From: jwoodink@aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:44 AM

To: Tom Blahak; Don Orr; Susan Cousins; scott@rodwinarch.com; awebber@bwgarchitects.com

Subject: Columbine DAT

Attachments: LettertoTom.doc

Tom,

As I have not received a response (other than a verbal confirmation of receipt), and I do not see it on the recently added link to "Correspondence sent to the Columbine DAT/BVSD, " I am wondering how widely you have disseminated the questions I sent you mid-March to the design professionals, and whether< /font> any responses are developed.   I have attached that letter here again.  

Especially in light of the emphasis on community school and bicycling, and sustainability, I am alarmed at the amount of time we have spent in the DAT reviewing parking lot requirements.  I can't imagine that this issue is schedule critical, and perhaps it can be revisited by the DAT prior to demolition phase activities.   It would also be beneficial to wait for the traffic impact study results before expanding the current parking area.  It also might be worthwhile to consider, as was raised for consideration by a DAT member, a one way Repplier Drive, with possible addition of a small round about for drop offs. 

Perhaps we can reduce the time spent, and the size of the parking lot to allow for more space and discussions regarding:

1. Discussions of passive solar analysis (thermal massing, etc.),

2. Selection of the mechanical systems (other DAT member brought up radiant floor heating combined with solar thermal).  As I mentioned, it would be beneficial to obtain the environmental performance criteria for the spaces.  It may be geothermal is not an optimal strategy, especially if there is limited need for cooling based on the passive strategies, and the occupancy schedule in the summer.  Quite possibly, much cooling might be done without refrigerant and compressors such as an underground thermal storage water sump that is cooled at night with radiant panels or an evaporative cooling tower or fountain.  The school has operated for many years with no cooling systems.

3. Considerations for Boulder architecture might include Charles A Heartling designs of rounded, or "mushroom house."  While the current rendering is quite handsome, I am wondering about the possibilities and larger percentage of square footage per perimeter length from using more rounded spaces like the auditorium, the pre-school, or even the classrooms.  Currently much of the school classrooms are not using traditional square furniture, and are rather sprawled.  This might lend itself better to rounder spaces.

4.  More communication regarding additional funding to promote "greening" the school.

5.  In the current "bubble diagrams" in the 4-14-09 meeting minutes, there is no paved connection shown to the north bike rack from the north bike lane/sidewalk.   Especially in wet conditions, this would be helpful.  Please also consider the width of the biking lanes in boulder and apply to the lanes in and around the school.

Since next week is the last DAT, we might consider scheduling more meetings to address these issues.

Global and local energy interdependence and net zero buildings are more important to present and future community members and their children than a large event center style parking lot /drop off area that takes up the entire footprint of the existing school (isn't a parking lot/drop off the size of the school unprecedented? I googled Foothills Elem and it looks like the parking area is approximately 15% of the school area).  It might be helpful to see or get a copy of the class project graph on the class door in Columbine that showed how ~15% of students were driven there in a private car, the remainder took the bus, walked, biked, scootered, etc.


John Wood
Neighbor/prospective parent