or a communicating device
between floors due to its scale and design. The light well is narrow and surrounded
by concrete barrier rails that severely limit the visual connection between floors
(see Photos 20-21).
Wayfinding: Stairs and elevators in the building are not visible and are difficult to
locate. There is no vertical circulation in the center skylit area of the building
where one would expect a physical connection between floors. The location of the
stairs along with the other issues listed above create wayfinding problems for
visitors the moment they enter the building (see Photos 22).
Photo 16 – West Entry
SDS Architects | Page 28 of 52
October 2008
Photo 17 – Typical Entry from Primary Corridor
Photo 18 – Lower Level Corridor
SDS Architects | Page 29 of 52
October 2008
Photo 19 – Lower Level Corridor at Light Well
Photo 20 – Upper Level Corridor inside North Entry
SDS Architects | Page 30 of 52
October 2008
Photo 21 – Light Well from Lower Level
Photo 22 – Typical Stairwell
SDS Architects | Page 31 of 52
October 2008
Foodservice Upper Level Foodservice: Design is outdated, inefficient, and does not allow for
proper merchandising of food items. Current building circulation does not allow
operation in the late afternoon and evenings. Level separation also causes
considerable limitations.
Flexibility and Size: Upper level foodservice does not provide flexibility to allow
foodservice options for all meal periods and special events. Lower level
foodservice is not adequately sized and is not flexible to serve all meal periods as
well as student programming events.
Modernization: Foodservice areas are outdated and needs to support a variety of
menu items and service styles, including an efficient convenience store concept
(see Photos 23-24).
SDS Architects | Page 32 of 52
October 2008
Photo 23 – Lower Level Foodservice Entry
Photo 24 – Lower Level Foodservice Area
SDS Architects | Page 33 of 52
October 2008
Renovation Project Summary Concepts Investigated Three primary improvement concepts were developed and presented during Work
Session #2 (see Diagram 4-7). All three of the concepts included a major design
gesture to create an order forming, open, daylit space within the existing building
along with major remodeling to visually connect surrounding areas to this open and
central space. After some discussion Option 3 was found to be the most worthy
option for further development and budgeting (see Diagrams 8, 9).
Diagram 4: Investigations
SDS Architects | Page 34 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 5: Investigations – Option 1
SDS Architects | Page 35 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 6: Investigations – Option 2
SDS Architects | Page 36 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 7: Investigations – Option 3
SDS Architects | Page 37 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 8: Final Option
SDS Architects | Page 38 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 9: Final Option
SDS Architects | Page 39 of 52
October 2008
Overview of Final Option
� As indicated earlier in this study, any major remodeling project in this
building should include a complete HVAC system replacement, upgrades to
the electrical and telecommunications systems, and the addition of a fire
protection system. This infrastructure work addresses deferred maintenance
items and provides needed systems upgrades to serve today’s technology
and improve energy efficiency. The HVAC equipment is original to the
building and has exceeded its expected life. The duct system is interior
lined and has the potential of creating indoor air quality problems. The
electrical and telecommunications systems are in need of upgrades to serve
today’s technology demands. The fire protection system will be required to
satisfy current building code requirements, improve public safety and provide
more flexibility for future addition and remodeling projects.
� The concept is cognizant that a significant portion of the budget will be
required to address these infrastructure items. Understanding that a large
part of the available budget will be used for this infrastructure work, it was
decided early in the process to focus the remaining construction dollars on a
primary design gesture in an effort to get as much impact as possible for the
investment. Therefore, this focus was given to what was called the “Union
Square”, budget dollars are strategically steered toward the high impact
areas around the Square.
� Although the study was to exclude work in the Great Room, Ballrooms, and
the back-of-house kitchen area, it was acknowledged during the study
process that the addition of a building wide fire protection system and
replacement of the HVAC system will require at least some remodeling in
these areas. The HVAC and fire protection work will require the removal and
reinstallation of ceilings in these areas. It is assumed that lighting affected
by the ceiling removal would also be replaced.
� The Student Union Town Square design concept (see Diagram 10) intends to
create the opportunity for a dynamic place where students can gather to see
and be seen. This concept will create a warm, vibrant, light-filled, double
height interior space that is easily visible through intuitive and simple way
finding. It will increase the transparency between the most active and lively
functions of food, recreation and active study. In addition, a renovated
Student Organization space will also be featured along the square (see
Diagrams 11 – 14 for interior image sketches).
� Reconfiguration and re-equipping of the terrace level foodservice servery
area will be included to support a marketplace delivery style. The lower
level foodservice will be expanded and reconfigured to provide a food
production and serving area to support all meal periods and student
programming needs. The renovated lower level foodservice must be seen as
a popular destination by student customers. The convenience store concept
will be expanded within the lower level foodservice area to further support
student needs. The foodservice configuration must be fully integrated with
the convenience store to minimize staffing during non-peak periods.
SDS Architects | Page 40 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 10: Final Option Concept
SDS Architects | Page 41 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 11: Final Option-Union Square Lower Level Looking North
SDS Architects | Page 42 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 12: Final Option-Union Square First Floor Looking West
SDS Architects | Page 43 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 13: Final Option-Union Square Upper Level Looking Northwest
SDS Architects | Page 44 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 14: Final Option-Union Square First Floor Looking East
SDS Architects | Page 45 of 52
October 2008
Budget Information
Summary Construction Cost $11,600,000
Contingency 800,000
Furnishings/Equipment/Fees 2,600,000 Estimated Total Project Cost $15,000,000
Budget Allocation Early analysis indicated that the budget would be needed for the identifying
systems replacement and 27% of the budget would be needed for soft
costs/development and escalation. This leaves approximately 32% or $4.2 million
available for renovation. Understanding this, the concept developed purposely
focused these renovation dollars on interior improvements only in an effort to get
as much impact as possible in the areas renovated.
Soft Costs/Development/ Escalation
Systems Replacement Must be done in near future
Walls/Finishes/ Renovations
27% 41%
32% ($4.2M)
TOTAL BUDGET $15 Million Estimated Annual Escalation 4 -7%
SDS Architects | Page 46 of 52
October 2008
Budget Breakdown Two independent approaches to budgeting were used for this study. Each of the
budget models represented the scope of work outlined in the Summary of Proposed
Improvements and the related budget diagrams (see Diagrams 15, 16). The costs
used in the budget assume a 2010 construction start. A summary breakdown is
provided below:
SDS Architects | Page 47 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 15: Budget
SDS Architects | Page 48 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 16: Budget Renovation Plan
SDS Architects | Page 49 of 52
October 2008
Sustainable Design Opportunities LEED
® Certification was used as the evaluation tool for sustainable design
opportunities for this project. Initial analysis indicates that of the 69 possible points
available, 44 are possible for pursuit with the scope of work identified (see Diagram
17). Some of the specific sustainable design strategies that are able to be
provided though the proposed concept include:
� Increased energy efficiency though HVAC system replacement
� Improved indoor air quality through HVAC system replacement
� Increased energy efficiency though lighting replacement
� Increased daylighting opportunities through introduction of clerestory
windows
� Decreased water usage through plumbing fixture replacement
� Reuse of all of the existing exterior envelope
� Improved indoor air quality though use of low-emitting materials
SDS Architects | Page 50 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 17: Sustainable Design Opportunities
SDS Architects | Page 51 of 52
October 2008
Design and Construction Schedule The following schedule has been developed to illustrate a “best case scenario” for
the project.
Project Approval and Architect/Engineer Selection Spring 2009
Design and Bidding Mid 2009 through Early 2010
Construction May 2010 through July 2011
Although phasing may be desirable to enable the ongoing operations of those
housed in the MSC, it is highly recommended that the Campus consider vacating
the building entirely during construction if possible. This will help to reduce project
costs and the time required for project completion. It should be noted that the
schedule above can apply to either a phased or non-phased project. It may be
possible to reduce the construction period above if the project is not phased. A
preliminary Phasing Diagram is included in this report for consideration (See
Diagram 18).
SDS Architects | Page 52 of 52
October 2008
Diagram 18: Schedule
M e e t i n g M i n u t e s
By: Alex Wu, Perkins + Will Date: 4/16/2008
Meeting Date: 4/3/2008 Project Name: UW: Stout MSC
Meeting Time: 8:30 AM - 10:00 AM Project No.: 800753.000 (P+W)
Meeting Location:
MSC Crystal Ballroom
Next Meeting Date:
Work Session 2 May 6 - 7, 2008
Attendees: Perkins & Will, SDS Arch, & UW Stout Tom Hanley Jeff Stebar Vance Cheatham Alex Wu Philip Lyons Ann Thies David Karis George Acker Lucy Nicolai Shirley Klebesadels Darrin Witucki Paul MacKesey
Introductions and Procedures 8:30 AM – 9:30 AM
The work plan and scope of work is as follows:
Work Session 1 (WS1) is about fact finding and verifying the program information in the Student Life Facilities Feasibility Study by Brailsford & Dunlavey dated October 2006 (B&D Study).
Work Session 2 (WS2) will develop concepts based on a defined budget from WS1 and the provided program. The objective is to select one option based on consensus.
Work Session 3 (WS3) will further develop a single option for presentation.
The MSC is the scope of work. Price Commons is not in this scope. Furthermore, the $15m proposed total budget is for the MSC. Price Commons is not in that budget.
Tom Hanley is the point of contact for the design team. George Acker is the point of contact for the University.
Stout is looking for 2 to 3 options with add alternates to allow the student body to make a decision.
M i n u t e s , C o n t .
Page 2 of 6 16 April 2008
1. Areas of the project P+W should not touch:
1.1 Ballrooms A, B and C
1.2 The Great Hall
1.3 Back of house Kitchens
1.4 Phasing: Still undecided, what will it cost? At least one dining service operation should remain open. The original plan was to do this as a renovation and not an addition. That means no additional program space should be added.
Tour of Existing Facility 9:30 AM – 10:15 AM
A tour of the existing facility was conducted.
2. Areas of concern that will need to be addressed in the renovation:
2.1 The circulation, way finding and transparency of the building is inadequate. It is a priority to improve this situation. There is an understanding that this re-working of the circulation is likely to not increase program space.
2.2 Phasing is important. Ideally, the parts of the building not being touched can be used as swing space. Closure of the building from a food services standpoint will cause loss of revenue for the time it’s down. The University runs food services, so it will directly impact the University budget.
2.3 Entrances are problematic. There is no front door. There is significant grading at the entrances.
2.4 Water drainage is a major problem at the building envelopes and the entrances. The MSC is right at the height of the water table.
2.5 The HVAC delivery conduits are a type of fiber board duct with a plenum for return. The heating lines also contain a liquid “goo” used to seal the ducts when it was built. Valves have failed because of this product.
2.6 Electrical panels are at capacity.
2.7 The roofs are in good shape. The ballasted membrane on the flat roof was replaced last year.
2.8 Currently, there are containers sitting outside the service entrance of the Great Hall. That is a temporary storage fix.
2.9 Utilization rates of spaces should be evaluated per the B&D Study. One example is that the newspaper is suggested to be a Media Station and the paper comes once every two weeks.
M i n u t e s , C o n t .
Page 3 of 6 16 April 2008
Verification of Cost Model Budget 10:15 AM – 11:00 AM
The following budget model was confirmed.
Constructions Cost Assumptions 100.0% 130.4% $ 15,000,000 Total Project Budget
23.3% 30.4% $ (3,500,000) less Soft/Developmental Costs includes: 7.7% 10.0% $ 1,150,000 Owner Contingency 5.5% 7.2% $ 828,600 FF&E 6.5% 8.5% $ 978,000 Fees 0.0% 0.0% $ - Inspections
3.4% 4.4% $ 506,000 Division of State Facilities Mgmt Fees = 4% of Owner contingency + Construction budget)
0.25% 0.3% $ 37,400 Percent of Art
76.7% 100.0% $ 11,500,000 Construction Budget 9.6% 12.5% $ (1,435,936) less Escalation
4% of Construction Budget per year for 3
years $ 10,064,064 Forecasted Construction Cost (+3 years) 100.0% $ 10,064,064 Budget Allocated to MSC vs. Price
The $15m includes the replacement of exterior windows and MEP system upgrades / repairs.
Scheduled construction start date is spring 2011.
3. Funding source opportunities and concerns are listed below:
3.1 With a $15m total budget, how do you sell to students that a significant potion of the budget is “unseen” infrastructure? Taking the sustainable/green perspective is one opportunity.
3.2 New bookstore operator is Validis (Nebraska Book). A 5-year contract is beginning next week. There is no contribution to the capital costs at this point. They are early in contract negotiations. Assume for now that the space is stubbed out similar to a tenant improvement/ shell project. Main text books are sold at the learning center, so the MSC Bookstore is more like true retail. The university gets a percent of revenue or greater fixed fee.
3.3 Justify ROI (return on investment) for LEED certification. The UW system is currently tracking it as 1% of total cost. UW Superior’s UC came in at $115,000. The decision to pursue certification on this project was not made at the project start. That appears high from P+W experience. P+W will attempt to verify those cost estimates. UW System is hiring a sustainability coordinator rated at a 50% position.
M i n u t e s , C o n t .
Page 4 of 6 16 April 2008
3.4 UW System believes that the 3 highest value sustainability objectives that give good ROI are:
• energy
• incorporating sustainable and easily maintainable systems and finishes in the building
• create buildings that have a long life
4. Upcoming university projects or expenditures that will impact this project:
4.1 The capital plan will upgrade lighting and finishes and mechanical systems in the “untouched” portions of the building. LEDs will be extensively used.
4.2 An exterior windows system plan is in the works for the capital campaign. In the interest of efficient planning however, this system should be included into the scope of work. The budget however will not be increased by the guestimate of $250,000. The windows systems at the MSC are currently failing.
4.3 A university central plant project has just completed phase 1. The MSC will be a part of phase 2, but the schedule is not known. For this project, P+W will simply stub out services/connections points for the central plant supply and return lines. A new chiller should not be planned for the MSC.
4.4 The Jarvis Science Building will increase it area by 90,000 gross square feet. It will significantly alter the traffic patterns around the MSC.
Consensus Building Exercise 11:00 AM – 12:00 AM
P+W led a brainstorming exercise similar to the focus groups conducted by the B&D study. The purpose is to hear directly from the user group and to verify the findings in the B&D study. Findings will be presented at WS2.
Jeff Stebar also gave a Sustainability presentation. This presentation showed the small grass roots effort at Appalachian state and how it can make a big impact on a university.
Program Verification 1:00 PM – 3:30 PM
The B&D Study program space option 1 was verified.
5. Program:
5.1 Food Services: Combine three operations into two. Bring Heritage down to first floor and combine it with Pawn (grab’n’go) operation. Maintain walk-up counter for coffee sales. Heritage Café is too small – needs more seating. Should have coffee shop / pub feeling with fireplaces and warm interiors. Add terrace to Grandview area to increase connection to exterior.
M i n u t e s , C o n t .
Page 5 of 6 16 April 2008
5.2 Ballroom: Great Hall & Crystal Ballrooms will remain as is. Perimeter corridor could be part of project. P+W to include cost of renovation of these spaces as additive alternates in conceptual estimates.
5.3 Conference / Meeting Rooms: Make the meeting rooms a destination; move them from the “beach front property” to a “destination” location where SOC and Huff’s is located.
5.4 Bookstore: Separate outdoor retail entrance for off hours operations. Increase existing square footage by 1,500sf. Provide “gray space” for vendor to finish as needed. Identify separate entrance as an additive alternate in cost estimates.
5.5 Additional Retail: This is the information desk; it should be along the main circulation route. The copy/print/scan/graphic area should be near the SOC as part of their resource area.
5.6 Auditorium / Theater: Not included.
5.7 Recreation / Entertainment: Bowling lanes to be eliminated. This would be a layered program area in several areas. Coffee House / Pub should be included.
5.8 Lounges: Provide a variety of “eddy” lounges with different activity levels. Consider larger lounge like Stevens Point prefunction lounge. Consider certain lounge areas for swing retail space.
5.9 SOC: Move to “beach front property” currently occupied by meeting rooms and bowling. Have them more open and exposed to general traffic through the building for others to see the activity created in the SOC.
5.10 Administrative Space: Move to first floor in area preferably with windows. Should be adjacent to SOC to encourage interaction. Should also be near information desk.
5.11 Cultural Center: aka: Ally Center, integrate into social areas of building and should be designed as a flexible and adaptable space; both public and private. Should be included in the SOC with access to resource area meeting rooms.
6. Other Comments:
6.1 St. Olaf College’s student center feels rich, not comfy. I don’t feel like I can touch anything.
6.2 Minnesota State University Mankato is nice. It has some funky light fixtures.
6.3 A recent campus survey showed 45% feel the project is a moderate priority, 24% a high priority, 9%top, 18% low and 3.7% no priority.
END WS 1
M i n u t e s , C o n t .
Page 6 of 6 16 April 2008
The foregoing constitutes our understanding of matters discussed and conclusions reached. Other participants are requested to review these items and advise the originator in writing of any errors or omissions.
ACTION ITEMS
Items in bold are new, items in italics are revised.
Item No. Description Responsibility Status
2008-04-03.01 Verify cost of LEED certification P+W open
ATTACHEMENTS
Agenda
Attendance Sheet
No formal closing statement or signature is necessary in Meeting Minutes.
Meeting Notes Work Session #2
Meeting Date: May 6, 2008
Regarding: University Centers Renovation U.W. Stout Campus Menomonie, Wisconsin
DSF Project Number: 07J1M SDS Project Number: 0804
Location:
U.W. Stout – Memorial Student Center Ballroom B
Present:
See scanned Sign-In Sheet (attached)
1. Reviewed Focus Group information. Consensus seen between the B & D Study and information collected at Work
Session #1. 2. Reviewed bench mark statements.
� Described how architects bring bench mark statements into physical manifestation. � Made comments on the original building plan. Noted that the back of house was designed very efficiently and
that the front of house was somewhat compromised because of this efficiency in the back of house. Needs to be a better balance.
3. Reviewed program verification information via spreadsheet breakdown. There is confidence that the program needs (space) will be met. Noted the drop in efficiency between the B & D study and current calculations.
4. Reviewed Option 1. � Cuts a swath from the northwest to the southeast and gathers high activities around this area. � Concern with serving/kitchen disconnect with offices between them. � Monumental stair included but not currently indicated. � Servery/Dining separation is challenge. No other good place to move dining with the meeting rooms and
kitchen not being modified as part of this project. � Main corridor on first level is the correct move. Questioned the same move on the second floor. � Questioned location of Info Center. Somewhere along activated corridor; may cluster around communicating
stair. � During day enough load is in the building to energize the entire building. At the end of day there may not be
enough people to energize the entire building. Great Hall and meeting rooms are used heavily at night. 5. Reviewed Option 2.
� Big gesture is northeast/southwest swath. � “Town Square” is placed in the center of the building and is lined by other spaces to activate. � Option works contrary to the existing building. � Can grade be removed to expose the wall and add daylight, particularly along the area currently used by the
bowling alley? This is primarily a budget issue. May not be enough benefit gained by the expense. Light wells would be an option but concerned with drainage around the building.
� Questioned what is envisioned for “Coffee” on the plans. This comes from the “additional retail” noted in the program. Staff noted they were thinking that this would not be food service related, but more of a kiosk type “sunglasses hut” type retail space.
� It is anticipated that late at night the food/recreation/lounge area would be used together. � Second floor dining space is used weekends and nights heavily by outside groups. Servery is staging for
these functions. Connection at servery/dining is an issue. Crossing busy corridor is also an issue. � Calculations were provided by Campus indicating that the entrance nearest the Pawn is the busiest entrance
at all times. Is it possible for the main entry from the Pawn to be at the lower level and the main entrance from the “east” to be from the upper level?
� Questioned whether the west end of the existing terrace dining space could be used as lounge space. Could be problematic with it being on the other side (of the dining area) creating difficulty for securing off the dining area after hours.
University Centers Renovation U.W. Stout Campus May 6, 2008 Page 2
6. Discussed combining Options 1 and 2 keeping the town square concept and accentuating the east and west
entrances. � Highbred option will be developed with this town square/central stair concept. With this concept, leave lower
level as Option 1 indicates with wider corridor, leave servery/dining intact on upper level. 7. Discussed massing study. Need to rival existing powerful roof forms. Need to see on the outside what is going on
inside. 8. Reviewed interior concept sketch. Concept is not contingent on blowing out second floor serving/dining area. The
corridor space becomes useable space with ebb and flow of other spaces to and from this area. 9. Discussed the configuration of the stairway. Decided that the best layout would be to have the low end of the stairs
nearest the Pawn entrance side of the building. 10. Lounge definition is needed with regard to adjacencies. 11. Reviewed two budget analysis approaches. Target is $10,000,000 construction cost. Both options are aggressive
approaches, meaning that there is concern that the construction cost may be a bit higher than indicated. 12. Question was raised if LEED Silver is possible on the project with points not being available for site components
and exterior envelope, etc. LEED Existing Building may be pursued rather than LEED New Construction to address this. Cost for LEED certification will need more analysis to include the actual construction cost of some of the components that will be needed.
13. Discussed the option to leave out the Ballroom Meeting Room areas indicated by Area Type D in one of the cost calculators.
14. Cost Calculator No. 2 was developed to provide information on the “fix the building components” versus “walls and finishes components”. This type of analysis is important to communicate to the students how much is being done just to the infrastructure of the building.
15. Conducted a character study reviewing images to get feedback. This was also performed at the Student Senate Association meeting the same night.
16. Foodservice. � Discussed second floor space. Other than typical, what else does this space support? � Concern that there is a lack of use of the Terrace since it closes at 3:00 p.m. Considered wasted space
beyond that time. � After hours the space is reserved for memorials, weddings, receptions, meetings, etc. Question was raised
where these functions would go if foodservice hours were expanded in the Terrace. � The building can’t support two foodservice operations after hours according to Campus Foodservice. The
feeling of “closed and dark” is a student concern relative to the Terrace. � Terrace is also used for summer events and it may be used more with the new look and feel. � Discussed the proposed lower level. This area must be a destination for success. Need to keep the grab and
go component, the casual gourmet, the coffee house, performance space for evening entertainment, and possibly a C Store in these areas according to Campus Foodservice.
� Inclusion of a wood fired oven is an option as well as a focal point. � If a C Store is included, it should be separate but with the same check point. The focus of the C Store would
be grab and go food type things. Noted that we also have the Book store for other C Store items. A “Panera Bread” feel for the area that is being replaced by the Heritage Café is needed. Students will be looking for a coffee shop/pub environment.
� Lower level – breakfast, lunch and dinner and extended hours to be anticipated. Upstairs is anticipated to close at 2:00 or 3:00.
� There should be two venues in the building. One will be an expanded Heritage concept/pawn concept with a stage and C Store and the other one will be the terrace dining area. There is concern with the size of the lower level, especially if it ends up being a success. This needs to be tested for the size and staffing requirements.
� Stage for up to 4 piece bands often used currently in Pawn area. Containment of noise may be an issue with new layout. This will need to be addressed.
� Questioned if Terrace needed to close at 3:00. The Terrace may support foodservice by extending hours in the future if needed. If Terrace is open, maybe it will be used more? Traffic patterns may be much different with new design. It was decided to let business dictate when open; don’t make this assumption. Primary function is/can be foodservice instead of reserving for other functions.
� Terrace/Heritage sales comments. With more than two foodservice venues, we are just moving sales around with multiple venues being open at the same time.
� Don’t want the plan to prevent extending the Terrace hours. � Generally the budget will provide about $5,000,000 of usable improvements for the “student component”. It
appears the remainder of the construction costs will be used for infrastructural upgrades.
University Centers Renovation U.W. Stout Campus May 6, 2008 Page 3
� Discussed the Cultural Center. Visibility is important. This should be part of the Student Org. area. END OF NOTES This confirms and records our interpretation of the discussion that occurred and decisions reached during this meeting. Unless notified, we will assume that the notes are complete and accurate. Respectfully Submitted, SDS ARCHITECTS, INC.
Thomas M Hanley Principal/Architect TMH/cmj Attachment C: All Participants SDS File 0804.12.20
Meeting Notes Work Session #2
Meeting Date: May 7, 2008
Regarding: University Centers Renovation U.W. Stout Campus Menomonie, Wisconsin
DSF Project Number: 07J1M SDS Project Number: 0804
Location:
U.W. Stout – Memorial Student Center Maple/Oakwood Rooms
Present:
See scanned Sign-In Sheet (attached)
1. Reviewed Character Images results from previous day. 2. Reviewed “Hybrid” concept plan with the following comments.
� Concerning exterior modifications, the budget has limited these so far. � Current plan focuses on the “City Center”/interiors. It is believed that the whole program can be achieved with
the current budget based on the layout provided. � The updates in the meeting rooms will be minor, primarily ceilings and lights. � Discussed moving the coffee shop. It was noted that there will be a need for openness between the City
Center to the Student Org. and the C Store areas. � Discussed City Center expansion on upper level; cutting, opening and raising roof for clerestory. � No work is proposed for the area currently used by Huffs. May be some minor modifications in lounge areas
to have this match the other improvements in the building. � Option indicates that the administrative areas will remain where they are. This area had been considered for
lounge area in the past because of the access to windows but this would also be bad for administration, as it would need to be moved to a basement windowless area which would be negative.
� Noted the transformation of the second floor serving area. Stairs will be included in this layout with a switchback to reduce wastefulness. It was also noted that the bulk of the people entering the building are coming from the Pawn and this switchback stair layout will allow them to exit stair at the dining area on the upper level.
� Discussed ballroom/meeting/kitchen area. These areas will not be touched other than mechanical, electrical, fire protection modifications.
3. Reviewed image sketches � Fireplace well received. Chimney may be a concern as a breakup of space. Noted that it can be treated like a
sculptural piece to enhance the space. � Noted drama with the ceilings. Removing lay-ins, painting the existing structure and accenting with gypsum
board elements. � How high is the clerestory? It is currently indicated at about 6 to 8 feet. � Concerned about glare/visibility. This area could be treated as beacon/lantern/glowing area. This has to be
weighed with the budget and glare concerns. � Need for front entrance may be less important with a real core with real personality (City Center). � Questioned if the City Center area could be an opportunity for Percent of the Arts – suspended art
opportunities. This is definitely a possibility. 4. Reviewed budgets. Discussed the two approaches that were used yesterday. These have been updated.
� Noted that between the two budget models there is a variance of between $500,000 and $800,000. It is thought that based on this analysis we have what we need for the inside improvements being indicated.
� Reinforced that nothing is currently budgeted for the exterior other than allowance to correct moisture infiltration around the perimeter of the building and the window replacement.
� Verification to be done to make sure that the foodservice movable components, countertops, etc. are covered in the budget.
� Questioned how much technology is budgeted. Currently it is anticipated that budgets cover everything up to the outlets.
University Centers Renovation U.W. Stout Campus May 7, 2008 Page 2
� Questioned what the red numbers mean on the budget spreadsheets. These are currently allowance numbers that need to be verified.
� Questioned if the building would need to be closed during construction. The project would need to be phased at least. Less cost if building is able to be closed completely. Allows contractors a single phase for construction. This will need to be evaluated further because of the extent of systems replacement, it may be necessary to close the building.
� The budgets do indicate that the project can transform, make a difference and make an impact. 5. Next steps.
� September presentations will be scheduled for the Campus and the SSA. � During the summer additional work will be done on the development of the concept with verifications to the
budget. Correspondence with be conducted with the Campus during these months. � Enough information will be provided in the final presentation materials to evoke the character that is available
with the current budget. � The Vision Statement goals have been met by adding daylight, adding drama, creating a dynamic space and
creating delight within the building. � It is anticipated that the final concept will be taken to the SSA in the fall. � If there is an “up vote” in November, may be able to plug into the next budget cycle for 2009-2011. Having this
“up vote” in November is key to meeting the schedule. If this is able to be accomplished, this will allow July 1, 2009 borrowing.
� Planning up to 35% on the project can be done through cash reimbursement by the Campus. This allows the Campus to start design earlier if they desire.
� With these scenarios, 35% completion of the design process could be done by fall of 2009 at the earliest. This would allow 2010 construction at the earliest.
� Questioned if the students should contact legislators to promote this. Not yet, eventually well documented student support will be needed.
6. Other � Reviewed case studies including South Dakota State University Student Center and Westminster College. It
was requested that copies of these slides be provided to Campus. � Reviewed the student Top 10 image reviews. Questioned if it is worth accentuating just one entrance since
there was not one spot that is visible for all. � Many of the images selected by the students speak to “entrance”. � Reviewed the administrative/staff Top 10 reviewed images.
o Finishes/picture image has an airport look which was negative to students. o Booths regimented was also negative to students. o Students liked the Idaho image. o Slide #6 was too white for the students – too mall like. o Slide #9 was too busy in the student’s opinion.
� All the images shared at the meetings will be sent to George for dispersal with the meeting notes. 7. Additional comments.
� There is concern on the current floor plan concept with the recreation/lounge area. Concern about not being enough space in this area. It was asked if the Campus could provide counts of anticipated loads in these areas for seating needs. This would not be available but the Campus can provide current counts for foodservice areas broken down by quarter hours.
� Discussed sustainable design opportunities and provided a definition for LEED certification. It was noted that if there is a value here for students, it can certainly be pursued.
� Energy savings is/may be the most important to the students. The DSF and UW Systems will be very cooperative with energy efficiency objectives sought by the students.
� Concern was raised about the future incorporation of a pub. The design should reflect the ability to be able to add a pub at some time. Design should not preclude this.
END OF NOTES This confirms and records our interpretation of the discussion that occurred and decisions reached during this meeting. Unless notified, we will assume that the notes are complete and accurate.
University Centers Renovation U.W. Stout Campus May 7, 2008 Page 3 Respectfully Submitted, SDS ARCHITECTS, INC.
Thomas M Hanley Principal/Architect TMH/cmj Attachment C: All Participants SDS File 0804.12.20
top related