11/24/2014 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Special Meeting of Planning and Zoning, Council, Architectural Review Board and Citizens Advisory Committee Page 2 We had John Marrelli start out and do a good objective facility evaluation. What we saw is just about everything has to be redone. HVAC, wiring, you name it. Starting with the salt shed addition in 1980 and during the 90's, this is like an old farmhouse that as the family got bigger expanded. Pieces and parts. What do we do with it? Our charge has been to evaluate. There are two parts to this. What we saw as our mission was, what does it take to renovate the structure and turn it into enough of a modern and functional facility that will be a good investment over a long period of tune? As we got into that, what we saw was that there is a lot more expense to this than may meet the eye. Back in May of 2013, John Marrelli roughly estimated, based on a little bit bigger footprint, around 4,600-4,700 feet, that it would be around $1.4 to $1.7 just to renovate the structure. That wasn't doing much for the kitchen, but it was upgrading the roof, opening the space, and doing other things that people would benefit from to make it a more functional space. With that thought in mind, we went to work. The folks from Then Design Architecture, Ed Parker and Bob Horowitz will be leading us through the discussion with illustrations. I think you will see as the review went on, it seemed to make sense to look at a second option. The second option is if we slide the building over and take advantage of the greenspace created going from what we had before, what we have today and what we could have tomorrow, we think that as an objective measure, it shows a very functional operation. Nothing over the top, nothing drastic, but much more use of the space year round and better functionality adjacent to the park area. It fits in better with the school. We have had preliminary feedback from school officials that this could be a safer and more functional traffic pattern. We want to vet this by all of you. This is preliminary. Just by doing this process as we have, we had originally thought we would be able to go into construction in 2015. We were prepared to block that time for renovation. Debbie Thomas and others can tell you, we are constantly getting people who want to use that space. It is always being used. This other option would give us the opportunity not to worry about invading that schedule at all. We could build adjacent to it. At the end of the day, the numbers will not be appreciably greater, more in the range of $300,000 give or take, including soft costs. I will let these two gentlemen explain the nuts and bolts. By doing it in this fashion, we had discussions with Ron Wynne who is here this evening. We already have $650,000 set aside and budgeted. We would not be doing construction next year. We would be salting away more dollars with the thought that the work could begin in earnest toward the end of next year into 2016. From a time and economic management, this would be the way to go. At the end of the day, this has to have legs so people think it is going to work. Compare and contrast option 1 which is what we set out to do and option 2 which really makes a lot of sense. ~ Presentation by Then Design Architecture re: Mayfield Village Community boom. Ed Parker and Bob Horowitz began their presentation, providing a powerpoint of illustrations of the current structure and proposed new plans. When we originally started on this, it was to be a renovation of the existing Community Center. Everyone's familiar with its location and condition right now. As we started to go through the existing condition of the building, one of the preliminary plans that was part of the RFP for the architects to do the job showed the elimination of this column. As we documented the existing conditions, we opened the