UO Student Recreation Center

Project User Group (PUG) Meeting 3A – 11/15/11

Program Development

User Group:	Dennis Munroe	UO	PE & Rec	present

Mike Eyster	UO	Student Affairs	present

Bryan Haunert	UO	PE & Rec	present

Brent Harrison	UO	PE & Rec	present

Sue Wieseke	UO	PE & Rec	present

Geoff Hale	Student	SRC Advisory Bd	present

Michelle Vander Heyden	Student	ASUO	present

Derick Olsen	Student	SRC Student Emp

Kristen Gleason	UO	Club Sports	present

Jen Phillips	UO	Neuroscience	present

Julie Haack	UO	Chemistry	present

Rob Thallon	UO	Architecture	present

Support	Gene Mowery	UO	Planning	present

Emily Eng	UO	Planning	present

Charlene Lindsay	UO	FS Cap Con	present

Design	Jack Patton	RDG	Architect	present (by remote 1st half)

Team	Jeff Schaub	RDG	Architect	present

Michael Andresen	RDG	Energy	present

Justin Platts	RDG	Landscape	present

Otto Poticha	Poticha	Architect	present

Carl Sherwood	RSA	Architect	present

Dave Guadagni	RSA	Architect	present

Matt Koehler	CM	Landscape	present

Charlie Brown	ESBL	Energy	present (1st half)

Guests	Peg Rees	UO	PE & Rec	present

MEETING MINUTES

Diagrams and other visual information presented at this workshop and noted below are available at the UO project web site: http://pages.uoregon.edu/eeng/src.html

Dennis noted that a student steering committee is being formed and will join user group as non-voting members.

Jack Patton (by remote conferencing) reviewed priority list, program elements, program / budget summary, and particularly noted the following:

$35 million is our target construction budget.

The cost of the key program elements is up to about $37 million so we are over budget but not by much.

This cost includes about 88,000 sf of new functional space. This equates to about 121,000 sf of total space when support space such as circulation, mechanical, wall thickness are added in. We are calculating about $260/sf. In addition there is the Leighton pool decommissioning along with other interior and exterior improvements that are essential and a 10% design contingencies for items that are currently unknown but will be required. Renovation and upgrades to Esslinger and the existing SRC are not included.

This cost model does not include a cost reduction for an outdoor pool nor does it include possible costs associated with moving program elements into the existing locker rooms.

The program now has more pool lanes than suggested by earlier studies and money can be saved by reducing the number of lanes. The group decided to eliminate the 4 lap lanes from the Leisure pool so long as water volley ball can still be accommodated. The group would like to keep the small lap pool at 6 lanes and the larger lap pool at a minimum of 8 lanes. If there is an outdoor pool it should be the smaller lap pool.

The program calls for a wet classroom to serve 200. The group confirms that this is incorrect and this classroom only needs to serve 40 people. This will reduce costs.

A hot tub is in the budget but a sauna or steam room is not. Dennis noted that a steam room is easier to maintain than a sauna.

Pro-shop will not be a separately staffed browsing area and needs to combine with membership services or some other manned program space. 100 sf of Pro-shop storage will still be required.

The large Group Ex space only needs to accommodate 50 persons, not 83 as noted in program.

Some gang showers at locker rooms are OK.

Social spaces should be spread throughout building.

Dennis would like to see a large social space with TV by the entry. It could be a future Pro-shop location.

Michael Andresen led a discussion on sustainability.

In response to Michael’s question: what single word captures the idea of sustainability? The group responded with: Future, Saving energy, Mother Nature, Stewardship, Efficiency, Innovation, Comfort, and Making Something that Matters.

The program does not include photovoltaics in the project but it does include a green roof.

There is a state of Oregon requirement for using solar energy (1.5% of construction cost).

The group will need to make choices about where to spend money on sustainability items.

There is a need to determine with the City / Fire Marshall whether the existing fire lane between the SRC addition and the Tennis Center will be required. This item will be included as an agenda item for the Limited Consultation meeting the team plans to have with the Eugene Building Department.

The Design Team presented and discussed new options 5, 6 and 7. Colored blocks representing major program elements were used on a site model to explore the 3 dimensional implications of each option.

The new Scheme 5 with 2 indoor pool and 1 outdoor pool all at field level with gym above was reviewed:

Stacking locker rooms are OK if they separate wet and dry lockers and have an internal circulation system.

Existing Esslinger weight and mat rooms are replaced.

Natatorium is only 14’ tall which is not enough height.

Need robust outdoor space. Must be connected to pools if used for sunbathing. Privacy for sunbathing is an issue. A buffer could be created but then the buffer creates separation of outdoor spaces from Natatorium.

The outdoor pool is not working in this scheme. Not worth it if it does not get good sun exposure. The outdoor pool in this scheme could be moved indoors but would still need an associated outdoor space. Possible use of barn doors to create indoor/outdoor connection.

Central pathway connects to east and to south with main floor bridging over to connect to Esslinger

This scheme has the most compact plan along with the most room for future growth to the south.

The new Scheme 6 with 3 indoor pools at field level and fitness and gym above

Only east light at Natatorium and not much opportunity for outdoor connection. Look at moving pools more to southeast.

Possibility of expanded track around new gym.

Future growth to the south with Group ex at field level and Mac Courts above. These should probably be flipped due to sound issues at Group-ex below gym.

The new Scheme 7 with a 2 pool Natatorium at field level, a large fitness area and overlook into Natatorium at main level, gym at Track level and third pool on roof.

Group concerned about both mechanical issues and supervision issues with roof top pool. Might be OK if locker room is vertically connected to the roof level.

A very large fitness area at main level might contain some group-ex spaces.

Locker rooms are split between field and main levels.

There is a deep triangular outdoor space separating pools from existing bonus room that allows for an east entry closer to control. This minimizes the length of the lower level hall and adds some daylight and views into the Natatorium from the north. There is a concern that this slot is covered by the floor above and would not receive any sunlight other than east morning light.

Future growth area is to the south and has the MAC Courts below other activity spaces

In all schemes there is a concern for control of east light. This might require the use of blinds or other shading devices.

The use of student staff to physically manipulate windows, blinds or other items in order to minimize the need for electronic controls is a possibility.

Design team needs to remember there is bike parking requirements.

In summary:

Group wants to have free zone Main Street connected from main north entry to both the south end and east field level.

There should only be 1 point of control even if it means bridging over to connect to Esslinger now. Future Esslinger renovation might change how connection works.

Pool is OK at any level so long as it is a tall volume space with good daylight.

Outdoor pool is not necessary. Consider the possibility of basting (shallow) pool.

Gym can be at any level so long as quiet zones are not compromised.

Stacking wet/dry lockers connected by internal circulation is OK

All lockers on lower field level are OK if pool is at that level.

End of Report