BEACH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FEASIBILITY STUDY Presentation to Calvert - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
beach elementary school feasibility study presentation to
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

BEACH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FEASIBILITY STUDY Presentation to Calvert - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 01, 2023 287 likes •613 views

BEACH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FEASIBILITY STUDY Presentation to Calvert County Board of Education February 7, 2019 FEASIBILITY STUDY Process Step 1: Information Gathering & Evaluation Compare Existing Building Program vs. Project Goals

slide-1
SLIDE 1

BEACH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FEASIBILITY STUDY Presentation to Calvert County Board of Education

February 7, 2019

slide-2
SLIDE 2

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Process

Step 1: Information Gathering & Evaluation

  • Compare Existing Building Program vs. Project Goals & Ed Spec
  • Evaluate Existing Building Issues
  • Code Analysis / Review
  • Building Specific Diagrams
  • Site Plan Analysis

Step 2: Concept Design

  • Proposed Concept Bubble Diagrams Depicting General Planning

Concepts

  • Committee Input is Applied to Diagrams
  • Combinations of Preferred Features
  • Incorporated of New Committee Input
  • Development of Refined Approaches

Step 3: Development of Plan Options

  • Concepts are refined into Formal Plan Approaches and Technically

Scrutinized

  • Engineering Disciplines are Applied
  • Code Compliance
  • Cost Estimating
  • Sustainability, Energy Conservation & Life Cycle Cost Analysis
  • Construction Schedule, Duration, and Phasing Plan

Step 4: Technical Report Preparation

  • Prepare Board of Education Presentation and Brochures
  • Prepare IAC Feasibility Study Submission
slide-3
SLIDE 3

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Stakeholder Advisory Group

  • The study is the result of it’s collaborative process
  • Thank you to the members of the Stakeholder Advisory

Group for dedicating your time, knowledge, and efforts into this process

  • Dr. Michael Shisler, Principal, Beach Elementary School
  • Casey Grenier, Teacher, Beach Elementary School
  • Gwen Redden Henderson, Parent, Beach Elementary School
  • Mary Sterling, Parent, Beach Elementary School
  • Shuchita Warner LEED AP, Director of School Construction, CCPS
  • Darrell Barricklow AIA, LEED AP, Supervisor of School

Construction, CCPS

  • Gregg Gott, Supervisor of Operations, CCPS
  • Ed Cassidy, Director of Transportation, CCPS
slide-4
SLIDE 4

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Program Goals

  • Existing Building
  • Area: 54,893 GSF
  • SRC: 514 students
  • 9 Portables
  • Proposed Building
  • Ed Spec NSF: 50,115
  • Ed Spec GSF: 67,860
  • Ed Spec SRC: 600

Admin Instructional Media Center Special Ed Gym/ Cafe Music/ Arts Building Services

slide-5
SLIDE 5

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Existing Conditions Evaluation

  • Architectural
  • Smolen Emr Ilkovitch Architects
  • Civil
  • Collinson Oliff & Associates
  • Structural
  • ADTEK Engineers
  • Mechanical
  • James Posey Associates
  • Electrical
  • James Posey Associates
  • Plumbing
  • James Posey Associates
  • Data / IT
  • James Posey Associates
  • Life Safety
  • Smolen Emr Ilkovitch Architects
  • James Posey Associates
  • Cost Estimating
  • MK Consulting Engineers
slide-6
SLIDE 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Approach Comparison

APPROACH 1

Phased While Occupied

Minimize Demolition Maximize Adaptive-Reuse Minimize Sitework Satisfactory Program & Adjacencies APPROACH 2

Phased While Occupied

Increase Demolition Increase New Construction Improve Sitework Good Program & Adjacencies APPROACH 3A*

Phased While Occupied

APPROACH 3B

Phased While Occupied

APPROACH 3C REVITALIZATION MODERNIZATION REPLACEMENT Complete Demolition All New Construction Site Redevelopment Ideal Program & Adjacencies

*Retains 2006 Addition

The purpose of a feasibility study is to determine the project approach, not to design the building

slide-7
SLIDE 7

APPROACH 1: REVITALIZATION

Site & Floor Plan

slide-8
SLIDE 8

APPROACH 1: REVITALIZATION

Phasing Plan

existing building addition demolition renovation new building PHASING KEY SY 1

1 2a

SY 2 SY 3

2b 3 site

PHASING SCHEDULE 39 Months phase 0 phase 2 site phase 3 phase 1 a b

slide-9
SLIDE 9

APPROACH 1: REVITALIZATION

Advantages

  • New addition and renovation allows

for 21st century learning environments

  • Front entry faces Bayside Road
  • Separated Bus & Student Drop-Off
  • Achieves Site Program
  • All Teaching Spaces receive Natural

Light and Views

  • Defined Pod Structure for Each

Grade

slide-10
SLIDE 10

APPROACH 1: REVITALIZATION

Disadvantages

  • Keeps most of building’s existing

infrastructure

  • Choke point from main entry to

instructional core of the building

  • Does not meet all ed spec

adjacencies

  • Cafetorium to Gym
  • Instrumental Music to 4th & 5th

Grades

  • Media, Art & Music have to traverse

through the open Cafeteria

  • No Natural Light in Cafeteria
  • Gym SF remains the same
  • 1971 addition revitalization is costly
  • Admin and Public Program is distant

from Instruction (long travel distance)

  • Gym is remote from Play Fields
  • Differing Floor Elevations
  • Nose to Tail Bus Parking
  • Longer Construction Duration due

to Phasing

slide-11
SLIDE 11

APPROACH 2: MODERNIZATION

Site & Floor Plan

2nd floor

slide-12
SLIDE 12

APPROACH 2: MODERNIZATION

Phasing Plan

existing building addition demolition renovation new building PHASING KEY phase 0 phase 2 phase 4 phase 1 phase 3 site a b SY 1

1 2

SY 2 SY 3

3 site

PHASING SCHEDULE 30 Months

4a 4b

slide-13
SLIDE 13

APPROACH 2: MODERNIZATION

Advantages

2nd floor

  • New addition and renovation allows

for 21st century learning environments

  • A clear front entry faces Bayside

Road

  • Separated Bus & Student Drop-Off
  • Achieves Site Program with

exception of Outdoor Dining

  • Media Center is Prominent on Front
  • f Building
  • All Teaching Spaces receive Natural

Light and Views

  • 2nd Floor allows views toward the

Water

  • Clear separation of Public vs.

Private

  • Secure evening use
slide-14
SLIDE 14

APPROACH 2: MODERNIZATION

Disadvantages

2nd floor

  • Choke point from main entry to

instructional core of the building

  • Does not meet ed spec adjacencies

for some programs

  • General Music to Stage
  • Art to Music Suite
  • Instrumental Music to 4th & 5th Grade
  • Gym is remote from Play Fields
  • Outdoor Play Areas are remote from

Cafeteria

  • Differing Floor Elevations
  • Media Center is not Centralized
  • Must cross Bus Loop from Parking

Lot

  • Drop-off Loop creates a push

condition

  • Longer Construction Duration due

to Phasing

slide-15
SLIDE 15

APPROACH 3A: REPLACE. PWO

Site & Floor Plan

2nd floor

slide-16
SLIDE 16

APPROACH 3A: REPLACE. PWO

Phasing Plan

phase 0 phase 2 phase 4 phase 1 phase 3 phase 5 site SY 1

1 2

SY 2 SY 3

3 site

PHASING SCHEDULE 30 Months

4 5

existing building addition demolition renovation new building PHASING KEY

slide-17
SLIDE 17

APPROACH 3A: REPLACE. PWO

Advantages

2nd floor

  • New addition and renovation allows

for 21st century learning environments

  • Separated Bus & Student Drop-Off
  • Achieves Site Program
  • When students enter they split into

two directions eliminating pinch point

  • Media Center is Centralized
  • All Teaching Spaces receive Natural

Light and Views

  • Achieves all Adjacencies
  • Large Courtyard can serve

Controlled Outdoor Learning Environments

  • Clear separation of Public vs.

Private

  • Secure evening use
  • Ideal Building Location
  • Phased While Occupied Replacement
slide-18
SLIDE 18

APPROACH 3A: REPLACE. PWO

Disadvantages

2nd floor

  • Gym does not directly open to Play

Fields

  • May have Differing Floor Elevations
  • Single loaded Corridor is Inefficient
  • Service is visible from Bayside Road
  • Will require screening
  • Longer Construction Duration due

to Phasing

slide-19
SLIDE 19

APPROACH 3B: REPLACE. PWO

Site & Floor Plan

2nd floor

slide-20
SLIDE 20

APPROACH 3B: REPLACE. PWO

Phasing Plan

existing building addition demolition renovation new building PHASING KEY phase 0 phase 2 phase 4 phase 1 phase 3 site SY 1

1 2

SY 2 SY 3

3 site

PHASING SCHEDULE 30 Months

4 site

slide-21
SLIDE 21

APPROACH 3B: REPLACE. PWO

Advantages

2nd floor

  • Achieves 21st century learning

environments

  • Separated Bus & Student Drop-Off
  • Achieves Site Program
  • Media Center is Centralized &

Prominent on face of Building

  • All Teaching Spaces receive Natural

Light and Views

  • Achieves all Adjacencies
  • Large Plaza focuses the design on

Outdoor Learning Environments

  • The shape provides features of a

courtyard without being a courtyard

  • All play areas are remote from street
  • 2nd Floor allows views toward the

Water

  • Clear separation of Public vs.

Private with secure evening use

  • Gym and Cafeteria are tucked away
  • Portables do not have to be moved
  • Ideal Building Location
slide-22
SLIDE 22

APPROACH 3B: REPLACE. PWO

Disadvantages

2nd floor

  • Parking is Remote from Entry
  • Service area is visible from parking

and possible secondary entrance

  • Longer Construction Duration due

to Phasing

slide-23
SLIDE 23

APPROACH 3C: REPLACEMENT

Site & Floor Plan

2nd floor 3rd floor

slide-24
SLIDE 24

APPROACH 3C: REPLACEMENT

Views

slide-25
SLIDE 25

APPROACH 3C: REPLACEMENT

Phasing Plan

existing building addition demolition renovation new building PHASING KEY SY 1

1 2

SY 2 SY 3 PHASING SCHEDULE 27 Months

site

phase 0 phase 2 phase 1 site

slide-26
SLIDE 26

APPROACH 3C: REPLACEMENT

Advantages

2nd floor 3rd floor

  • Lighthouse concept acknowledges

Nautical identity of Community

  • Fronts both roads
  • Achieves 21st century learning

environments

  • Large, Controlled Collaboration

Spaces

  • Separated Bus & Student Drop-Off
  • Very long Drop-off Loop
  • Preferred Bus Loop Stacking
  • Achieves Site Program
  • Media Center is Centralized
  • All Teaching Spaces receive Natural

Light and Views

  • Achieves all Adjacencies
  • 2nd & 3rd Floors Views of Water
  • Clear separation of Public vs.

Private with secure evening use

  • Ideal Building Location
  • Takes advantage of learning
  • pportunities from the creek
  • Shorter Construction Duration
slide-27
SLIDE 27

APPROACH 3C: REPLACEMENT

Disadvantages

2nd floor 3rd floor

  • Vertical Circulation
  • Highest Gross Area
  • Greatest collaboration opportunities
  • Parking is remote from entry
slide-28
SLIDE 28

SUMMARY

Area Comparison

APPROACH 1

Phased While Occupied

Existing Demo. Reno. New Total Efficiency 54,893 18,237 36,693 31,666 68,359 73% APPROACH 2

Phased While Occupied

Existing Demo. Reno. New Total Efficiency 54,893 39,466 15,320 52,321 67,641 74% APPROACH 3A

Phased While Occupied

Existing Demo. Reno. New Total Efficiency 54,893 51,985 2,912 64,570 67,482 73% APPROACH 3B

Phased While Occupied

Existing Demo. Reno. New Total Efficiency 54,893 54,893 67,135 67,135 75% APPROACH 3C Existing Demo. Reno. New Total Efficiency 54,893 54,893 69,692 69,692 72% REVITALIZATION MODERNIZATION REPLACEMENT

slide-29
SLIDE 29

SUMMARY

Program Comparison

APPROACH 1

Phased While Occupied

Admin Guidance Itinerant Grades 1-5 Pre-K & K Special Ed Music Visual Arts Media Ctr PE Facilities Cafetorium NET GROSS 97% 101% 85% 100% 100% 96% 134% 93% 98% 78% 99% 111% 100% 101% APPROACH 2

Phased While Occupied

Admin Guidance Itinerant Grades 1-5 Pre-K & K Special Ed Music Visual Arts Media Ctr PE Facilities Cafetorium NET GROSS 100% 106% 104% 98% 96% 101% 98% 97% 101% 101% 97% 103% 99% 98% APPROACH 3A

Phased While Occupied

Admin Guidance Itinerant Grades 1-5 Pre-K & K Special Ed Music Visual Arts Media Ctr PE Facilities Cafetorium NET GROSS 100% 100% 105% 99% 99% 100% 91% 85% 100% 100% 96% 101% 99% 100% APPROACH 3B

Phased While Occupied

Admin Guidance Itinerant Grades 1-5 Pre-K & K Special Ed Music Visual Arts Media Ctr PE Facilities Cafetorium NET GROSS 102% 97% 89% 100% 98% 100% 98% 101% 100% 100% 95% 106% 100% 99% APPROACH 3C Admin Guidance Itinerant Grades 1-5 Pre-K & K Special Ed Music Visual Arts Media Ctr PE Facilities Cafetorium NET GROSS 108% 134% 101% 99% 100% 101% 99% 95% 98% 101% 105% 100% 100% 103% REVITALIZATION MODERNIZATION REPLACEMENT

slide-30
SLIDE 30

SUMMARY

Cost Comparison

APPROACH 1

Phased While Occupied

Duration

39 months

Construction Cost

$22,850,970

Contingency (13%)

$2,970,626

Escalation (15.6%)

$4,034,624.35

  • Constr. Budget

$29,856,220

Life Cycle

O&M Expense: $8,425,508 40 Year Cost: $38,281,729

APPROACH 2

Phased While Occupied

Duration

30 months

Construction Cost

$22,762,190

Contingency (12%)

$2,731,463

Escalation (13.8%)

$3,505,377

  • Constr. Budget

$28,999,029

Life Cycle

O&M Expense: $8,337,011 40 Year Cost: $37,336,040

APPROACH 3A

Phased While Occupied

Duration

30 months

Construction Cost

$23,527,973

Contingency (10%)

$2,352,797

Escalation (13.8%)

$3,558,605

  • Constr. Budget

$29,439,375

Life Cycle

O&M Expense: $7,908,665 40 Year Cost: $37,348,040

APPROACH 3B

Phased While Occupied

Duration

30 months

Construction Cost

$22,849,118

Contingency (10%)

$2,284,912

Escalation (13.8%)

$3,455,929

  • Constr. Budget

$28,589,959

Life Cycle

O&M Expense: $7,867,997 40 Year Cost: $36,457,955

APPROACH 3C Duration

27 months

Construction Cost

$23,222,447

Contingency (10%)

$2,322,245

Escalation (12.8%)

$3,256,948

  • Constr. Budget

$28,801,640

Life Cycle

O&M Expense: $8,089,939 40 Year Cost: $36,891,578

REVITALIZATION MODERNIZATION REPLACEMENT

slide-31
SLIDE 31

SUMMARY

Overall Results

APPROACH 1

Phased While Occupied

Existing Demo. Reno. New Total Efficiency Duration

  • Const. Budget

Life Cycle 54,893 18,237 36,693 31,666 68,359 73.2% 39 months $29,856,220 $38,281,729 APPROACH 2

Phased While Occupied

Existing Demo. Reno. New Total Efficiency Duration

  • Const. Budget

Life Cycle 54,893 39,466 15,320 52,321 67,641 74.8% 30 months $29,999,029 $37,336,040 APPROACH 3A

Phased While Occupied

Existing Demo. Reno. New Total Efficiency Duration

  • Const. Budget

Life Cycle 54,893 51,985 2,912 64,570 67,482 73.5% 30 months $29,439,375 $37,348,040 APPROACH 3B

Phased While Occupied

Existing Demo. Reno. New Total Efficiency Duration

  • Const. Budget

Life Cycle 54,893 54,893 67,135 67,135 75% 30 months $28,589,959 $36,457,955 APPROACH 3C Existing Demo. Reno. New Total Efficiency Duration

  • Const. Budget

Life Cycle 54,893 54,893 69,692 69,692 72% 27 months $28,801,639 $36,891,578 REVITALIZATION MODERNIZATION REPLACEMENT

slide-32
SLIDE 32

RECOMMENDED APPROACH

By Stakeholder Advisory Group

Stakeholder Advisory Group Unanimously Recommends the Replacement Approach

  • Offers ideal building and site

learning environments and adjacencies

  • Eliminates failing existing

building conditions

  • All options were relatively

equal in construction budget

  • Reduces complexity and

duration of construction limiting interference to instruction

  • Offers best life cycle cost

analysis