05/09/2005 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Special Council Minutes 5/9/OS Page 3 green space was very limited. What we ended up doing from here was we then looked for additional parcels and we tried to pull everything and stretch it out a little bit. Our building heights that are designed right here which are in the reddish color are the same height you currently see at Campus 2. Then the center part which is the yellow is our amenity functions which would be our dining areas, our lcitchen and loading docks; our training and conference room areas as well our reception areas and our Fitness Center. What we didn't want to do is we didn't want to create a sea of parking. What we did was we tried to balance the site so we had a service parking lot and we incorporated parking structures. The parking structures are the green.......... areas. We also tried to optimize the view, not only for Progressive but as well as the surrounding areas. And that we could have good visuals of just scenery, a park, wetlands. That is kind of how the whole building got positioned; we wanted to take advantage of lessons learned on Campus 2 design regarding sun exposures as well as regarding the winds that come off from the west. This is kind of how this one got tilted as well as we wanted to be able to create a celebrated entrance so people would know that the main entry was at the front. What we also knew was we wanted to keep a buffer behind the residents. What we are kind of looking at now is kind of maintaining that area more as a conservation--trees; possibly even do a wetlands in there. We also brought a larger view of the design. Council President Buckholtz asked, back to the other picture that you just showed us, do you have the other one that was the first way you were going to have the building? Ms. Royle said I did not bring that one with me tonight. Actually this concept that we kind of all approved and felt it was a good solution-it was actually Concept 7. So we have been through 6 other reiterations of this plan. A lot it was lessons learned; a lot of it was just trying to balance it so it took advantage of views and integrated it into the neighborhood area. Council President Buckholtz said the only reason I ask is I think many of us were impressed with the difference because the previous rendition of the campus would have been an enormous amount of concrete or asphalt parking surface and when you turned it the way you turned it, you were able to alleviate that. Ms. Royle said the original Concept 1 that we had designed had the same amount of square footage. It hardly had any green space. It had building heights going up to at least 6-7 stories. The parking structure had to go up at least 5 to 6 stories. The mass of the buildings just became very massive and kind of threw off the balance of the site. We actually did 2 concepts kind of trying to fit those requirements within the Goldberg parcels and we still, no matter how we tried to map it out on that site, we still started to create very concrete building masses and the lack of green. Then what we did is we went through 2 other reiterations of the drawings with the parcel that is Costanzo's parcel and what we ended up finding out is that by being able to stretch things out, the height of the buildings started to come down. Really, at the point of where we got to Concept 7 was just addressing some of issues with Progressive. We were trying to look at sustainable concepts as well as energy programs so that is why we want to make sure we could position buildings to maximize sun exposures and the same thing with winds. Outdoors, we didn't want to create a sea of cars; we wanted to incorporate more green into the facility. We have actually learned quite a bit from the campuses that we have already created to make improvements to this new campus.