Loading...
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