Greenhouse and Classrooms Committee Summary September 22, 2008 

Summary of a design review meeting held at 3:30 pm on Monday, September 22, 2008 at Joliet Junior College. These notes record our understanding of items discussed and decisions made at this meeting.

The purpose of this meeting is to review floor plan options that include the Agriculture Department.

Attendance

• Gena Proulx - JJC
• Dave Agazzi - JJC
• Dennis Haynes - JJC
• Margaret Semmer - JJC
• Pat Van Duyne - JJC
• Richard T. Rivera - JJC
• Caryn Genens - JJC
• Jim Ethridge - JJC
• Bill Johnson - JJC
• Tammy Miller - JJC
• Doug Foss - JJC
• Mark Fuster - JJC
• Jeff Wessel - JJC
• Jeffrey Sronkoski - Legat Architects
• Jason Lembke - Legat Architects
• Rick Wise - Gilbane Construction Company

Items Discussed

1. Jason presented four floor plan options:
   1. Option 1:
      1. This option preserves the previous floor plan with minor reorganization of the service spaces and incorporates an addition to the North for the Ag spaces.
      2. A second office has been added for Ag.
      3. An Ag shop has been added (3,000 sf).
      4. An Ag classroom has been added (750 sf).
      5. The third greenhouse has been added as part of the base bid.
      6. The Ag classroom has a storage mezzanine in this option that's open to the Ag Shop. This will require a stair and wheel chair lift for access. Items being stored would have to be lifted in to place with a forklift or similar.
      7. The group discussed the number of entries and whether or not an entry could turn into a program space, such as office space. Jason indicated that it was possible in this plan to do so.
      8. Jim commented that there were scheduling conflicts (based upon the current schedule) created with three teaching spaces. The utilization of the proposed educational spaces will be high as a result.
      9. Dave asked about the adjacency of the Ag shop and classroom from a fire safety standpoint. Jason explained that the Ag shop, due to it's usage, would be separated by a fire resistive wall to protect the classroom.
      10. Cost was discussed. Rick explained that time didn't allow for detailed estimates in time for today's meeting. Jason showed an updated cost estimate for the previous plan (minus Ag) with and without LEED certification factored in. From this estimate the costs were extrapolated on an order of magnitude based upon $1.75 million for the Ag component. The total cost would be in the range of $5 million for a non-LEED certified building without mechanized roofs on the greenhouses. The cost rises to approximately $5.4 for LEED certification and mechanized roofs on the greenhouses. Costs will need to be verified once a scheme is selected.
      11. Gena asked about the budget. Jeff S. explained that Ag being relocated was a portion of a broader study for the Campus Center. The study took a look at four options for relocation. The feeling was that this may save money overall for the College while helping alleviate spatial constraints in the Campus Center. After Gilbane's estimates, the cost was actually a net add to the project. The Building and Grounds Committee will need to provide direction on how to proceed. The group felt that this was the best location for the Agriculture Department programmatically.
      12. Jeff Wessel asked questions about material choices and construction type. Jason explained the materials and construction for both the LEED and non LEED versions.
   2. Option 2:
      1. This option remains largely the same, except that the storage mezzanine is removed and the storage spaces are located on the main level. This is generally preferred by the group.
      2. This option is slightly less square footage, mostly due to the storage spaces being reduced in size from 750 sf to 642 sf.
      3. Cost was discussed in relative terms. Rick surmised that the cost would be slightly less given the reduction in square footage.
   3. Option 3:
      1. This option is the same as option 2, except the Ag shop has been reduced in size to 2,000 sf. Jeff S. explained that the size of the Ag shop was being studied at the time of the initial floor plan sketch and this option reflected a smaller shop as a result. Doug explained that he evaluated the requirements of the shop and needed 3,000 sf. Pat and Doug discussed the existing space and how much area exists today. The group decided 3,000 sf was the appropriate size.
   4. Option 4:
      1. This option is a reconfiguration of the plan. Jason explained that he wanted to approach the design from the beginning to analyze a "total building solution" rather than an "addition" to the previous plan.
      2. The corridor is now a "T" shape, in an effort to reduce travel distance.
      3. The entrance to the Ag shop is now on the south, rather than the west. Pat suggested that it should be moved back to the west. Jason said it could be and would study how best to rearrange the plan.
   5. Dennis led the group in a discussion of which option was preferred. After discussion, the consensus of the group was that Option 4 is best. Option 4 should be estimated and brought to the next Building and Grounds Committee meeting on September 30th at 4pm. Dave reiterated that this was a public meeting and that all were welcome to attend and provide opinions for the Committee to consider.

Respectfully Submitted,
LEGATArchitects
Jason Lembke, AIA