Bolton Library Construction Committee Minutes
January 11, 2007
7:30pm – 10:00pm
Attendees:
Kelly Collins, Pam Czekanski, Brent Gates, Joel Lindsay, Roland Ochsenbein, John Rodenhiser, Chris Rogers, Mickie Simpson.
Absent:
Bill Strapko
Guests:
Hank Amabile, Ann Hurd~
· This was the fourth meeting of the newly formed construction committee. Roland Ochsenbein acting chair until committee organizes. John Rodenhiser recorded minutes.
· Minutes of 12/28 unanimously approved as submitted with no amendments or corrections.
· Roland read a letter from abutter Andrew Burnett (Attachment 1)
· Roland invited members of the “original” building committee (the LBPC-- Library Building Planning Committee) in for a “hand-off” discussion of the site plan and building program and layout. In addition to Roland and Kelly, former members Hank Amabile and Ann Hurd were present (Jim Flaherty unable to attend). The purpose of the discussion was to provide background on the original planning process including an overview of the development of the building program, site selection and qualification, site constraints as well as the thinking and rationale behind the decisions and choices in the creation of the the current design. The Committee walked through a
selection of the many design concepts and refinements (Attachment 2). Notes from the meeting with MBLC representative Anne Larsen describing the MBLC grant and architects’ review board comments were also reviewed. (Attachment 3) The former members of the LBPC emphasized that the current design is preliminary: it is a starting point, not the ending point and requires significant refinement incorporating feedback and new information that will be developed during the final design and engineering phases.
· A third draft of the Owner’s Project Manager RFP was circulated. This draft still requires work before being ready for a detailed review by the full LCC. Brent to circulate draft copies online to LCC.
· Further discussion related to the election of committee Chair/Vice Chair, or Co-Chairs, and recording secretary took place. Final decision postponed until full committee present and all members confirmed to have been sworn in by Town Clerk.
Next meetings: All at 7:30 pm at Town Hall
January 25 March 8
February 8 March 22
February 22
Advanced Tentative Agenda
Thursday, January 25, 2007
7:30 pm at Town Hall
7:30-7:35 ~~~~~~Minutes from 1/11: review, approve
7:35-8:15 ~~~~~~Information sharing with Police Station Task Force (Mark Giunta)
8:15-9:15 ~~~~~~Continue review of OPM RFP
9:15-9:30 ~~~~~~Other business:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-Draft agenda for meeting of 2/8
(Attachment 1-1)
January 8, 2007
Dear Library Construction Committee,
Unfortunately we are unable to attend tonight’s meeting but we would like the committee to know our opinion on the location of the parking lot. First we want you to know that we strongly support and have voted in favor of the library expansion as a necessary improvement to our town. Our only concern from the start has been the placement of the portion of the parking lot in the woods beyond the stone wall. We would like you to reconsider preserving the woods. Again, we have no other concerns regarding the library expansion other than the location of the parking lot.
Please feel free to contact us if you like to discuss this further.
Sincerely,
Andrew, Justine, and Marcia Burnett
(Attachment 2-1)
(Attachment 2-2)
(Attachment 2-3)
(Attachment 2-4)
(Attachment 2-5)
(Attachment 2-6)
(Attachment 3-1)
MBLC Grant Review Board Comments
Notes from 9/15/05 meeting with Anne Larsen of the MBLC
Anne congratulated us on an excellent grant application.
Out of a possible score of 250, the lowest any reviewer gave our app was 204--which she said is unusually high. The reviewers were extremely impressed with the overall package.
In reviewing the design, Anne stressed two things: 1) the comments shared with us were given by 2 or more reviewers, so they represent major concerns; and 2) comments are those of the reviewers, and she (and we) might not necessarily agree with them.
Major issues are security (esp. too many isolated places that are unsupervised and unsupervisable by staff), staffing (we didn't adequately explain how we will staff a much larger building with so many unsupervised areas), budget (questions about the quality of materials needed vs. the budget figures, which seem too low; issues with roofing materials and their cost; and not enough $ allocated for furniture); water in the basement (we didn't address remediation & preventive measures; there is concern about mold & its spread); lack of an asbestos survey; and fundraising (our goal seemed modest--though Anne reflected that it's better to be modest and surprised than ambitious and disappointed; and we should seek additional grants such as Kresge).
Specifics on the design:
Overall reviewers commented that the building and site presented a difficult challenge, and RFD did a very good job on design.
Concern that the design is perhaps too tentative and too respectful of the original building. Mention was made of the possibility of a wider link between old and new, possibly to the next bank of windows? Need a more substantial connection between old and new, which would also open up unsupervised areas in the old building.
First floor:
· PCs should be away from the entrance & nearer to Reference
· YA section is too far from the entrance, and too far from Reference
· Staff are too far away from PCs
· Director is hidden. Should be accessible/visible to the public
· Make the link between old and new more active
· Concern about noise and activity levels in YA area (Anne noted that she thinks the YA area is fine--near circ, which is an active area anyway, and can be supervised by staff)
· Design wasn't clear as to location of Large Print (we agreed that it will be w/periodicals, no?--but it wasn't marked on the drawings)
· New books are far from circ, and with no security gate & proximity to entrance they will be subject to theft
· Please, no drop-down grate to close off the main library from the lobby and meeting room; use doors w/glass instead.
· Staff in work area should not be positioned with their backs to the circ desk; should be looking out, so they can see when help is needed.
· No way for the staff to see inside the meeting room
· Why is staff toilet upstairs when most of staff is down?
(We noted problems with toilet opening into work room.)
· It appears that staff doesn't have enough room for storage of supplies
· Copier must be in a separate area & vented
· Do the public toilets meet code for meeting room capacity? Diaper changing areas should be illustrated. Toilets are far from most library activity.
(Attachment 3-2)
2nd floor:
· Major concerns about security as so many areas cannot be supervised.
· Maybe bring adult fiction upstairs, to introduce more activity there?
· Kids' circ desk has great view of children's area but not to the rest of the 2nd floor. Discussed possibility of seeing the desk when one gets to the top of the stairs/off the elevator--need a central location.
· Move story/craft area into the children’s area.
· Reviewers didn't like the entrance to the story/craft area via double doors off the hallway. Didn't like the long hallway either.
· Make the corridor a real connection between adult and kids' areas--adults should be able to see library staff upstairs.
· Children’s room: very nicely laid out, great visibility.
· Why more PCs for little kids than for bigger kids and YA?
· Questions about separate toilets for boys and girls: Why two? Can we get away with just one? (Anne said she likes the idea of two.
· Those of us who have cleaned up after little boys concurred.) Toilets should be closer to story/craft area.
· PCs in the 2nd floor study area are unsupervised. Provide privacy screens? Or relocate? Eliminate?
· Stressed again that the design must make staff much more visible to users, esp. on 2nd floor.
Parking area:
· If a driver comes in and all parking spots are filled, there is nothing to do but back out, which will be awkward & possibly dangerous. Some sort of turnaround is needed.
· The location of the handicapped parking means that handicapped people must walk across traffic to access the ramp and/or entrance.
· Can spaces be moved to the same side as the building? Perhaps on the circular drive?
· Concern that the ramp is too separate from the main entrance, possibly making handicapped people feel unequal
· Reviewers wondered if it might be possible to put an exit (one way traffic; not an entrance) through the fire station onto Wattaquadock Hill Rd. (Committee agreed that this is a good idea, but due to abutter concerns it should come from the fire chief and/or Planning Board, not from us.)
Basement:
· Put telecom equipment near the staff, which will actually be going into that area regularly--not in the basement.
· We asked Anne's advice about the basement. A member of the finance committee has stated that a full basement would increase our chances of getting (his) support, but he has also suggested that the basement be used for town storage needs and/or offices. Roland noted that we hadn't budgeted for excavating and finishing a full basement, and if done it would affect costs, need for parking, library operations, etc. Anne reviewed the Assurances and Certifications and advised us of the work involved (and possible loss of grant $) in making this a dual use project. The Committee agreed that the suggestion for a full basement must be addresses ASAP lest it take on a life of its
own.
Finally, Anne stressed that aside from the "too respectful, too tentative" narrow link between the old and new buildings, addressing most of the reviewers' concerns will involve moving things around within the walls, not a major rethink of the entire design.
| 
