The following report was prepared by the
Architect and will be assumed to be correct unless written exceptions are
received within two weeks of publication date.
Meeting
Date: 26 April 2001 Report Date: 1 May 2001
Location: 300
Macmillan Hall
Project: Wells College
Master Planning
Project No: 00068
Subject: Science Building
Schematic Design Meeting 3
Attendees: Wells
College Ellen
Hall
Candace
Collmer
Harriet
Barone
Tom
Vawter
Niamh
O’Leary
Margaret
Flowers
HOLT
Architects, P.C. Grace
Chiang
Graham
Gillespie
Tina
Lacey
Discussion:
1. G.
Chiang presented a preliminary plan drawing of the proposed science
building. She clarified that these
drawings are a first draft of plans to be used today as a tool for discussion
and will be continue to be further refined.
2.
Proposed First Floor:
a.
H. Barone raised concern about the lack of an
exterior entrance to the animal area.
Faculty agreed that access from the interior only is desirable since
security of this facility is of particular concern.
b.
It was determined that for practical purposes the
food prep area should be an anteroom to the animal holding room in the animal
complex. That way only the food prep
space will be open to the corridor, thereby, providing the animals maximum
protection from noise and disruption.
c. The
porch area created at the entrance facing Macmillan, with the greenhouse
located at the second level, could either be open or enclosed. Further development of this area will
continue.
d. The
current plan features an open atrium with a monumental stair within it.
e. The
plan locates an elevator adjacent to the atrium in a solid core. G. Chiang commented the elevator at the
perimeter of the atrium space would allow the atrium to maintain an open
feeling without compromising access to the elevator. Also discussed the possibility of moving the elevator further
from the service elevator.
f.
As discussed at previous meetings, the lounge and
administrative area at the first floor level are located near the main building
entrances. The lounge might be situated
to capture a sweeping view at the southwest corner of the proposed site. The administrative office will be in a
location that will be accessible to students, faculty and building
visitors.
3.
Proposed Second Floor:
a.
Discussion ensued concerning the greenhouse:
i.
M. Flowers reviewed the shade/sun study for the
proposed site. She suggested that other
alternative locations for the greenhouse would be on the top floor or
roof. The disadvantages of moving the
greenhouse up would be the increased travel distance from the loading dock and
if it were on the roof the separation from labs.
ii. The
faculty suggested a greenhouse consultant be utilized for further refinement of
greenhouse details. HOLT agreed and
will pursue.
iii. Supplemental
light is currently not utilized in the existing greenhouse. M. Flowers commented that any research or
experiments would most likely be conducted in the growth chambers. Moveable/flexible growth lights might be
appropriate over limited areas in the proposed greenhouse.
iv. M.
Flowers would expect to have temperature control in the various greenhouse
climate rooms. G. Chiang and G.
Gillespie noted that insulated glass will be used for all greenhouse glazing
and that this will aid considerably in controlling the climate, heating and
cooling. An automated watering system
will also be included.
v.
T. Vawter requested that if space is available, a
living butterfly collection could be an appropriate addition to the proposed
greenhouse. M. Flowers commented that
there would be space available in the current proposed greenhouse square
footage to possibly accommodate a living collection at some future point. It was agreed that there is not an academic
program in place or planned for the near future which would warrant planning
for or including an insectory at this time.
Some requirements of the insectory would conflict with requirements of
the greenhouse, e.g., use of pesticides in the greenhouse.
vi. M.
Flowers commented that consideration should be given to a greenhouse at the
roof level. G. Chiang concurred that
from a technical construction point of view a roof level greenhouse is
feasible.
b. It
was agreed that the northwest corner of the building would be ideal for an
office or a gathering space.
c. As
the plan develops it is likely that spaces currently labeled as unassigned will
disappear. It was agreed that an extra
office space might be desirable, but is not absolutely necessary.
4.
Proposed Third Floor:
a. It
was noted that the Lab Type D’s at this level needed to be made a consistent
size. Faculty noted that Type D labs
will have sizable equipment storage needs.
b. A
skylight at the atrium ceiling level is a possibility.
5.
General Comments:
a.
Faculty will run a mock-up schedule for the lab
spaces in preparation for the 10 May meeting.
b.
G. Chiang reminded the faculty that any major
changes that will affect square footage should be determined as soon as
possible.
c.
The current proposed plan features 11 faculty
offices, this includes 2 extra office spaces, and a lab tech’s office. E. Hall commented an extra office space
could be desirable but not requisite.
d.
Built in cabinets and bench space in labs will be
developed in more detail as the plans progress.
e.
The configuration of the currently proposed
Collection area would allow for storage only, as it is too small a space for
class demonstration.
f.
G. Chiang asked if revisiting the idea of a
detached greenhouse is feasible. The
attending faculty determined that a detached greenhouse is highly undesirable
from a functional point of view.
Prepared by,
HOLT ARCHITECTS, P.C.
Tina
Lacey
Cc: Attendees, L. Ryerson, D. Hutchinson, A. Rollo, A. Bellizoni, S. Heinekamp, C. Wahl, C. Bailey, L. Schwab, S. Rae, J. Woolford