Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)

Home Browse Search

In addition to environmental issues, we are looking at anywhere from $2 to $2.7 million over budget. How can we bring costs down? Up until last week, we have been adding dollars to the ~ project with P2. County and transit's emphasis to NIlVIDC over the last two weeks has been to get project costs down. Going to a Pl structure is a good business decision and will help that cause. How much parking will be accomplished with P1? Leonard talked with Rick and will have two design layouts available for MNIDC to take back to Portland. Conditions in Salem operate a little differently. Leonard and Ron met with city of Salem for pre-application. When the subject of revocable permits to build under sidewalks came up, no one from public works was too happy with this option. They would not recommend this approach, but stated if you go higher up, someone might. The building inspector didn't see why it couldn't work. A political issue may be developing and the issue may need to be handled accordingly. Leonard put both options on the wall for team review. If we had our geotechnical data earlier than our June 12 meeting, we would not have gone to P2 at that time. What is the efficiency rating? Leonard did not have time to work this out yet, but we aze making reasonable gains on High and Chemeketa. NIl~IDC added that just looking at the number of pa.rking spaces per square foot, it would be more efficient. They have not experienced any problems with going under the sidewalk. Do we encounter any utility relocation issues? All utilities are in the street, and there is only one phone line close by. The 2 drawings were identified as option 1 on left hand side and option 2 on right hand side. Option 2 has major changes in the sheer walls. The stairwells in the upper bay slip back to ~;, accommodate the drive islands. The NW corner affects the upper floors stairwells. Option 1 buries all sheer walls in the parking structure and gives us a 369 stall count. The ratio of compact vs. standard size cars is not known. It is on a 30x30 grid with the building put on top of the garage. It is unknown if ADA is all covered. It has a single loaded drive. This option is easier for Mike to work with. Our big obstacle is getting the city to accept the concept of revocable permits under the sidewalks. Option 2 has 375 spaces but also ha,s the sheer wall problems. This option is easier to lop off the under sidewalk portions if needed. We are looking at Chemeketa, Church, and High, but not Court. The drive aisle is located under the sidewalk on High. It was recommended that Mike look at both options. Leonard noted that Mike has seen them both He prefers Option 1 with 369 spaces. NIlVIDC asked to have him take a harder look at Option 2 and what it would take to make this option work. The original P 1 structure with a space count of 278 did not go beyond property line. It was not fully developed, didn't tamper with sheer walls and had limited parking under the plaza but not as much. Is this option with 278 spaces workable? In terms of spaces for project, it is workable depending upon options available to us in the existing courthouse structure. Dave added the cost for the 278 would be cheaper. There would need to be a big marginal difference between the two. M1~~IDC thought it would be cheaper to go with a larger P 1 to get more space. All you are adding is parking and the marginal costs for the extra stalls will be in range. Byron asked about the streetscape budget for the city of Salem. Do they have given number? Page 2 of 10