Laserfiche WebLink
story versions. The plaza is a variable and the square footage azea and skin are a relatively easy <br />translation. Experience has proven that on a small floor plate, the taller the building, the more <br />~ expensive it gets. The 4 or 5 story version seems to work best. The 5 story version is cheaper <br />than the 6 and the 4 has a less cost effective RU ratio. RU rating has to do with percentage of <br />rental space to gross space. <br />Pence/Kelly will concentrate on the 5 story version and work with changes for a 4 story <br />building. We need to do preliminary pricing on both versions to see which is more cost <br />effective. We need a base plan that can be financed and that makes sense. <br />Another issue to consider would be if county and transit needs are being better served in either <br />version. Outside space for lease without co-mingled floors is another component and provides <br />better options for the leasing agent. The 5 story plan appears that county can meet immediate <br />needs on two floors (30,000 sf each floor). Randy has possible tenant looking at 30,000 sf for <br />office space. R.G. doesn't need 30,000 sf for Tra.nsit space and that floor space could be shared <br />with outside tenants. <br />Randy and R.G. would like to work with Lisa again on how much leasable space was in the <br />original plan that was assigned to both county and transit. Co-mingling isn't a concern, as 5 <br />years down the road as the county grows into the expansion space, it will occur anyway. This <br />will be handled in the lease negotiations up front. <br />Leona.rd will do bubble diagrams per floor. l~Il~IDC will need to identify in the performa the <br />space allocations for transit, county and private and have a cost breakout. <br />Interior Finishes <br />This item will be carried forward to the work session meeting with MNIDC/PK/AC. A base <br />needs to be determined and then work with add alternates. Arbuckle will go back and review <br />work they have completed to date in this area. Discussion was held on the 2 story lobby and <br />how it fit the design a.nd budget. From a performa point of view, the plans should reflect a one <br />story lobby in the base building and show as add-alternate to cut out to 2 story lobby. <br />RG stressed the importance of arriving at a basic cost first. If we have built in savings, then we <br />can come back a,nd look at other amenities, but not until we know the baseline costs. It is much <br />easier to add than to subtract costs. We are in a much better position to make intelligent <br />decisions later on. We need a project we can afford fust. Another issue to consider would be <br />county and/or transit would end up owning the retail space in the south tower. <br />Planning Modules/Ceiling Plan <br />The planning modules need to be inside out versus outside in. Arbuckle Costic has been <br />working this way from day one. Discussions of the different modules 2/4/6 vs. Sx5 grids were <br />explored. Space planning was done as an exercise to get tenant improvements so Pence/Kelly <br />could generate numbers. Transit's space was okay, but the county wanted to revisit this area. <br />The modeling system is not that far off from today. There is not a reflected ceiling plan <br />available, but one could be put together. Pence/Kelly will need as much definition as possible <br />~ to get standards done. <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />