August 4, 2004

Lea,

As I won't be able to attend this weeks meeting, I wanted to give you my thoughts on the options under consideration.

First, I agree with Jim's comments that any option involving substantial rehab is inherently riskier than new construction and will not allow the committee the degree of control over design, energy conservation, and cost a new building has.  Therefore, for this and many other reasons, my vote is for option 3G.

I spent time on Sunday walking the site and I have the following observations.

I have not reviewed the existing plans, but the top of the hill adjacent to the neighbors' boundary line is filled with sewer manholes.  I don't know what they are for, but I assume Turner is aware of their purpose and has included utility relocation or replacement in their numbers.

In addition, I believe the existing grade at the property line at the top of the hill is approximately 15' above the grade of the Arts Building.  The grade of the Field House appears to be 6' lower than this.  As HMFH considers new construction options, I do not know which datum(s) they are assuming for the floor elevations of a new building, but a new 2 story building at the higher of the two would have a flat roof elevation appx. 24-26' feet above the base grade, or the building mass would appear to be 9' to11' above the neighbors yard grade at the high point, or 3' to 5' if the lower datum is used.

In either case, I would suggest that HMFH consider creative ways to use the excess site material created by any proposed excavation for berming around play fields or other functional/interesting site features.

I also believe a minimum setback from the property boundary of approximately 100' is appropriate.  This would allow for a 20' screen planted edge at the top of the slope, and a max. 3 to 1 graded slope down to the new construction, and a flat apron to a new building more than adequate to contain a fire lane.  This would obviate the need for retaining walls, and offer the neighbors enhanced privacy.  I suggest any screen planting should be no more than 6' high, to maintain the west light into the abuttors' yards and not close them in. Just a subjective comment.

I also suggest any entry drives or roadways attempt to meet similar setback requirements, as the grades all along that boundary are steep.

The plan that shows the playfield in the front yard of the new construction option 3G I also think could be problemmatic.  The parking seems very remote, and the open space created by 3G might be better consolidated in a more remote location, with parking more convenient to the main entrance. It would also allow for significant tree coverage in front of the building, lowering any cooling demand at mid seasons.

Steve also suggested the plan could be bifurcated at the "knuckle" to allow free access through the campus to the play fields and to break up the mass of the building. I strongly urge investigating this option further.

I am unsure how HMFH plans on connecting to the Field House.  It would seem that bringing a full two story mass up to the Field House structure is difficult architecturally, and I'm sure they can talk about this later.  However, I would be interested in their thoughts, as the grade of the Field House is significantly lower than the balance of the existing campus, and it would seem the Field House, as a form and structure, wants to be set back from, with maybe a low, single story connection that tucks under the existing eave line.

Lastly (and this may seem very premature), but I recall some very early comments from somewhere concerning a desire to avoid flat roofs, and to consider pitched roofs to mitigate long term maintenance problems.  The committee should discuss this soon if Option 3G is selected, as the plans are heavily impacted if a pitched roof solution is preferred.

Sorry for all the proscriptive comments, and these are obviously refinements of the 3G option, but I wanted to offer my observations before they escape me. However, it may also be that a partial response to some of these issues will inform conceptual planning and budgeting.  I would suggest that HMFH not spend too much time refining Option 3 until the full list of HSBC comments can be garnered.

Good luck and I know the committee will consider the Options carefully.

Steve Tise