10-22-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sites 2 and 3 on the school property were workable although current statements by the school site planner makes Site 2 directly across from the school potentially not available due to their requirements for that area to be used as a new elementary school. Site 3 was viewed by the committee to be somewhat less visible and too removed. The school site planner stated that this area of the schoo' site was for secondary functions and the architect took that to mean that there was some room for discussion on the availability of this site. Site 4 Is a part of a 50 acre track and with the frontage road access, cuts a portion of the area si !Ch that the city hall and the public works would be across the street from each other. The comer site proposed for the city hall would be at a higher cost premium in the $40,000 + /- per acre. The site does not seam readily available since the owner wants to keep the track Intact. From the geological maps there appears to be poor soil immediately adjacent to the public works area to the north. The committee directed the consultant to look at two more sites at Willow and Highway 6. BUILDING COST/QUAUTY REVIEW The committee reviewed the same options as the council reviewed with all the respective materials and samples. The committee had questions on various items most of which were answered at the meeting. The discussion of floor materials brought up the issue of quarry tile versus terrazzo. There were some discussions about cost, maintenance and safety in regards to these hard surface lobby materials. The architect's concern is the slipperiness of terrazzo. and the its respective cost. Quarry tile is somewhat less expensive and can be installed with a texture to maintain a less slippery surface when wet. The cost comparisons from Grazzini Brothers for these two materials presented that quarry tile is approximately S5.50 per s.f., with terrazzo '’anging from $5.50 up to $9.00/s.f. depending on the size of the installation. The small lobby areas for this project would be in the S9.00 range. The attached list of cost/quality items illustrates the committee’s concensus. Specifically, the committee felt that the 18.000 s.f. projected building size should be the maximum building developed, and earlier design schemes should be revised to maintain this 18.000 s.f. limit. The committee rejected the use of interior brick proposing that the interiors be vinyl of a light and open feeling as opposed to dark and institutional. Several Items were put on hold (i.e. basement, modular brick, lobby skylight, and elevator) until a site has been picked. The committee felt that the overall cost of the project could be reduced If the respective site would allow a first floor arxl lower level design with windows into the lower level. This could create some savings, but would requ ? an elevator. All of thf other items on the list were acted upon by the committee. The committee reviewed 16 different city hall projects as presented by the architect in the slide show that they prepared. Similar to the council ’s tour of facilities, the committees concern was to have a quality looking building but not one that was loo expensive looking. General feelings were that the buildings should have varying height sloped roofs with brick and stone exterior wall finishes.