Agenda Packets - 1996/09/23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e s .. iiiStaff Report Page 3, Agenda Section 11M- September 23, 1996 City Council Meeting Item 3)also grows out of the work done to date and the first two considerations. How coon,.*le the Council is with the clarity of the vision and the anticipated activities to take place in the building may determine how much reconstruction you will want to do initially. Here seems to be some options for addressing Item 3): a. Phase in approach, do required work to meet codes, brighten interior, and lay out office and class room space according to committed activities i.e. Community Education, teen center, etc. Further work can be considered by future Councils and done incrementally b. Moderate comprehensive reconstruction, fill out internal space as in a., but build out additional space for activities not yet conceived, advantage would be that desirr and construction done once rather than multiple time likely saving some costs, disadvantages being potential of misreading needs and not building accordingly, also higher up-front cost. Some disadvantages could be minimizing through clarity and depth of building vision. c. Comprehensive reconstruction with emphasis on space flexibility, use products such as moveable walls to keep building uses flexible, seek out definite renters and build around them as long term tenants, consider state of the art aspects for a community 111 center(I haven't heard much demand for this style,just throwing it in as one end of the mix) These option types would seem to me to depend on the Council's ability to decide what it wants in the building and when. The clearer that vision is, the easier the decision will be. Much work has already been done to incorporate the many stated activities brought up by either Council members, staff or people from the community. It may behoove Council to study floor plans once more with an eye to the building's activities, keeping in mind your vision and costs. At some point, I do not see how to develop building specifications without the Council doing this. Item 4) has been a low attention item during the development of this project, but I think it :ay become an issue without some attention being given to it. First, one would assume that in addition to some reconstruction of the building,its appearance will come into play. From the options laid out under Item 3), it can vary from simple concern about the interior looks of the building, to a more complicated artistic view of the outside (although no interest has been expressed on this). If VB Diggs does become a player in this project, the looks of their building and whether it is connected to the Bel Rae may need some reconciling between the two groups. It doesn't appear to be a vital concern of the Council, but for that reason I thought I'd bring it up. Item 5) the relationship with VB Diggs will have to be clarified, particularly if staff is to facilitate some type of legal arrangement with them. There are basically two approaches to take. One is • simply to view Diggs as a contributor to the revenue side of the Be!Rae. The Council informally has agreed on two aspects of this, first, that Diggs must secure its own financing and second that it may