Loading...
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