HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 ShannonCtrConceptualDesign
CITY CLERK
File # D[2J[][o]-L3J~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 3, 2006
Shannon Community Center Conceptual Designs
Report prepared by: Henna Lichtenstein, Parks & Facilities
Development Manager
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
RECOMMENDATIONhNlO
~. ,-'
1.
2.
3.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
Existing Site Plan
Conceptual Site Plan - Option 1
Conceptual Floor Plan - Option 1
Conceptual Site Plan - Option 2
Conceptual Floor Plan - Option 2
Conceptual Site Plan - Option 3
Conceptual Floor Plan - Option 3
Conceptual Site Plan - Option 4
Conceptual Floor Plan - Option 4
Conceptual Plan Comparisons
Receive report
Receive public comment
Select preferred conceptual design
DESCRIPTION: In July of 2004 the City Council directed Staff to close the Shannon
Community Center until such time as the building could be replaced. Staff has worked to develop a
program that incorporates citywide needs for the Community Center. The new Shannon Community
Center Program is estimated to include approximately 19,000 square feet of space and will provide for a
banquet hall for 300 people, a catering kitchen, two preschool classrooms, flexible meeting rooms, staff
area, and support spaces. Based on this program the City Council authorized Staff to begin the design
process and rebuild the center.
At the June 20, 2005 meeting, the City Council gave direction to Staff concerning the composition of the
Architect Selection Committee which included the Vice Mayor, the Chair of the Parks and Community
Services Commission, the Assistant City Manager, the Parks and Community Services Director, the Parks
and Community Service Manager and the Parks and Facilities Development Manager. Request for
Proposals for architectural services were solicited in June of 2005 and the Dahlin Group was chosen to
design the new Community Center.
COPY TO: The Dahlin Group
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 of2
ITEM NO.-&-
G:\COUNCILlAgenda Statements120061J -03 Shannon Conceptual.doc
v
The Dahlin Group has reviewed the approved program and budget requirements to establish a baseline for
the design process. Based on this review, the Dahlin Group has prepared four conceptual plan options for
the Shannon Community Center building footprint and site plan. Attachment 1 is the existing site plan for
Shannon Park and Community Center. Attachments 2-9 are four conceptual floor and site plans for the
new Community Center. Attachment 10 shows the estimated cost for each option as well as the pros and
cons of each option. At the meeting, the Architect will show a PowerPoint presentation of the conceptual
plan options. Additionally the PowerPoint presentation will include three options for exterior design
including Contemporary, Craftsman and Mission styles. These options meet the program requirements for
the Shannon Community Center as approved at a joint meeting of the City Council and Parks and
Community Services Commission on April 12, 2005.
Based on the preliminary cost estimates prepared by the Dahlin Group several items will need to be
considered. The current project budget is based on a $325 per square foot (which includes site work
costs) and is based on the construction bids from the Senior Center project. The architect has been
informed by their cost estimator that the building construction costs (excluding site work) are anticipated
to rise as high as $340 per square foot by the time the project is ready to bid. To minimize impacts from
increased construction costs Staff has requested that the architects provide options to reduce the cost of
the building construction. These options include; reduction of building footprints by moving some
circulation and gathering spaces to covered outside areas, minimizing architectural elements or
articulation and designing with less "high end" finishes such as slate or granite. The architects will be
showing information on these options as part of their presentation.
The Dahlin Group presented the four conceptual plan options at the December 18, 2005 Parks and
Community Services Commission Meeting. At that time the Commission received the report and input
from members of the public. Upon receiving comments the Commission discussed the options. Several
Commissioners initially favored Option #4 which splits the building functions and moves the preschool
closer to the parking lot. After some discussion regarding the operational issues of splitting the building
and what type of first impression the preschool building would provide, the Commission chose to support
the Option #l plan. They also deliberated on the options for exterior design and commented that both the
Craftsman and Mission designs were acceptable. By unanimous vote, the Commission recommended the
conceptual site plan and floor plan of Option #1 (Attachments 2 and 3) and the exterior design in the
craftsman style.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive the report for Staff
and the Consultant, receive public comments and select the preferred conceptual design.
,&-:
\ 1:)0
T'
I .IN3WH:J V.II V -
--
-
tP
-
,"'''..-.-----....----..,':\.
-r....1
I I 4
or' C.
\ ,-:
~.
.)'f~ ~
;-,
,..,
()
".......,,,,, ~,,~
\ /-".,1
~J
4'
.J'
it
,
,
..
/
/'
.1
"
Vi
. ,
,
(O~
~
w
~
Vi
~
Z
t;;
~
~
UJ
I--
Z
UJ
U
>-
I--
z
::>
~
~
o ~
u 0
u..
Z ....I
i <(
>.
0 u
Z
Z z
.~ ....I
CO
'~I ::>
0
'" (/)
<(
Z
--
Z .IN3WH:JV.I.I V
{)
N
~.~.
.~.....i ....../.;2.LE~..
.',"",',', ',.,><....).''-.. ._L_
/~;'ir.. V"\~=t-__ y
. . ", ~ :--\-
--, ,
"'/' \p
, \,;00 -', 'v
\ I 71,
. tt \\
~ ~
()
:)
-"
, ,/
~
f
..
'..
i/
..
')I
I
,I
.J
~
~
z
o
t
o
z
~
~
Vi
~
::l
t
w
u
z
o
u
~
IJ.J
I-
Z
UJ
U
>-
I-
z
::>
~
~
o ~
u 0
L1-
<(
z
Z ....I
<(
o u
Z
Z z
<( ~
I :::::l
C./) 0
-
~
fJ
\'{\
f .IN3WH:JV.L.IV
(O~
.....
N
<(
13
...J
8
~
'"
g;
.~.
~~ 1
~~a"
~i~~
_J~~
~j~~
t ~
~ .
~
Q
~
.
~
'i. ~
~ .
o ~
z
o
t
o
z
~
....
'"
o
o
...J
...
...J
<
::>
li:
w
u
z
o
u
~
UJ
~
Z
UJ
U
>-
~
...J
~ Z
...J
'" ::>
0
0 ~
...J
...
Z ~ <(
~ -
0 Z
~
U 0
u..
Z -l
0 <(
U
Z
Z z
. <( ....I
a:l
I ::>
tr> 0
-
--
~
::r-
;,..;.,
~ /
........ ...~.O>/' ""
,; -. \ /'. t!
' /",F)7"
/' " ""'F'" !
>~ ';/ '<'c~:~)_j
,," ~"\:'"
/..."....,. --.... \
/,,~
~"/.'- "'1-
~ .~:
P .IN:t[WH:J V.I.I V
.~.
1- l
~2"
'" .
Ii ~ 2
~Jg.
~j~E
N
Z
o
Ii:
o
3
c..
w
~
Vi
...J
-<
::)
~
w
V
Z
o
v
~
UJ
.....
Z
UJ
\ U
'-' \
.'
...
.
.'
,~ "
" ".
..
-,
x}..
.
"
'lI~.
'~-"" w.... .........'.....'...............e- -........'.:...'.....
} ...' . : '
\::). . '" .! '.'
'11 '. .. "
i",,: '............)
J
--'L~
", ,r
,.",.. '-{}':;-"-1}'-1' .
("f......"., "\ I
"", "", " ....') ...... !
."!~L,. I'./'
!\"'\j,f'
>-
.....
z
::>
~
~
o ~
UO
u..
<(
z
Z ....I
<(
0 u
Z
Z z
. <( ....I
CD
:c :::>
V') 0
--
-
~
\f\
S .IN3WH:JV.I.I V
----..------- --._--- -
.J
II
(O~
N
N
<(
" ~
~ .
~
!rl
~
:;;~.
i< l
~s M
H ~
~j ~
~
~
~
~
a ~.
I .
" ~
N
Z
0
t
0
,
z
:S
"-
""
0
. 0
,8 .....
u..
u .....
~ <(
U'l ~
t;:; Ii:
..... w
Q u
z
~ 0
"" u
it
~
W
......
Z
w
U
>-
......
..... Z
w
~
..... ~
""
0
0 ~
~ .....
u.. <(
~ Z ~
~ -
Z
0 ~
U 0
u..
Z ....I
0 <(
U
Z
Z z
.
<( ....I
a:l
I ::>
V'> 0
-
fJ
-3
9 .IN3WH:J V.I.I V
ji<~
""~',<"<;;:/,,,-,....
"",--.' """,,'], ';;'''''-"
' " " "':><';""'~:'-"':-7~-
../"~."', " }.", ~ -",-":l~c:.'_ i
, ./"...... \ ,
',\" \ J> lJ
'yo \
V
Jl
t
ji.'~'
o
. X
.~ .,""'," ..
'~::_.u'~'
. ,..... ,
))0"".
"
.',;'
j
(O~
(Y)
z
o
fi:
o
z
~
a...
w
~
Vi
;;J,
:::l
~
w
U
Z
o
u
~
LU
~
Z
LU
U
>-
~
Z
:J
~
~
o ~
u 0
u..
<(
z
Z ....J
<(
0 u
Z
Z z
. <( ....I
co
I ::::)
U') 0
L .IN3WH:JV.I.IV
~
-
t
(O~
('I')
N
1(
" 8
~ .
~
g
~ .
.~.
J: J
6~"
~ i~~
_h~
~l~~
.
r-
I
"
~
. '"
J"
~
~
M
Z
o
Ii:
o
z
S
ll..
~
o
o
...J
u..
...J
<(
::l
Ii:
w
u
z
o
u
=
e
~
...J
W
~
...J
~ ~
0
9 UJ
u..
~ I--
w
ll..
ll.. Z
::l
UJ
U
>-
.....
...J
W
~ Z
...J
~
0 ::>
9
u.. ~
~
w 1(
~ ~
...J Z
0 ~
C/)
I:i:i U 0
...J
g u..
~ Z ....I
~ 0 1(
U
Z
Z z
.
,~ <( ....I
a:l
J: :::>
(/) Cl
-
tP
\P
t)
8.IN3WH:JV.I.IV
(O~
~
r-
<(
;j~.
.: l
u~ ~
Ii ~
UJ ~
~j E
2 !
~
" Ii
"'l'
Z
o
ii:
o
z
:s
a...
~
Vi
...J
-<
:::>
t
w
u
z
o
u
0::::
w
.-
Z
w
U
>-
.-
z
::>
~ <(
~ Z
0 ~
U 0
u..
Z ....I
0 <(
U
Z ..
Z z
. <( ....I
c:c
I :J
(/) 0
--
-
.p
~
~
~
C>
z
15
-'
5
<C
-'
o
o
J::
~
w
""
"-
6 .IN3WH:JV.I.I V
(O~
"":
N
<:
~~.
15 !
'j. ~
u '
- ~
~j ~
~
.
..,.
z
o
b:
o
,
z
:5
"-
""
o
o
-'
...
-'
-<
:J
t
w
u
z
o
u
~
UJ
~
Z
UJ
U
>-
I--
~ Z
z
15 ::>
-'
5
<C ~
~ <:
z ~
w
~
0 Z
~
U 0
u..
Z ....I
0 <:
u
Z
Z z
.
<( ....I
aJ
I ::::l
t/) 0
.
\D't) l\
City of Dublin
Shannon Community Center
Conceptual Plan Comparisons
Option 1
17,724 sJ.
Pros
. Bridge approach centered on entry /
focal wall feature
. Allows for staff parking at upper area
. Events room facing West captures park
/ creek views
. Stacking wall allows dual use at the
pre-function area for the conference
room
. Preschool has separate entry and can
be secured separate from the
remainder of the building
Option 2
18,025 sJ.
Pros
. Bridge approach centered on entry /
focal wall feature
. Allows for delivery access at upper area
. Events room facing East captures Mt.
Diablo / valley views
. Stacking wall allows dual use at the
pre-function area for the conference
room
. Preschool has separate entry / no
shared walls with multi-purpose spaces
. Simple circulation pattern to Multi-
Purpose and West garden area
$6,670,000 estimated cost
Cons
. Footprint of single-story building
requires additional site retaining wall
work to accommodate plan on north
side of creek
. Separate park toilet building requires
additional site work
. Fire department access requires
removal of existing tree / island
. Multi-Purpose rooms slightly removed
from main lobby area / not directly
visible
$6,770,000 estimated cost
Cons
. Footprint of single-story building
requires additional site retaining wall
work to accommodate plan on north
side of creek
. Separate park toilet building requires
additional site work
. Fire department access requires
removal of existing tree / island
. Does not allow for staff parking at
upper area
ATTACHMENT 10
"
Option 3
19,730 s.f.
Pros
. Bridge approach centered on
Conference Room as feature
. Allows for most parking and delivery
access at upper area
. Events room facing West captures park
/ creek views
. Two story plan reduces required hill
retaining wall work
. Preschool is completely separate
building and can be built as individual
phase
Option 4
17,240 s.f.
Pros
. Bridge approach centered on entry /
focal wall feature
. Allows for staff parking at upper area
. Events room facing West captures park
/ creek views
. Split building plan provides best
acoustical privacy between Preschool /
Community Center uses
. Preschool is completely separate
building and can be built as individual
phase
. Preschool is closer to parking areas for
better drop-off / pick-up of children
\ \on11
$7,325,000 estimated cost
Cons
. Two story plan creates need for
additional areas for circulation and
elevator / increases cost
. Lobby reception is removed from
administration areas / functions
. Multi-Purpose rooms removed from
lobby area
. Separate park toilet building requires
additional site work
. Fire department access requires
removal of existing tree / island
$6, 750,000 estimated cost
Cons
. Location of Preschool requires
relocation of existing public artwork
. Split building plan requires additional
cost in site infrastructure
. Site area at Preschool very limited in
size / little ability to modify plan
. Fire department access requires
removal of existing tree / island