Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)

Home Browse Search

responded that it doesn't affect him as much as work done to-date. Additiona~ discussion was held regarding the two aspects of the parking structure: number of spaces 'land the overall ~ efficiency of spaces. Just looking at the perimeter of the site (330 feet time~ 4 sides) could generate additional spaces. We need to explore potentially expanding on all ~our street sides when working on the P 1 design. , Randy shared the county's concerns with the unknown environmental costs an~i about the cost per space on a P2 design. Nothing is currently happening with the Statesmen Jpurnal to protect the county. In the past, building under 300 spaces was not a good idea for cou~ty, but we now have an option of building additional parking spaces on the Courthouse existi~ig lot across the street. ' How will this affect the construction timetable if we only go down one leve~ instead of two levels? From Dave's point of view, you still need to shore and investigate costs. '', There is a July 15th date for DD documentation to be completed. The structure above ~rade has been progressing with the architect. If we want to get a DD package out that makes s~nse, then the P1 or P21eve1 needs to be firmed up for us to put together the best possible number$. It will take 3 weeks maximum to get that decision made, and Leonard needs 1-2 weeks from ~hat point to get DD's ready. We need to shift from a July 15th date to August 15th for co~pletion of DD documentation. It will also depend on Mike Hayford's work. The shell packag~ would move to the first of the year. ' ~ Does it create a problem for Pence/Kelly on any construction aspect?', Discussions concerning underslab drainage surfaced and whether it would be needed if we w$ren't going to a P2 structure. There would still be a need for a pump as the storm drain is not dov`m that deep and you would need to compensate for ~0-100 year floods. The top of the slab is ~t 10'4" with an average of 11' groundwater table. Question was asked regarding putting in a plug? You can determine the highest pressure rate for structure and then relief points are set ound perimeter which allows the slab not to heave. We need to have the geotech report bac to make these decisions. Kathleen reported that a pump test is set for Monday on the Chevrc~n site. We will shut down the Chevron system and we should get real good level readings. DEMQ has requested some additional monitoring and the need to get some pre-pumping information. ~ It was recommended that we slip the DD's one month for now and get the a~nswers to these questions. GRI's report will furnish the answers to these questions as well provide more information for structural and drainage conditions that we will need to addre s. The written report will take seven days after pump test is completed; we are still looking at bout two weeks for this information to come in. The pump test is scheduled on the 7-8th I, and then seven business days after that is required for a written report. Some calculations I~vill need to be completed before they can give a verbal on their findings and it may take some ~ime. Dave will adjust his schedule by one month. Ron asked even though we sltart one month late, can we still meet existing construction finish date deadline? Since;we may not be going to P21eve1, that would be more than a month's work by itself. That parti~CUlar decision is ~ critical to county due to our lease a~ the Best Building, which expires May 1, 1~99. If we need to work on an extension, we need to know what we are looking at time-wise. Once decision is made on either P1 or P2, and time schedules are re-adjusted, let county know as soon as possible. Page 2 of 9