The URL can be used to link to this page

09-30-14 Community Center Task Force minutes AraNifect�re � Englneering � Planning M e e t i n g M i n u t e s PROJECT: Golden Valley Community Center HGA Commission Number 2065-004-00 FROM: Jessica F��orstkotte WRI'1't�.R'S DIRt�,CI'Dlrv.G1z-758-4z29 DA'I'E: C�ctobcr 1, 2014 MLETING Purpose: Task Force Meeting#5 Date: September 30, 2014 Time: 5:30pm- 7:30pm Location: Golden Valley City Hall INVITEES: Task Force Members Facilitation Team John Cornelius City of Golden Valley Pat Dale CarYie Anderson I,ynn Gitelis Rick Birno Brad I�adue Ben Disch John Kluchka F_,ric Eckman Dean Penk Brian F.rickson Karla Rose Jeanne F"ackler 1Vlerton Suckerman Greg Spencer Chcrti�l Wciler )ason Zimmerman H GA Nancy I3lankfard Jessica HoYstkotte Victor Pechaty Glenn Waguespack COPIES: Those Not Present Garret Gill, Gill Design Kari Haug, Gill Design Item Task Force Meeting#5 was the sixth of seven meetin�s scheduled for the Golden Valley Cc�mmunity Center'I'ask Force to review and provide communiry input for the Feasibility Study and Predesign for a new(:�mmunity Center. Meeting#5 included an overview of public financing for the project; a cost compazison review of each site and renovation option, site constraints leading to revisions of the site options, and current aptions for each site. N:arci�o��el, C;r�*en nrvd At>rah�a�nsorF, inc 42p StF1 StYeet Nprth • $uite iQ0 + MinnCap01i5, MiitneSota U5A 554Q1 2:33£# HC;A Arr.hik.mc2s ��d l-.r�g3r,errs, l..L.0 � 1�GA Arrhl[�cts aand Fra�6raerrs, ,�L�' 7"�"Icphan� 612.758.QQQ0 Facsirnilc 612.T58.4199 fiGA /\rchi4Ccture and E:ngir7eering, PC NCaA MiCi-AClaniic, da1r.,. Vi5it tlur W��>5it�": FF(,��.COm 2065-004-00 October 1, 2014 Page 2 Item I. "Finance 101" Sue Virnig,Finance Director for the Ciry of Golden Valley Finance Department,provided an overview c�f financing for the project. A. Household and commercial tax impacts were presented for prc>jects ranging from $10M to $40M. B. If the project goes tc� a referendum, the project would be voted on in 2015 and levy for bonds would begin in 2016. � II. Cost Comparisons Presentation A. HGA presented a preliminary budget forecast for (5) options: 1. C�ption 1 � Renovate current existing 20,OOOsf Brookview facility for code compliance and deFiciencies in building envelope, srructure, mechanical, and electrical systems. No increase in program. a. EsCimated Project Cost: $6,652,750 2. Option 2 � Build new 20,OOOsf facility on Bxookview site, to match existing Brookview facility program. No incYease in program. � a. EsTimated Project Cost: $9,446,388 3. Site 1 � New 80,750sf facility on existing Brookview site. New 89,450sf spoxts � dome on site at corner of Highway 55 &Winnetka Ave. a. EstimaCed Pxoject CosC (excluding dome): $38,336,739 � b. Inflatable Sports Dome: $6,261,500 � 4. Site 2 � New 45,640sf facility on e�sting Bxookview site and new 36,864sf faciliry on sitc at eorner of Highway 55 &Winnetka Ave. a. Estimated Project Cost: $41,697,126 5. Site 3 � New 56,51Gsf faciliry on e�sting Brookview site and new 70,752sf facility on site of existing City Hall; faciliry includes current city hall program in addition to community center pro�ram, New 89,450sf sports dome on site at corner of F��ighway 55 &Winnetka Ave. � a. Estimated Project Cost (excluding dome): $G1,439,G-�J � b. Inflatable Sports I�ome: $6,261,50� III. Site Constraints Presentation Site constraints including the 100-year. and 500-year floodplain, and golf course � rec�uirements, created impacts on the site planning resulCing in revisions to each site option A. Floodplain a. 'I'he 100-year and 500-year floodplains limit the amount of buildable area across the Brookview site. B. Golf Course Constraints � a. Position of current hole 1 makes parking oprions to the south the building site too remote from rhe building. b. Not enough usable axea to relocate driving range over Par 3 course, due to regular flooding. IV. Site Options Development Discussion Questions, concerns and priorities expressed during the pxesentations and following discussion are oudin�d bel�>w. � 2065-004-00 Octaber 1, 2014 Page 3 Item A. Costs 1. Task force members wondexed how the esrimated cost per square foot translated to building qualiry and finishes. a.HGA suggested the cost was mid-range and reflects opportuniries for the desired aesthetics and amenities in key locations. 2. Questions arose around the difference is cost per square foot for Site 1 versus Option 1, Site 2, and Site 3. a.The difference reflects the economy of scale when budgeting for a 8�,000 sf building versus one or two smaller buildings. B. DYiving Kange and Par 3 Course � 1. Due to site constraints (floodplain) no enclosed structures can be built in the existing driving range. AddiCionally, there wexe concerns about fitting�a new driving range over the Par 3 course. 2. Based on constraints the current driving range will remain as is and the existing Par 3 course would accommodate parking, a new putting green, and a new � putting course. C. Sports Dome 1. Due to site constraints the Sports Dome was only offered as an option on Site � 1 and Site 3. In both schemes it was located at the corner of 55 &Winnetka, as this is the only location laxge enough to accommodate a dome and avoid the floodplain. 2. Concern fox citing the dome at the corner was expressed due to value of corner location, aestherics, and amount of addirional parking needed. 3. Concern over the ability to generate public support to finance the dome was � expressed. D. Development on the corner of 55 &Winnetka � ' Sites 1, 2, and 3 all included potential development on the corner of 55 &Winnetka 1. It was recognized that Che property at the corner is a valuable asset to the city as well as a prominent and highly visible location. Development at this location should be careFully considered based on these characteristics. a,Development should promote the larger Destination Golden Valley vision and should be attractive and inviung. � 2. Members of the task fc�rce were not comfortable citing a Sports llome c�n the corner as suggested at Site 1 and Site 3. a.I�arla suggested a comprehensive sports facility—as part of a separate project—thae included a range of indoor sports venues might be more appropriate for that corner. � 3. The group also expressed hesitation to suggest the development offered in Site 2. Members did not want to limit the potential for development by building something that was not a cost effective use of the land. E. Building Development Conversation around elements to consider when moving forward with building development. 1. Members expressed importance of connecrions to the landscape for wedding � and patio locations. 2065-004-00 October 1, 2014 Page 4 Item 2. Locating garden for garden club to maintain as well as potential wedding ceremony and picture locations. � � 3. Important to consider sustainable building and site design options and alternate cn ergy. F. Recommendations 1. Task force agreed that the Site 1 scheme with no option fox a sports dome was their preferred recommendation to city council � 2. Members also agYeed that Option 2—replace existing Brookview building at same scale onsite—would be their minimum recommendation. 3. The group also recommended future development of the corner of 55 & Winnetka be saved for a use that captures Destination Uolden Valley visioning effectively. V. Next Steps � A. HC'�A will present site plans, building assessment, and cost comparison to the council on October 14 for thei�rccommcndation. � � B. On behalf of the"Task I�orce, I�3G�� will cite Site 1 as the"1"ask Force's Recommended Option, with a second recc�mmendation for Option 2 at a minimum. C. HGA will cite C�ption 1, Site 2, and Site 3 as Not Recommended by the Task Force. The next meeting is scheduled for ThuYsday, October 30, at 5:30pm at Brookview Community Center. The foregoing represents HGA's understanding of the discussions and decisions made during this meeting. If anyone has any changes or comments,please notify the author within seven days of the date of this document. � Enclosures Sign-in sheet Meeting Agenda Presentation slideshow Cost Comparison spreadshe�t Site 1'lans for Site 1 and Site 2