Laserfiche WebLink
that tJlacinc those facilities on t.te existing ^rys^a^ 3a^ oi«.e <br />would not he* cortoatihle 1-ni uses with the neighborhood and as <br />such would recuire at least a split site for Public .'?or.<s. Once <br />this decision'would be made the cost then favored the Highway <br />1*2 site for a common facility. It was the Planning Commission's <br />recommendation that nothing be done with tne Post Office, but <br />allow it to continue as it is and expressed no opinion on whether <br />the current City facility site should be parl< land or sold for <br />residential purposes. <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />Issue #1 and #2 <br />1. Accept the recommendations and transmit thanks to both groups. <br />2. Decide on a site. <br />3. Not choose a site. <br />Issue #3 <br />1. If site #1 is selected, direct staff to exercise the option- <br />2. Delay exercise of the option for a couple of months. <br />3. If another site is selected, direct staff regarding any <br />acquisition/other preparation such as obtaining rental facilities <br />if sLte #3 is to be used. <br />Issue #4 <br />1. Direct the architect to begin schematic design work in <br />relationship to site selected. <br />2. Delay further direction on that until a site decision is <br />further made. <br />3. Table discussion until May 28, 1991. <br />RECOMMENDATION - In line with the Facilities Committee^ and <br />PlannTng Commission recommendation the following is recommended; <br />1. The site on Highway 12 be selected. <br />2. That staff be directed to exercise the option by June <br />15, 1991. <br />3. That the architect be directed to immediately begin <br />design work on the Public Works facility.