Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> t. ~ -I <br /> . <br />CIP - City Hall I <br />Page 2 .. <br />Project Issues I <br />There are several areas which will need consideration before proceeding with this project. The <br />following is an attempt to identify those areas and the specific issues which are related. <br />1. Proiect Sites I <br /> Should the Council elect to proceed with this project, it will need to clarify the <br /> location for the facility. Specifically, the Council should determine what its I <br /> second option would be in the case that TCAAP is not available September 30, <br /> 1996. <br /> a. TCAAP I <br /> This is the recommended location for the new City Hall. City Council has <br /> supported this site for many years and the Vento Reuse plan identifies an <br /> area along Sunfish Lake for City Hall. The National Guard is attempting I <br /> to secure this property from the Army and has told the City that a transfer <br /> can be accomplished by September 30, 1996. The City would most likely I <br /> lease the property from the National Guard. If the National Guard can not <br /> obtain the property by September 30, 1996, staff recommends pursuing the <br /> current site as a location alternative. The City has not provided any written .. <br /> deadlines to the National Guard and if the assumptions included in the <br /> report are supported by Council, staff will proceed with this notice of <br /> deadline. I <br /> b. Current Site <br /> This was the second option for the location of City Hall when the City last I <br /> investigated the project in 1992. Staff continues to support this site in the <br /> situation that TCAAP is unavailable. The site is split into two different <br /> zoning designations, B-1 and R-I. Set back requirements would then be I <br /> impacted by the location of the proposed building on our property. While <br /> staff does not have a site plan prepared for this site, it appears that City I <br /> Hall could be built without the need for setback variances. (See attached <br /> graphic of 1992 Building Schematic). <br /> c. Other Sites I <br /> There are several other sites which the Council may wish to consider. <br /> Each of these sites has some advantages and disadvantages. Staff would I <br /> recommend pursuing these only if the Council were not supportive of <br /> options I a. or I b. above. Most of these were also investigated in 1992 and <br /> rejected for similar reasonS. Should the Council elect to temporarily I <br /> displace City Hall while construction occurred, a separate site and <br /> associated costs would need to be evaluated and incorporated into the .. <br /> budget. <br /> I <br />