HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 City Hall and Carter Building Plaza(s) AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 4/21/2014
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Jim Polston, DPW Staff Phone No: 541-736-7132
Estimated Time: 20 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Community and
Economic Development
and Revitalization ITEM TITLE: CITY HALL AND CARTER BUILDING PLAZA(S)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Two actions are requested: (1) City Council’s feedback on the proposed City Hall
plaza improvement design and, if appropriate, confirmed support in moving
forward to implement the City Hall plaza design as illustrated in Attachment 2 of this packet. (2) Council’s input and preferences on the identified low cost
improvements to the Carter Building parking lot for public open space use.
ISSUE STATEMENT: Based on feedback received from the City Council during the December 2nd Work Session, staff has developed the attached City Hall plaza design. Also attached is a
list of potential, complimentary improvements to be discussed for the adjacent Carter area building lot and parking lot areas. Presentations of possible
beautification improvement opportunities will be made for both areas. Staff will
also discuss the Winter storm damage assessment of the City Hall plaza.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Hall and Carter Area Plaza(s) Council Briefing Memo
2. City Hall Plaza Revised Design & Damage Assessment
3. Carter Building Area Plaza Improvement Costs
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
Direction was received from Council during the December 2nd Work Session
regarding further design modifications to be incorporated into the City Hall entry
and plaza redesign. Staff has included these changes in the design presented as Attachment 2.
Since the December Work Session, two winter storm events have caused further damage to the City Hall plaza and entry area. This damage includes significant
cracking and spalling to concrete surfaces originally planned to be incorporated in
the project design to save cost. The updated design for the beautification of the City Hall plaza area now assumes that the damaged concrete will also be repaired as part
of this project. The original budget for the City Hall Plaza project is $60,000 and
the estimate for the damaged concrete repair is an additional $27,000. The plaza project is currently funded through the combination of CDBG and Building
Preservation monies. Funding to address the concrete surface areas damaged this winter can also come from Internal Building Preservation funds through cost savings realized on current year preservation projects and deferring signage and
wayfinding projects that are lower in priority and not ready for implementation. This would not impair critical projects.
In addition to the City Hall plaza and entry repair and design work, a list of possible Carter Building area improvement activities, and associated costs, is provided in
Attachment 3. Some of these activities are already scheduled to occur as part of the
Springfield High School Day of Caring event. In order to fund Council’s preferred list
of improvements DPW believes we can reduce the cost of a Fire Station paving project by use of our own forces. This approach could allow us to reprioritize $10K to $15K towards these improvements.
See attached Council Briefing Memo for further discussion.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 4/21/2014
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
To: Gino Grimaldi
From: Len Goodwin DPW Director
Jim Polston, DPW
Subject: CITY HALL AND CARTER BUILDING PLAZA(S)
ISSUE: Based on feedback received from Council during the December 2nd Work Session, staff has developed the attached City Hall plaza design. Also attached is a list of potential,
complimentary improvements to be discussed for the adjacent Carter area building lot and parking lot areas. Presentations of possible beautification improvement opportunities will be made for both areas. Staff will also discuss the Winter storm damage assessment of the City Hall
plaza.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
BACKGROUND:
Staff have been working with Council on various plaza concepts for downtown Springfield over
the last couple of years. Two of these projects include the renovation/upgrade of the plaza area
around City Hall Centennial Fountain and finding better ways to enable use of the open area
around the Carter Building for plaza type activities. At the December 2nd Work Session
Council provided direction for further design modifications to be incorporated into the City Hall
entry and plaza project. Staff was instructed to consider alternatives to artificial turf, softer
materials for the fountain surround and a memorial location. Staff has included these changes
in the design presented as Attachment 2. At the direction of Council, staff has also prepared a
list of different elements for possible use in improving both aesthetics and functionality of the
area around the Carter building. This is provided in Attachment 3. Council directions are
included in bold in this memo with discussion following each.
Since the December Work Session, two Winter storm events have caused further damage to the
City Hall plaza and entry area. This damage includes significant cracking and spalling to
concrete surface areas originally planned to be salvaged for cost savings. The updated design
for the beautification of the City Hall plaza area now assumes that the damaged concrete will
also be repaired as part of this project. Staff has provided examples and assessment of necessary
plaza area repair. The original budget for the City Hall Plaza project is $60,000 and the estimate
for the damaged concrete repair is an additional $27,000. The plaza project is currently funded
through the combination of CDBG and Building Preservation monies. Funding to address the
concrete surface areas damaged this winter can also come from Internal Building Preservation
funds through cost savings realized on current year preservation projects and deferring signage
and wayfinding projects that are lower in priority. This would not impair critical projects.
Look for alternatives to the artificial turf, such as pavers with some type of plant in the spaces for drainage and look at options for around the fountain which would provide a softer landing than concrete for young children playing in the area.
Attachment 2 - 1
A number of items and materials were considered and the merits of each were evaluated. The
evaluation criteria are provided below. Staff believes the design in Attachment 2 utilizes the
best combination of materials using concrete to replace the damaged exposed aggregate,
synthetic lumber in seating and accent areas and a rubberized surface for creating a softer play
area around the fountain.
Concrete
PROS CONS
● Durable and long lasting ● No impact absorption
● Medium installation costs ● Impervious surface
● Low maintenance needs ● Limited design options
● Firm, stable and slip resistant
Stamped and/or colored concrete
PROS CONS
● Durable and long lasting ● No impact absorption
● Extensive design options ● High installation costs
● Low maintenance needs ● Impervious surface
● Firm, stable and slip resistant
Stamped & Colored Asphalt
PROS CONS
● Durable material ● Low impact absorption
● Extensive design options ● High installation costs
● Moderate maintenance needs ● Impervious surface
● Firm, stable and slip resistant
Pervious Concrete or Asphalt
PROS CONS
● Durable and long lasting ● No impact absorption
● Moderate maintenance needs ● High installation costs
● Firm, stable and slip resistant ● Limited design options
● Pervious surface ● Surface finish has a very course look
Interlocking concrete paving units
PROS CONS
● Durable and long lasting ● No impact absorption
● Extensive design options ● High installation costs
● Low maintenance needs
● Pervious surface (spaces between units)
● Firm, stable and slip resistant
Synthetic lumber
PROS CONS
● Durable material ● Low impact absorption
● Extensive design options ● Medium-high installation costs
● Firm, stable and slip resistant
● Moderate maintenance needs
● Pervious surface (spaces between units)
Rubber surfaces (poured in place or tiles)
PROS CONS
● High impact absorption ● Medium-High installation costs
Attachment 2 - 2
● Available in a variety of colors
● Extensive design options ● Durable but life expectancy unknown
● Pervious surface ● Moderate maintenance needs
● Firm, stable and slip resistant
Plantings (groundcover, low shrubs, flowers)
PROS CONS
● High impact absorption ● Lower durability
● Extensive design options ● Moderate-high maintenance needs
● Low-Medium installation costs ● Not for walking on (susceptible to
● Pervious surface mud and rutting)
Natural grass
PROS CONS
● High impact absorption ● Moderate-high maintenance needs
● Low installation costs ● Susceptible to mud and rutting
● Pervious surface ● Lower durability
● Limited design options
Keep a place for honoring community members
A location for this feature has been maintained through all of the design iterations and has been
retained in the design shown in Attachment 2 along with a sketch that better illustrates the
concept. While this project will construct the base location for the “memorial,” funding is not
identified in this project for the actual design or installation of any of the honorary or memorial
plaques or signage.
Bring a list of different possible treatments to the area around the Carter Building
and their associated costs.
Attachment 3 is a spread sheet which gives Council a few options for improvements to both the
building itself and its parking lot and existing courtyard area.
The list is intended to allow Council the ability to pick and choose any quantity of a particular item or any quantity and combinations of several items. Costs for these items varies greatly, ranging from “free” (Staff can absorb or has already absorbed them into existing budgets) to
very expensive. In order to fund Council’s preferred list of improvements DPW believes we can reduce the cost of a Fire Station paving project by use of our own forces. This approach could allow us to reprioritize $10K to $15K towards these improvements.
Per Council’s direction, staff has brought the above options and recommendations back for
discussion; including a Council requested progression of design options (Attachment 2).
Staff will meet with any Councilor fifteen minutes prior to this work session who wishes to walk
through the project on site to help give a clear picture of both the existing conditions and where
proposed design features might be placed.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Two actions are requested: (1)Council’s feedback on the
proposed City Hall plaza improvement design and, if appropriate, confirmed support in moving
forward to implement the City Hall plaza design as illustrated in Attachment 2 of this packet.
(2) Council’s input and preferences on the identified low cost improvements to the Carter
Building parking lot for public open space use.
Attachment 2 - 3
City Hall Plaza Redesign
Jim Polston, DPW
City Council
April 21, 2014
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 19
RECOMMENDED DESIGN BASED ON COUNCIL FEEDBACK
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 19
STAIRWAY ENTRY DESIGN CONCEPT
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 19
CONCEPT DRAWING OF STAIRWAY ENTRY DESIGN
Notes:
•Picture taken from door of second floor library elevator
•Does not interrupt stair traffic to and from City Hall
•While shown as ‘raised deck’ – could also be done ‘at grade’
utilizing different colors/textures
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 19
Plaza condition assessment
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 19
CITY HALL PLAZA WEATHER DAMAGE
•Cracking and spalling of concrete originally
intended for salvage in design
•Exposed aggregate surface
•Lifting concrete
•Damaged trees
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 19
This slide shows examples of some of the typical issues originally
planned for correction as part of the plaza upgrade project.
Many of the “bad” areas were intended to be cut out and replaced with new
materials.
This was to both create a newer more interesting appearance to the plaza and
correct problem areas.
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 19
Recent changes
to the City Hall
Plaza as a result
of age, finish &
this winter’s
severe conditions
Exposed
aggregate
surface in fair
condition.
Poor exposed
aggregate
surface as a
result of severe
freezing and
thawing.
*Note the uneven
surface and missing
aggregate. This
condition will only
get worse as these
areas now hold
more water & are
more susceptible to
freeze/thaw cycles.
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 19
This slide shows a large area of paving that was intended to remain in
all of the designs Council has seen.
Winter has taken its toll on the paving and staff no longer believes it is
wise to save the existing paving, for aesthetic, structural and/or safety
reasons.
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 19
Examples of deteriorating landscape
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 19
Material Evaluation
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 19
Concrete
PROS
● Durable and long lasting
● Medium installation costs
● Low maintenance needs
● Firm stable and slip resistant
CONS
● No impact absorption
● Impervious surface
● Limited design options
Stamped and/or colored concrete
PROS
● Durable and long lasting
● Extensive design options
● Low maintenance needs
● Firm stable and slip resistant
CONS
● No impact absorption
● High installation costs
● Impervious surface
Stamped & Colored Asphalt
PROS
● Durable material
● Extensive design options
● Moderate maintenance needs
● Firm stable and slip resistant
CONS
● Low impact absorption
● High installation costs
● Impervious surface
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 19
Pervious Concrete or Asphalt
PROS
● Durable and long lasting
● Moderate maintenance needs
● Firm stable and slip resistant
● Pervious surface
CONS
● No impact absorption
● High installation costs
● Limited design options
● Surface finish has a very course look
Interlocking concrete paving units
PROS
● Durable and long lasting
● Extensive design options
● Low maintenance needs
● Pervious surface (spaces)
● Firm stable and slip resistant
CONS
● No impact absorption
● High installation costs
Synthetic lumber
PROS
● Durable material
● Extensive design options
● Firm stable and slip resistant
● Moderate maintenance needs
● Pervious surface
CONS
● Low impact absorption
● Medium-high installation costs
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 19
Rubber surfaces
(poured in place or tiles)
PROS
● High impact absorption
● Available in a variety of colors
● Extensive design options
● Pervious surface
● Firm stable and slip resistant
CONS
● Medium-High installation costs
● Moderate maintenance needs
● Durable but life expectancy unknown
Plantings
(groundcover, low shrubs, flowers)
PROS
● High impact absorption
● Extensive design options
● Low-Medium installation costs
● Pervious surface
CONS
● Lower durability
● Moderate-high maintenance needs
● Not for walking on (susceptible to
mud and rutting)
Natural grass
PROS
● High impact absorption
● Low installation costs
● Pervious surface
CONS
● Moderate-high maintenance needs
● Limited design options
● Susceptible to mud and rutting
● Lower durability
Attachment 2, Page 14 of 19
Design progression
Attachment 2, Page 15 of 19
PLAZA DESIGN
DRAFT 1-A
Attachment 2, Page 16 of 19
PLAZA DESIGN
DRAFT 1-B
Attachment 2, Page 17 of 19
PLAZA DESIGN
DRAFT 2
Attachment 2, Page 18 of 19
RECOMMENDED DESIGN BASED ON COUNCIL FEEDBACK
QUESTIONS?
Attachment 2, Page 19 of 19
CARTER BUILDING "PUBLIC SPACE" OPTIONS
Location Project Cost Comment
COMPLETED OR SCHEDULED WORK
Remove deteriorating curb $0.00 Completed by staff
Capture space with curb blocks $350.00 Completed by staff
Power wash pavement $0.00 Completed by staff
Windows wash (SHS Day of Caring) $0.00 Scheduled for spring
Mulch Planters (SHS Day of Caring) $200.00 Scheduled for spring
Weeding and pruning $500.00 Scheduled for spring
COURTYARD AREA
Portable Benches $2,000.00 $400 each
Portable Picnic Tables $2,400.00 $800 each
Decorative Pavement coatings $7,000.00 Entire courtyard
PARKING LOT
Restripe pavement markings $465.00 47 spaces
Crack seal lot cracks $500.00 Entire lot
Seal Coat and Strip lot $3,100.00 Entire lot
Electric service - Spider boxes $5,000.00 $2,500 each
1.5" Asphalt overlay $18,000.00 Entire lot
Decorative Street Lighting $24,000.00 $6,000 each
4" Mill and overlay $50,000.00 Entire lot
Parking lot reconstruction $200,000.00 Entire lot
CARTER BUILDING
Wash windows $250.00
Partial painted building (alley side) $1,000.00 Paint and supplies
Electric service - Spider boxes $2,500.00 $2,500 each
Improved Decorative Lighting on Building $4,000.00 $1,000 each
Painted building $15,000.00 Entire Bldg.
Attachment 3