Laserfiche WebLink
COURTHOUSE SQUARE DEVELOPMENT TEAM <br />~ July 24, 1997 1:30 p.m <br />Present: Dan Petrusich, MMDC, presiding; Ron Bakker, Byron Courts, Craig Lewis, MMDC, Randy <br />Curtis, Marion County; R.G. Andersen-Wyckoff, John Whittington, Salem Area Transit; Curt Pence, <br />Dave Hays, Pence/Kelly Construction; Kathleen Thorpe, Tom Gainer, Centurywest-Environmental; <br />Leonard Lodder, Arbuckle, Costic Architect; and Dan Berrey, Prudential. <br />Schedule <br />Dave will have a revised schedule without P2 by ne~rt week. Dave and Curt are working on the schedule <br />and did not have a print out available. Curt reported that by going to P l, they would trirn 2 months off <br />the total project. Curt is confident that 18 months is sufficient to complete the project. They will have <br />CPM ne~ week. <br />Parking <br />Dave is still going through repricing based on the new plans. Leonard gave an update status for P 1. The <br />choice to make is between a 369 scheme vs. 324 scheme. He discussed with structural people the idea of <br />eliminating sheer walls and this is not an option. Len didn't have an opportunity to talk to Dave about <br />this issue yet. The sheer wa11s should have been translated into shell costs, not allocated to the parking <br />structure. We need to decide which design we want to go with, the larger or smaller of the two schemes. <br />What are our choices? Can you give us the pros and cons of each? The main difference between the <br />two schemes is that we only go out under sidewalks on two streets on the smaller scheme and under <br />sidewalks on a11 four streets on the other. The drive aisle under High St. could be a problem and <br />~ require foundation work to make it work. You can have tree wells over parking area, but not over the <br />drive aisle <br />The other scheme with sheer walls being relocated presented other problems. The options where sheer <br />walls could go would raise costs in terms of time and structure. To move them out of the parking area <br />you are also looking at big bucks. Direction given last week was to look at taking Costs out of the <br />project, not add to it. Everytime one sheer wall is moved, it changes and impacts the building. <br />Randy had a question regarding data received last week with cost of proposals with a$700,000 <br />difference between options and marginal cost of $16,000 per stall, isn't that eztremely high? Am I <br />wrong in my thinking? The smaller design is more efficient and does not have a single loaded drive <br />aisle. What is the ratio of compacts to standards? 70-75% and of the compacts, probably one third <br />are closer to full size. Assuming a 70.75% ratio, do we want to change it? No, it is predicated on <br />the number of spaces between columns, and we have worked in spaces wherever they can. The stalls are <br />e~rtremely wide because of the bays. <br />Do we have any further information from Rick on the ezisting courthouse parking qptions? Rick <br />hasn't gotten anything together yet. We have a parking consultant working on it, but Rick has been sick. <br />From a cost standpoint the 324 scheme is the choice, but we need to look at courthouse parking structure <br />options that would be available. It would be less costly if you need to e~and the e~usting courthouse <br />structure. <br />The smaller scheme has been running between 324-328 parking spaces and will meet ADA requirements. <br />The downside of the 324 scheme puts the ratio for leased space less than 3/1000. We need to keep this <br />~ item in mind as well. <br />Page 1 of 8 <br />