04/22/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Counc~lwoman Beal asked whether the study would make recommendations with regard to changing commercially-zoned land if it was not particularly suitable for com- mercial use. Mr. Blayney doubted that recOIr.r.!endations krouid be made on specific properties, but recommendations would be included on general problems and sol~- tions for typical situations. John porte!, planning director, added that probably the only area on which recommendations would be made was the downtown central bUsine~s district. The consultant was charged, he said, with looking at strategies ,for various alternatives for commercial development in the downtown and Goodpasture .Island areas and not at specific commercial reuse. , Colilfn' 4/10/74- rile' i I , i , i -- \ R. ;J city Use of Armory - Response to Letter from commissionerOmlid - Manager stated the County Commissioners have been wrestling with new office facilities for the County in accordance with the Civic Center Plan which has been d.iscussed for a number of years. The initial 'plan called for the taking down of the armory and the replacement on that land with a county office building. There has been some interest in preserving the armory because of its possible historical value. The Commissioners wrote to the City stating that, if the armory is to be saved, pernaps the City would consider purchasing it at theprice~~e__~9uE~Y9-!j,gJ~cl}1!L~paiclJg!'-i:t_.- ----~--- e There is no question but that the present city staff is in some areas badly overcrowded. At this time the City is in a very critical budgeting situation; the vota of the people will determine whether or not the existing level of services can even be continued. It :is difficult to proceed to secure more space when reductions in staff may be forthcoming.' :'It would therefore be difficult to justify advocating spending money to make the ' jarmory usable until the outcome of the 74-75 budget is known. A cursory investigation \ lof the armory has indicated it would cost about $270,000 to bring it up to code. This :would allow use of the south portion, as well as the basement for storage, etc., and it ~would lower the ceiling for single floor use in the auditorium portion and seal off the \north portion. If those steps were taken, staff feels the move should be mor~ permanent: \tor,say, at least 20 years. To bring it "up to snuff" for 20 years or more could cost :somewhere around $500,000. It is therefore the feeling of city admini'stration that '[using the armory for office purposes is not economically sound. Code requirements 'become stricter when talking about using a buildinq for assembly purposes. It would :seem more econo.mical'in the l~ng run to pursue the addition of the tower to City Hall, jwhich would also keep City offices in one location. . :Mr. Murray stated that, as' a member of the Vision 2000 Commi ttee, they were to advise i the County Commissioners on their building program. ~'he Committee has discussed at ;great length the issue of the armory. In discussing the armory, it has not focused particularly on the reason to preserve that building being one of history only.. Other reasons include the fact thi building might have some functio~al use for the community. Another factor is that it really is not necessary to tear it down. Last week the Vision 2000 Committee made a recommendation that the building plans for the County need not be delayed and that there was no immediate need to tear down the armory; therefore, a subcommittee should be established and the armory should stay for the immediate future .until the subcommittee could explore the various uses for funding. The City would be impeding the work of that committee if the city were to get involved now. ;Commissioner Omlid disagreed with Mr. Murray on the committee's charge. The charge was really to work on the design of the new building. He stated there should be leconomic justification to the taxpayers if the armory is to be preserved. He said !they purchased the armory for the specific purpose of replacing it with the public .service building. Leaving it standing does cloud the design of the new building somewhat, ibut it can be worked out with one plan or another. He feels a.broader based opinion is . 'needed to preserve it. His request of the Council is for help in solving the problem of what to do with it. He further stated the City could lease it for $1 a year if they wished to refurbish it and use it for office space. Mr. Keller mentioned that City administration had stated they would probably have to ,look for office space outside City Hall and wonders why the feeling is that using the armory only one block away is economically unfeasible. :. Manager clarified that, if a choice is possible, it is preferable to preserve the continuity by not splitting up the staff. If expansion is needed before such time as the tower is built, there will have to be a split; but staff feels t~e armory would be too expensive because of its need for refurbishing. An estimate for the cost to build the tower is 2 1/2 million dollars. Mrs. Beal asked if it might not De wise to lease space at the armory. Manager said that, right at the moment, there is substantial . inventory for lease int'h~ "dC;w~town area. Mr. Keller asked how many square feet would be in the tower. Manager said about 42,000 square feet. (The armory is talking about 34,000 square feet). He also commented that projections of space needs assuming current need plus future p~(; would indicate that, in 20 years, we might need as much as another' 70,000 squa ; i ___.__ .............. .' .......,.. . .----..--..-...-.;--:c.---j 4/22/74 - i1 rz..'2..