Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)

Home Browse Search

parking lot to build and provides a lot of flexibility from Transit's perspective and a much nicer option. Randy and John will be talking with R.G. on Friday. ~ Randy needs to know that there is buy in from everyone. If the county can't afford it, the project is in trouble. The board is also sensitive to not jeopardize funding from FTA. Over the next couple of weeks what kind of preliminary analysis can we do to narrow down from 2-3 options to get good information before we finalize any changes. What dces it do to possible delays in the project from a standpoint of redesign? One design starts at ground zero. Option with reductian to three story building and expansion to end of block would not be much more than a bit of a hiccup for the architect. Pence/Kelly added that the current design corridors were ineff'icient and county had concerns about that issue. Also a separate above ground garage and building could be built simultaneously and make up the time lost in redesign. Randy is not concemed about delaying the startup and completion dates. He is willing to sacrifice both for a better price. We cannot build something we cannot afford. Of the two options, one may require redesign time and construction would start later, but could finish on time. With a separate tower design, it is a start over. John had concerns with the bus mall being planted in a tunnel between tall buildings an either side as an unattractive option. Concerns again were raised about a creating suburban solution for urban situation and providing an inviting environment and not loose Hatf'ield Plaza. MMDC added that use of retail space in parking structures is a big deal in Portland, and don't know why we can't do both. We could come up with a hybrid of one of these schemes. Additional discussion was held on aspects of working with a tower design building and height of a separate parking garage. Primary interest is to preserve Hatfield Plaza, keep transit in same location, and develop more eff'icient t~se of building ~ office space, and efficient use of the block. Dan added the easiest hybrid would work with the 280 parking structure at ground lev~l. Then come up with a real recta-linear footprint for the office building and price quickly using same assumptions in core. The other thing is gross square feet and an unknown load factor to generate rental income. With a 280 option parking structure, removing 25,000 sf out of building, if you need to reduce retail would it make a difference? If it happens, its okay. 155,000 sf should fit everyone's requirements. Retail space will need to provide services to support transit on the ground floor to draw people to the area. Is the 155,000 sf with or without retail? 140,000 sf off'ice, plus 10- 15,000 retail, whatever fits on the ground floor for lobby ticket azea, as it is an integral part of building. What is your hard cost budget? Randy dces not know what it is yet. We need to generate and put together a budget. A meeting will be set up between Ken, Hitesh, Mark and Scott to work on these numbers. We can't start a redesign without a goal of what it costs for everyone to follow. If we make a radical change in the design, a lot of people need to buy into it. Transit needs county as a partner and if county can't afford it, then the project dcesn't move, which is a risk for Transit. If the outcome drives us to above grade parking, then let's go that route. In discussion of skin ratio to floor plate in going with a more box like structure, there is considerable savings. Working with an underground parking with a tower is a more eff'icient design and gives opportunity for potential dollar savings and better schedule for county. ~' Page8of10