2011-06-09-PBC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PBC Meeting Minutes 09 June 2011 Meeting 4.0 Bridge & Bowman Renovation Projects 4.4 LEED Certification 12/14/10 The Project Architects outlined that LEED certification was not considered to be viable given the scope and nature of the proposed work at Bridge and Bowman and recommended against pursuing the certification. The School Principals' thought that the funding for LEED pursuits could be better suited to go towards items that will effect programming or educational issues. 4/14/11 LEED was discussed and it was agreed that work should focus on energy aspects and incorporate into the specs those items that can be incorporated in the spirit of LEED. Further that the last part of the last sentence of the LEED Ltr from DPC dated 23 November 2010, should be followed.... "... we suggest designing all systems within the current scope to a standard that would be required for LEED Certification but not add additional scope solely for the purposes of achieving certification. "And report back on what measures are being done. 4.8 DPC Project Update 5/12/11 Design Partnership provided a general overview of the project for 30% Design Development completion inclusive of expanded scope. Primary topics of discussion were floor plan approval, phasing plan for construction and Window patterns and schedule. At next meeting DPC will pin -up drawings for review and bring MEP Engineer. PBC would also like to review Division 1 specs 4.9 Approved Floor Plan 5/12/11 Carl O. had been provided with current design floor plans and reviewed with the principals the details of the design plans, to make recommendations back to the Architects on preferences or improvements to the plans to reflect final approved plans from the user. It was reported that the plan presented back to the architects were 95% and the remaining deviations would be minimal in nature such as the adjustment to a door swing or location based upon continued development of the project. 4.10 Phasing Plan 5/12/11 DPC presented a preliminary phasing plan that carries the majority of work over two summers with second shift work and weekend or school holiday work considered. Questions and concerns raised included: Was the estimate based on such a phasing plan, DPC confirmed yes. General concern over the ability of the contractor to complete the work in the time given Administrative section needs to be included in Phase 1 work. Are sufficient existing conditions surveys being completed to avoid delays and change orders during construction? A written narrative of the phasing plan was requested. 6/9/11 Concern was again discussed over the content and quality of the phasing plans and specs and additional information, Le more detailed plan, should be requested from DPC. DPF will follow up. 4.11 Window Patterns and Operation 5/12/11 DPC presented three window designs A, B and C. Architects like type C. Discussion followed. B has most operable units, A the least, Teachers and staff will want most operable units, why not Double Hung, DPC has safety concern on double hung, question on costs changes for operable units. Architects to report back at next meeting on costs of operable units. 6/9/11 Discussion on hung windows versus projecting windows. DPF to forward info on hung windows in Fiske and or Harrington. PBC requests cost options on double hung windows. Page 6 of 8