RGB Architects show designs with reconstituted lots, tennis courts | Narragansett Times

SOUTH KINGSTOWN Members of the school construction committee were presented with slightly modified design options on Tuesday evening, which reflected changes in the student parking lot and the move of the tennis courts.

In both designs, a student car park was shifted from a small playing field near South Road School and moved to the front of the school. The first iteration called for the tennis courts to be moved on top of the small practice, which was not supported by the members of the recreation committee who approached the school building committee and architects with concerns about the loss of park space.

We did receive feedback that there was still some intrusion into the recreation portion of the view, which is used for both the school and the city, said RGB Architects Associate Principal Tracey Donnelly.

There was great concern about the loss of the general usage field, said project manager Sam Bradner of the Peregrine Group, noting the feedback from recreation committee chairman David Palazzetti, who was upset by the loss of recreation space.

I don’t think he walked away completely satisfied with the results of the planning process, which is one of the reasons we went back and made some additional adjustments, Bradner said. We have discussed the balance of parking on the site, and how do we fit into the school’s program requirements and the existing program activities of the Commission and Leisure Services Department?

A second option, which would move the tennis courts to South Road School’s rear parking lot, would prevent the small, multipurpose field from being paved, but raised concerns among several city workers.

City manager Robert Zarnetske and director of administrative services Aimee Reiner wondered how close the tennis courts would get to the outside of South Road School, and vice president of the city council, Bryant Da Cruz, was concerned that this move would make it difficult to get off the old school building.

Facilities Superintendent Mark Russo also highlighted a major potential problem with these plans, as the tennis courts would be on top of a septic system that we have in the back of South Road School.

“I don’t know how they’re going to explain that,” Russo said. We have become septic and we have a beer pit tank that we pump out twice a year. That’s something we should look at.

Discussion about the maintenance of playing fields for school and recreational use prompted school committee member Kate Macinanti to ask where the boundaries between district and city lie.

Those rules are soft, according to Zarnetske, and in reality the land is one big lot owned by the taxpayers.

Reiner said she agrees with the recreation committees’ requests to stay this whole and appreciates efforts to explore all options.

Leisure Services Director Terry Murphy said she was happy to see a second option on the table, although she did share some concerns about possible flooding of student parking and residents unable to use the park and enjoying it while the lesson is in session . The city and schools have been balancing the use of the fields for years, she said, and keeping the program intact is essential for students and any other recreational user.

Discussions of these potential design changes only dominated the first hour of a four-hour meeting, which also included time discussing how the neighborhood could work to create a greener, more sustainable learning space and the additional cost estimates. .

Zarnetske argued that whether or not the school committee would hire a second set of eyes to go through the project cost estimates. Bradner suggested a company that would cost about $ 44,000 and asked City Councilor Deb Kelso why these costs were not already included in their contract.

Since this issue will appear as part of a special bond referendum if the districts’ Phase II filing is approved by the Rhode Island Department of Education, Kelso said she would have been in favor of paying for additional cost estimates before going to the voters went.

My question is how this became an add-on and not part of the contract, Kelso said.

Bradner pointed out that the Peregrine Group is in the third version of a contract extension with the neighborhood, as the scope of the project has now changed three times.

There is no way we could put a number around an estimate that was always excluded, he said. We agreed that when we finalized our proposal with administration and city officials, until we knew exactly what the scope was, we couldn’t give you an exact number of the cost estimate.

He emphasized that this is an option, not something forced on the neighborhood, and that his business has not been cunning or convenient.