Library Construction Committee MINUTES
Thursday, November 8, 2007
7:30 PM at Town Hall
~
Present: Kathy Bartels, John Christiansen, Kelly Collins, Pam Czekanski, Drayton Fair, Brent Gates, Joel Lindsay, Richard Marks, Roland Ochsenbein, John Rodenhiser, Chris Rogers, Mickie Simpson.
Absent: Bill Strapko
Also present: Chris Sterling, Bob Zak, Michelle Tuck.
A quorum being assembled, Roland called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
The committee voted to approve minutes from two previous meetings (Motion: Collins, Second: Czekanski; unanimous in favor.)
The Architects, Drayton Fair and Kathy Bartels, discussed their work on the project since our last meeting. Hancock Associates supplied Lerner | Ladds + Bartels with an electronic file containing the site survey. L|L + B has also scanned original blueprints and other documents provided by the library trustees.
The survey and existing schematics present the architects with many challenges, notably:
· The design shows the building slightly over the lot line + 20’ setback.
· Problems with building massing
· Size of the program room
· Slope and character of the plot
· Parking, which continues beyond the stone wall to a location remote from the proposed entrance
The Architects showed drawings of the following ideas and possible solutions:
· Pull the building back from the lot line so that it complies with a 20’ setback
· Make the addition narrower (26’) and include one-story bump-outs for a program room and storytime/craft room
· Main parking area in front of the stone wall
· An opening in the stone wall, and “event parking” in a connecting lot
· A glass connection between the old and new buildings, giving the effect of a conservatory
· Entrance at grade, between the two buildings
· Omission of any ramp to the entrance
The committee discussed the 1903 building’s entrance in light of ADA requirements and historical and security considerations. There are four options for treatment of this entrance, as follows:
· Lock it up and don’t use it at all
· Bury the foundation
· Request a variance
· Build a ramp
Richard Marks noted that getting a hearing with the Architectural Access Board takes a long time. Regarding the original entrance, the committee gave these instructions to the Architects:
· Plan A: design so that our progress doesn’t hinge on getting a variance
· Plan B: request a variance
The architects noted that the roof line and rear dormers pose particular challenges to the design of the connection. Moving the addition closer to the original means trying to wrap a new roof around the dormers. The architects envision attaching to the middle (largest) dormer with “a light touch,” perhaps a glass piece that would give the effect of a conservatory.
The architects showed the attached ideas for floor plans.
They noted that, for structural and cost reasons, the vault would likely not be removed. The current restroom may be able to be removed.
Initial reactions to the architects’ presentation included the following:
· John R. does not favor locating children’s services on the ground floor, saying this layout is an inconvenience to adult library users and spreads their collections out too much.
· Pam and Brent stated their support for children’s services on the first floor. Michelle Tuck, who was also present, agreed. All three cited their preference for maximizing convenience to those with children, and keeping kids away from the stairs and elevator.
· Kelly is concerned about staffing issues around locating the two main service hubs (circulation and children’s) next to each other on the ground floor, which leaves little or no staff on the second floor. She noted that the trustees’ service plan does not include hiring the reference librarian shown on the second floor, and that funding for additional staff is not guaranteed. The study shows one service hub on each floor.
· Roland asked what materials would be used for the exterior. Reply: similar to the original.
· Roland wondered what happened to the idea of an addition that wraps around the 1903 building, with three links (under each dormer). LLB noted that this presents practical problems with the roofline.
· Kelly and Roland both asked about the roofline of the addition, which is shown above the roofline of the 1903 building. The previous committee and architects worked at length to make the roofline of the addition the same as, or lower than, the 1903.
· Kelly is concerned that locating a/v materials in the east room is an opportunity for theft. Richard noted that theft of DVDs has been a problem at his most recent library project, the Charlton Public Library. Kelly also noted that these diagrams don’t show Large Print, a growing collection given an aging population.
· Mickie asked for clarification on the location of computers: would they be in a central spot, or at various locations? Reply: it’s too early for a definitive answer. We anticipate that the new library will be wireless.
· Several committee members commented about the proximity of the young adult and children’s areas, noting that YAs usually want and need to be separate from children and closer to adult and reference materials.
· Regarding parking, John R. raised the issue of abutter concerns and the threat of lawsuit(s). Others on the committee were not as concerned about this. John’s concerns remain.
· Kelly noted that the proposed parking layout doesn’t address the grant reviewers’ concern that there is no turnaround at the end should a driver find that the lot is full. She also asked that the architects review the proximity of the handicapped spaces to the entrance, and take into account the multiple delivery vehicles that need easy access to the entrance.
· Regarding the location of a reading garden in front of the library, Kelly reminded the architects that Rte. 117 is very noisy, which might affect users’ enjoyment of the garden.
The committee asked the architects to prepare the following for the next meeting:
· Drawings showing two options for location of parking
· Two versions of a floor plan showing children’s services up, and down.
The chair recognized Richard Marks, who announced the following:
· He asked Jodi Ross to forward the architects’ contract to Town Counsel for comment. The contract won’t be finalized in time for the Selectmen’s meeting on November 15 and he is now targeting November 29.
· Due to personnel changes, the civil engineer LLB listed in their proposal (Jim Devellis of Stantec) won’t be available. Richard and Drayton are exploring the idea of having Chris Garcia of GGD to perform this work. Chris is qualified to do so. This is a modification of L|L+B’s proposed team.
· We’ll have to find a landscape architect.
· We need to get going on water issues. By DEP standards, the current well is nonconforming and can’t be used. Options: 1) locate the well in the proposed location, which will require an adjustment to the Public Safety Building’s parking (a loss of several parking spaces); 2) share a well with the PS building. This is likely the best option but will take a couple more of their parking spaces; or 3) an offsite well of our own, which will be an added expense.
Richard noted that he’d like to bring Chris McClure, P.E., to the team to work on water issues. The committee endorsed this. Richard will invite Chris to our next meeting.
The Town has asked our committee to allocate $50K of the project budget to the force main. The committee approved (motion: Brent; second, Pam; unanimous in favor)
Richard explored how best to run the project, noting that evening meetings are hard on the team. He recommends daytime working sessions. Several committee members agreed that this is a good idea, while others stated they’d never be available for daytime meetings but still want to be part of the process. Richard explained that no major decisions would be made at these meetings; they are intended to give the architect direction and drive the project forward by working through mundane issues. John R. remains concerned about a suggestion (made at a previous meeting) that the daytime committee consist of only three committee members. Discussion revealed that the majority of committee members would be available at least some of the time. The committee tentatively agreed to hold these meetings,
which will be posted, and which will be open to any committee members available to attend. Those who attend won’t be designated an official subcommittee. Tentative day is alternate Mondays, and location is the library.
Richard recommends starting electrical and mechanical design right away.
Drayton requested a couple of weeks until the next meeting, saying that he would need time to digest this meeting’s comments.
Richard recommends setting up a series of one-on-one or small group meetings of “stakeholders” and the architect. Suggested attendees: the library staff, Friends, historical committee, police and fire personnel, capital campaign leaders. Kelly will draft a list and circulate, asking for suggestions.
At some future date we should have presentations to the Selectmen and Building Inspector, and also an open house.
Our next meetings will be on November 29 and December 13, both at 7:30 p.m. Day meetings are TBA.
There being no other business, Roland adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Collins
Director of the Library
| 
