Lyndon Keck and Alan Kuniholm of PDT joined the building committee via Skype call while architect Chelsea Lipham attended the March 11 meeting in person and showed the committee poster-sized copies of each design sketch.
“These sketches are more of a big picture,” said Kuniholm, “and they will get more specific as we continue. What we’re looking for today is a general indication of which concept you prefer, because then we can take that concept and refine it.”
Lipham explained the primary differences between both sketches, named 1.1 and 2.1.
“Scheme 2.1 has more sun on the entry,” said Lipham, “but the administration doesn’t have as wide of an angle of vision as they would with 1.1. The music area in 2.1 is embedded in the middle of the school whereas, with 1.1, it’s out on the end. Both the multi-purpose room and the cafeteria in 2.1 have direct access to the play area. In 1.1, only the cafeteria has that access. Both schemes have a possibility for an outdoor area at the end of each of the learning commons. This is a nice area for an outdoor garden or classroom area.”
Facilities Director Wayne St. Pierre asked if there would be sufficient access around the school that would allow for plowing out for emergency exits.
“I know the fire department would like a hard surface all the way around the building if they need to come in during a fire,” said Pierre. “Is that anywhere in the plan?”
“I would say ‘no’,” responded Keck, “but since the site is relatively narrow, firefighters can easily reach the building on the east side from Bennett Drive. We may want to have a wide sidewalk coming off that drive so they could come in that way and we’d definitely want to make sure it’s plowable for you. The stairways at the end of the wings in scheme 1.1 would lead to emergency exits, so they would need to be plowed.”
Parks and Recreation Director Gary Marquis asked Keck if the facility would be fenced off
“Yes, we’re talking about a fence along Bennett Drive for sure,” said Keck. “It would be a safety issue so we would want to see a fence from the credit union all the way down to where the kids would cross at Park Street.
“What about the kids who come to the Rec Center for after-school programs, would there be an opening at the North Street intersection where they cross now?”
Keck explained that openings in the fence have been considered, and that a North Street opening is a possibility.
“The majority of kids who come from that school cross the street if we could get them to cross in one location then it becomes more conducive to potentially have a crossing guard. I know the light works well, but we used to have a crossing guard at one location. If we funnel all the kids there, there will be a lot more kids crossing than they are now,” Marquis said.
“When kids leave in the afternoon we would like them to leave and stand on a nice wide sidewalk that could be easily plowed before crossing to go to the rec center,” he added.
RSU 39 Superintendent Timothy Doak expressed a preference for scheme 1.1, as it gives the administration a better view of the learning area.
“I can picture some windows looking out in the school whereas with the other one you’re not looking at the learning area,” said Doak. “This is just my view; I’m only one person here, but this is a group and whatever the group wants for the school is more important.”
Frank McElwain of the Building Committee agreed that scheme 1.1 is slightly better than 2.1.
“I think we’re struggling a little bit here, because we could see ourselves in either facility,” said McElwain. “I like 1.1 a little better, especially when thinking about proficiency-based education.”
Keck agreed that scheme 1.1 would give the committee more flexibility to than 2.1.
Lipham added that, with scheme 2.1, an advantage is that people do not have to walk past a classroom wing to get to a cafeteria or multi-purpose room, where community events may take place.
Because there was difficulty coming to a consensus on a design, Keck informed the committee that PDT Architects will revise both schemes, adding that he would like to hear additional feedback from school principals and teachers in Caribou as well.
Committee Member Kent Forbes also said he would like to hear more input from the faculty and staff of the new facility.
“I don’t ever want to portray that I know how a school building ought to be laid out, because I don’t work in a school building,” said Forbes. “I think we need more input from people who are actually going to use the building.”
PDT Architects are currently working on revisions for both sketches based on the feedback from last Friday’s meeting and will present tweaked design schemes to the committee during their upcoming meeting on Friday, April 8 at 8 a.m. in the Learning Center.
