From: gdshof [gdshof@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:02 PM
To: Pharamond, Anne-Claude
Cc: Tom Blahak; Scott Rodwin; Susan Cousins
Subject: Re: Columbine DAT minutes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Thank you, this does help,
although it is not what the meeting minutes say and I wondered whether it was
what was said in the meeting.
Thank you
Greg Shoffner
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Pharamond, Anne-Claude <APHaramond@bwgarchitects.com> wrote:
Tom,
All of the numbers are correct… the percentage given in the meeting minutes is of the total site which is not open-space. That is to say, building + parking + play area + the interior courtyard which is not accessible to the public and not perceived as open space.
So, currently 20% of the site falls into this category – the new plans show 25.1% of the total site falling in this category. No one disputes that this is a 25.5% increase. This amounts to 5.1% more of the total site.
Most of this increase is in the parent loop (currently there is none) and the parking (which is only slightly larger) for a near doubling of the “car related” pavement. Also, the new Ed. Spec. compliant hard-surface play area which is a 278% increase over the current configuration.
Does this help or muddle things?
Anne Pharamond
|
From: Tom Blahak [mailto:tom.blahak@bvsd.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:19 AM
To: Pharamond, Anne-Claude; Scott Rodwin
Cc: gdshof; Susan Cousins
Subject: FW: Columbine DAT minutes
Anne / Scott,
Can you please investigate Greg’s claim below and respond to all of us?
Thank You.
Tom Blahak
Project Manager
Boulder Valley Schools
office: (303) 245-5791
From: gdshof [mailto:gdshof@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:08 PM
To: Tom Blahak
Subject: Columbine DAT minutes
Hello Tom -
Since you are listed as the DAT contact for the Columbine project, I wanted to
alert you to an inaccuracy in the meeting minutes from 6/26. The minutes state
that there is 5% more asphalt in the new design. In actuality, there is
26% more asphalt and a 78% increase in the area devoted to cars. These numbers
come from the 5/21 minutes. Below are the numbers from the excel
spreadsheet I used, to assist your verification.
|
I also noticed that the square footage numbers representing "asphalt"
for the existing building include the whole courtyard, which is almost entirely
gardens and grass, whereas the numbers for the new design only include the
"stage". Is there more to the new courtyard then a stage that
is not being included in the building foot print? To make sure the same things
are compared, it seems as if the whole courtyard should be included in the
building area for the new design.
In addition, these differences lead me to wonder about the significance in the
differences of concrete walk areas between the the current school and proposed
designs.
Please let me know what you discover.
Sincerely,
Greg Shoffner
Columbine area resident and parent of a Columbine student