project description cml dublin...

NBBJ 250 S. High Street, Suite 300 COLUMBUS OH 43215

PROJECT # 101253.03 DESCRIPTION CML Dublin Branch MEETING Signature Transitional Element Meeting 06 – Public Input MEETING DATE July 25, 2017 ATTENDEES Vicki Newell (VN) Dublin Resident David A Rinaldi (DR) Dublin Resident David Guion (DG) Dublin Resident Rick Gerber (RG) Dublin Resident Tom Holton (TH) Dublin Resident Vince Papsidero (VP) City of Dublin Pat Losinski (PL) CML Alison Circle (AC) CML Candy Princehorn (CP) CML Kim Way (KW) NBBJ/ Facilitator Mike Suriano (MS) NBBJ Tony Murry (PA) NBBJ Tracy Perry (TP) NBBJ 15 Members of the Public This meeting was the sixth meeting for the committee. This meeting was held to show members of the public the options developed for the signature transitional element. Options have been reviewed twice by the committee and changes have been provided and options deleted per their commentary. 1. PL and KW introduced the purpose of the meeting. 2. TM reviewed the schedule and a summary of comments from the public last meeting. 3. TM reviewed three options that focused on celebrating the former school and township building

that sat on the library branch’s site until the 1970s. All options shown would incorporate landscape that is historically native to Dublin in the planting bed on the corner of High and North Street. These and the site trees are omitted from the rendered images for clarity but would be present in the final design. 3.1. ‘Relic as Transition’ Option

3.1.1. This option uses site walls and a change in paving as an opportunity to mark the location of the existing school building. One wall is enlarged and openings are provided that emulate the school’s window proportions and some of the details. The wall is provided along the south side of the plaza closest to the historic district. Another wall adjacent to High Street marks the location of a different facade of the school but has no openings. The openings could be provided with glass with text etched into it or could be open.

3.2. ‘Public (Art)ifact as Transition 3.2.1. This options uses a change in paving and a public art installation as an opportunity to

mark the location of the existing school building. The outline of the school is marked in a darker pavement and the southern corner of the plaza within the outline would be a place for a permanent art installation. The nature of the art is to be determined by the

CML Dublin Branch – STE Meeting 06 MEETING NOTES July 25, 2017 of 5

artist but the focus should be the historical. Providing school desk sculptures has been discussed by the committee in past meetings.

3.3. ‘Trace as Transition’ 3.3.1. This options uses a change in paving as an opportunity to mark the location of the

existing school building. This option is the most subtle being proposed. The trace could also be found inside the building where the school was as well. Historical images of the school could be incorporated into the library near this outline.

4. Discussion/ Question and Answers 4.1.1.1. The following commentary was provided by the public:

4.1.1.1.1. Can #2 be combined with #3? 4.1.1.1.1.1. TM – In option 2, we are proposing the outline of the school and the

public art. So both elements already exist. 4.1.1.1.2. I am a new attendee – what does the garage look like, how many cars can it

park. What’s on the roof? 4.1.1.1.2.1. TM and PL briefly answered the questions and explained that those

materials are available on the City of Dublin website to review. This meeting is only about the design of the signature transitional element.

4.1.1.1.2.2. Is the space of the plaza compromised? 4.1.1.1.2.2.1. TM – No, all options allow for a flexible space for events in the

plaza. 4.1.1.1.3. What is just beyond the wall [in that option]?

4.1.1.1.3.1. TM – It is a group of transformer and switchgear by AEP. They will service the entire district and the garage. There are currently a few pieces of equipment in that location now. Additional pieces will be added and we will provide screening around it. These are located by the city not the library design team.

4.1.1.1.4. What will people see when arriving from garage? 4.1.1.1.4.1. TM- All options are visible from the garage entrance but are facing the

street. 4.1.1.1.5. I am concerned about graffiti on the wall option. 4.1.1.1.6. What is the materiality of the walls?

4.1.1.1.6.1. TM – They are stone. 4.1.1.1.7. I love the modern stone. 4.1.1.1.8. How does this stone emulate historic stone?

4.1.1.1.8.1. TM – It will be a gray stone that attempts to match the aged dry-laid walls. The stone will be laid with mortar in the joints and not dry laid like the historic walls. Dry laid walls are not suitable for building walls.

4.1.1.1.9. Have you considered a less solid wall? Like a trace elevation, instead of something so opaque?

4.1.1.1.9.1. TM – We did present the committee with something that was more trace-like and made of steel. The committee felt it was too abstract to be understood as the school.

4.1.1.1.10. When was the school demolished? 4.1.1.1.10.1. TH – 1970.


4.1.1.1.11. I was wondering if David could provide a Dublin perspective on the art proposal and how it would fit into the overall public art collection.

4.1.1.1.11.1. DG – We would approach it as we do with all our pieces - proposals would be solicited and options presented. It is left open to the artist’s interpretation to propose a piece.

4.1.1.1.12. I think all of them are thoughtful options. Any one or combination is acceptable –they are simple and respectful to uses of the plaza and library.

4.1.1.1.13. I am glad you are using glass in the library. It is more inviting and less corporate than brick.

4.1.1.1.14. The garage is so needed! 4.1.1.2. KW – Does anyone have any preferences?

4.1.1.2.1. Wall “a little too much maybe” was stated by several people. 4.1.1.2.2. I like the art and the trace. The more abstract appeals to me.

4.1.1.3. KW – At this time, we would like to give everyone the opportunity to provide any additional comments on the boards in the back of the room. We have provided post-it notes and pens for your use. Each option is represented with a board. Please tell us what you like and don’t. Members of the committee and design team will circulate to chat with you and answer questions.

5. Commentary provided by the public on the boards are as follows. The images of the boards are provided at the end of the minutes. 5.1. ‘Relic as Transition’ Option

5.1.1. Don’t like height, exceeding wall (blocks view) 5.1.2. I like all 3 but have a preference for the #3 Trace 5.1.3. Don’t care for wall – not necessary 5.1.4. Do not care for the window arches – too modern & cold. Also safety concerns 5.1.5. No walls, too cluttered 5.1.6. Love it – build fast 5.1.7. Do not love a wall. [Comment is difficult to read]

5.2. ‘Public (Art)ifact as Transition’ Option 5.2.1. Include numbers and letters that kids can pick out & read 5.2.2. Consider giant date due stamper/card i.e. Claus Oldenburg 5.2.3. If there is art – it should relate to reading in some way 5.2.4. Outline of former school would need comprehensive signage explanation 5.2.5. Flat granite markers (similar to those at field of corn) would be good 5.2.6. My favorite of the three but not a fan overall

5.3. ‘Trace as Transition’ Option 5.3.1. Include numbers and letters that kids can pick out & read 5.3.2. Consider giant date due stamper/card i.e. Claus Oldenburg 5.3.3. If there is art – it should relate to reading in some way 5.3.4. Outline of former school would need comprehensive signage explanation 5.3.5. Flat granite markers (similar to those at field of corn) would be good 5.3.6. My favorite of the three but not a fan overall

6. Committee Discussion 6.1. After the meeting with the public, the committee and the design team briefly met to discuss

the presentation format for City Council on July 31st and any impressions from the public commentary.

6.1.1. AC - What are we presenting and who is presenting?


6.1.2. DR - I think we show council the same think we showed the public and get their feedback.

6.1.3. AC - I would suggest that we have Tony Murry present. I think that one of the committee members should be available to answer any questions or provide commentary. I don’t think that the library should be advocating for one solution or another.

6.1.4. VP – Staff will provide a brief introduction. 6.1.5. DG – Is ‘no element’ still an option to present to City Council?

6.1.5.1. VN - I think City Council always has that option, so we do not need to present it. 6.1.6. PL - What about cost? Do we present that?

6.1.6.1. VN - I was told not to consider cost as a part of the process. So I don’t think that should be a part of this presentation.

6.1.7. DR - Do we tweak the wall option? The representation of the wall is very imposing, I like the images showed previously better. The garage looks like a prison.

6.1.8. TH – I have a couple of comments on the wall option. If we are intending to be true to the school structure, the window surround should be lighter and the scale should be brought down.

6.1.9. RG - I think we got a lot of good comments tonight. But it was a just couple people and not a good representation. I agree with TH's comments. The black is scary and should be toned down. I think they are looking for something that ties this site to the historic district. I think that the first option is the best. I think that we need to make a recommendation and show them the options we went through.

6.1.10. PL - The committee needs to provide some feedback during the presentation to council. These are all good things to note at that time.

6.1.11. DR - It should have a brow a lighter material and I am wondering why the school outline doesn't complete itself.

6.1.11.1. TM – it doesn’t because the paving would run through a landscape bed at a slope. The design team thought it might look strange, so it was omitted.

6.1.12. AC –So to recap, the City staff will begin with a brief report, NBBJ to present the options - show process, a small slide of the options explored, and then present what was shown tonight. The committee members will be present to provide commentary as questions arise.

6.1.13. KW asked if there were any options that the committee liked better than the other ones.

6.1.13.1. VN - I think it is narrowed down to (2) options - the wall and the outline with art.

6.1.13.2. DR - the corner is important, I think anchoring it with the art or the wall is the right move. Can we create a corner stone or plaque that talks about what the history is?

6.1.13.2.1. TH - We have the actual plaque at the historical society. It just said Washington Township and had the trustees.

6.1.13.3. RG / VN - I like the openings with no glass. 6.1.13.3.1. AC - from a maintenance standpoint, no glass is better.

6.1.14. The committee discussed if a recommendation would be made to council. It was determined that the committee would like to hear council’s commentary before selecting a direction.


6.1.15. The committee also recommended the presentation should be updated fix the appearance of the parking garage and incorporate a single slide of all the options presented to show the process.

7. Next Steps 7.1. The next step is to present the options to City Council for their input on July 31st at 7pm.

Prepared by: Tracy Perry, NBBJ The above conference memorandum represents our understanding of the discussions that took place during this meeting. If corrections or additions need to be made, please forward these in writing within five (5) days to the undersigned so that an accurate record can be maintained. These minutes will stand as submitted unless corrections or additions are communicated.

project description cml dublin...

Documents