Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, May 31, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 17
Item 17, is to consider and take appropriate action on schematic design recommendations associated with 700 lavaca Commissioners court and officers.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
>> good morning.
>> today the 600 lavaca first and second floor team would like to present a recommendation for the schematic design and the issues we have to have some decision on so we can stay on schedule, and those are the -- the issues are the structure on the first floor, the of cafeteria, and two scenarios for the layout of the courtroom.
with this, I would like to turn it over to our project manager.
>> good morning, judge, and Commissioners.
I am going to pass out for you some of the documents that we will be talking through.
I believe this is also been transferred on electronic format for screening purposes but I am not smart enough to work that so I will happened out paper copies for you.
>> okay.
as you may recall, we were tacked with a couple of items for special presentation, in addition to the schematic design presentation that will occur at the end of this month, and those three items are what to do with the vault over at 700 lavaca, how to treat the food service and also the conceptual design and orientation of the Commissioners courtroom itself.
the first page in the handout concerns the vault and I would like to tush it over to the lawrence group, and the lawrence and ghc architects, as you recall, are the design teams to help us with this project selected.
>> good morning, we are happy to be here today.
as dave said, these are critical decisions that we need to make in order to complete our schematic design t first being our recommendation on the vault, the bank vault.
a very sturdy object built of concrete, one foot six wide with a roof on it as a lid and so in diagram one, we are showing the dashed lines in red, which would indicate our recommended option for minimal removal.
we are not recommending total removal.
both of our options are for partial removals.
our recommendation with the red lines is on -- within our budget and it allows for a very straight line of sight down the corridor andallows for the multi-room to be the single cleanest orderly row of rooms and the second portion takes out less of the vault, and that will be on page 2, you can see that one would have to circulate around that vault to gain access to the third multi-purpose room and so, therefore, the three multi-purpose rooms are not contiguous to one another as the master plan blocking diagrams. That is a little less expensive option but both options are within our budget and they are about 15-$20,000 apart.
they are both within our budget under $50,000.
>> so, judge, it's your pleasure.
I don't knowif you want to take all three at once or go one at a time but our recommendation is to select level I scheme one plan layout for the vault which is depicted in the red dotted line that clips the corner.
we believe this is a superior option for Travis County and remains within budget.
>> questions or comments regarding recommendation number 1?
>> and the cost difference between the two options?
>> fifteen-$20,000, all -- both under $50,000.
>> and how much square footage do we gain from clipping the corner?
it looks like we gain usable square footage.
>> yes, and also gain security site lines down the corridor and gain three multi-rooms a acting as one room.
>> I move approval of level I scheme one.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Huber.
discussion on the motion?
approve recommendation number 1.
all those in favor?
this passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you, judge.
if we can move on to the second item, which is the Commissioners courtroom.
we have presented for you two options and actually the third page behind that is a test fit, one of the things we were charged with with was to evaluate if the Commissioners courtroom could be located elsewhere, where you had actually two story space.
you can see by that diagram on the third page that it just flat doesn't fit.
so back to the -- back to the scheme one plan layout and scheme two plan layout, it would be -- it would be my preference to let earl speak to that as well.
>> thank you.
both of these options on page 1 and page 2 have -- we are recommending slope seating for optimal viewing.
so that is not an option, in our minds.
we have to test that through the budget, but both of these schemes have sloped floors.
the first scheme is a very traditionally-based geometry, which acsents and complements the challenging -- accents the challenging and eccentric geometries of the building.
it is laid out based upon the space recommendations that Travis County facilities presented to us.
you can see that the dyas will be raised in both schemes.
in this first scheme, if thedyas will face eastern windows.
you will enter the chamber from the side and ramp up from there, there will be ada accessible seating throughout -- at the upper end of the seating and at the lower end of the seating.
the second option turns the axis almost 90 degrees, and I should say in both options, we do have a column, not unlike the columns that are in here, but we have strategically located that column in both options, not to obstruct any sight lines.
in option 2, the dyas is also raised and -- but you will be facing east.
so the eastern windows will be to your side.
you would enter in the back of the court from the second option.
both options would have press in the rear and both would have a sound vestibule.
we believe the second option, although viable, it does not complement the geometry of the existing building or the ball coknees the that are on -- balconies like option 1 does.
both work on the back of spaces.
>> option two, the dyas faces more like northeast, correct?
>> correct.
>> and one more east?
>> correct.
>> and on both of them, you've got -- we have those columns to deal with, period.
>> right.
>> neither scheme is superior in terms of that column.
they are equal.
>> I think one of the more compelling reasons that we would recommend scheme one is because of that overhang that's at the dyas itself.
in scheme two, part of it is covered by the overhang and part isn't.
I think when you are inside the room, in scheme one, it's going to feel very symmetrical and very logical.
in scheme two, while a viable plan, it won't feel quite the same way and it would be like taking this room right here and raising the ceiling on part of the dyas.
it's just not going to feel logical.
>> there will be a visual inequality to the dyas that won't be -- metaphorically it won't --
>> we believe that is correct.
>> what does wc stand for?
>> water closet.
that is rest rooms.
>> water closet.
>> I missed that last time.
>> we looked at other parts of the floor and roomed them out?
>> yes, we did.
judge, that third page is a -- just a demonstrative piece to show you that the other part of the floor just didn't -- would not accommodate the courtroom as we all envision it.
so the current location that was shown on the first two options are really the only places for it.
and we would recommend scheme one.
>> questions or comments?
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> of scheme one?
>> scheme one, yes.
>> second by Commissioner Gomez.
discussion on the motion?
all those in favor?
this passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you, judge.
moving on to the third and final item for our presentation is the food service.
and the food service option is currently contemplated at the lowest level.
the seating would be in the -- in the connecting leg to the parking garage and also the escalators.
the question here is how to effectively prepare food in the area that is immediately south of the elevators.
and the two issues at hand have to deal with the grease trap and exhaustion from the kitchen area, we don't want exhaust flowing into the building or offices and we have a fairly challenging opportunity for the grease trap here, so when we talked previously, the -- the directive to us was to look for other options, as to where the kitchen might be located logically, but the best long-term interest of the county, I think the architects have done a good job of that and I will turn it over to earl one more time and he will walk us through these two.
>> sure.
our original charge Tuesday was to take a look at the kitchen on the far right which is the existing leasing office right now for sentinel.
it is 900 plus square feet and the blue area for seating, with we feel that activating that lower level of the escalator lobby is the right thing to do.
right now it is underutilized space.
it is underactive space.
public spaces activate building so the seating in blue, which is approximately 34 seats there in the double height space for the escalator and 28 seats in the link, and in the lynn to go the garage, we still have the existing with required to move people through there and still use seating.
we think that is a wonderful idea, appropriate and very viable.
the kitchen and the location proposed near the seating is problematic in what dave said with regard to the grease trap and with regards to the exhaust.
we have options that will allow a grease trap to go outside in the plaza and this venting outside to the plaza, we are concerned with that technically, so we are looking at other options.
that is not my preferred recommendation.
we looked at the building maintenance office.
we looked at the storage units.
those are marked in yellow on the drawings.
although both are the size needed and possibly allow is the flexibility and the in the future design phases based on exactly, on the menu and kitchen design, how big the kitchen needs to be, 1700 square feet.
both of those options are large enough.
however, we feel the building maintenance shop is the most direct access for the grease trap out in the loading dock area and the most direct access and most economical for the exhaust.
the storage unit area has challenges of more distance and more cost and existing out of that space.
so right now we are looking at a remote kitchen serving a serving area near the seating.
>> but this leaves -- this basically -- the idea of utilizing the building maintenance area for the grease trap and the actual food preparation, this preserves an option of having the kind of menu that would require a grease are trap inventing, although we wouldn't have to do that.
one thing I would like to say that, I will invoke the dreaded former life.
but my former life was in the restaurant business and I find it -- it would be very, very difficult to do a food service with this configuration.
it would be difficult to find someone who would bid on food service for this configuration if it were hot prep food requiring grease traps, fry later, all of that kind of stuff.
although I do see how it could -- it could be attractive, even though there is no street appeal to being in lower level, being more of a sandwich deli type area in the configuration you have with the kitchen right next to the seating.
so I see how you are trying to preserve our options for hot food preparation.
I am a little concerned object our ability to sell this space to a future contractor.
>> which space are you talking about?
>> if we were to demand in our request for services hot food prep that had -- that included grill space, hot table, a fry later, and that kind of thing, in order to move the food from the building maintenance area over to where it's actually served over at the kitchen area near the seating, this would be a very difficult configuration for that kind of food service.
if you were to just do a sandwich/deli type circumstance, you can easily put it in the kitchen serving area and serve it out to seating area.
I am looking -- it's fine.
it looks like we need to preserve that possibility to include hot prep, including griddle space, salamander, boiler, venting, grease trap, but I think it's going to be difficult for us to sell the space to a contractor, for that kind of of food.
much easier to sell it to a contractor for sandwich prep and considerably -- considerably easier to sell it to a sandwich contractor if it had street appeal, which this doesn't have.
>> I think we ought to leave hot food as an option.
>> I am good leaving it as an option.
I am just saying the quality of contractor we will be able to get given this layout, which sounds like it is the only layout available to us is -- we are not likely to get a high quality contractor then, no street appeal and a problematic food delivery.
>> do we have professional restaurant type businesses that we can consult with?
to see what kind of input they can provide?
>> yes, judge, we have several vendors in the area and also we have as part of the design team, a specialty consultant named bozma.
they have been involved in this process, also, so we are accessing that expertise.
I also add as a part of our charge, we were asked to go talk to the Travis County wellness folks and we did talk to them about the menu and -- and trying to provide good, healthy food for the Travis County employees, as directed.
so we are trying to balance all of those needs and balance a building that -- that's geometries are based on triangles rather than squares and those kinds of things.
it is less than a perfect outcome and I would grant you that.
so, you know, one -- one of the things that might happen is either building maintenance or the fitness center, the fitness center, if you took that space for food service, for example, that is farther from the dock but closer to the actual serving area but you would have to displace the fitness center somewhere else in the building.
>> and ventilation is absolutely key with grease trap, because anyone who offices on the third floor can attest, when the grease trap is cleaned on our third floor, which I don't want us to repeat the problems of this building, to have a restaurant service area on the third floor with problematic venting circumstances and no street appeal.
we are living with the consequences of that and it would be unfortunate to repeat it.
but I get what you are saying.
we are dealing with less than optimal circumstance.
I think you probably worked all of the options that are available and so I -- I will vote for this but I don't have high hopes that we will be able to attract high-level contractor with -- with the layout that is available to them.
>> are you looking for a vote today on this option with the kitchen, where it is proposed on the -- I only have one schematic.
>> this one is actually an update.
I think it will be fair to say that this will be much more fully developed in the schematic design which will be a couple of weeks down the road and I think, ask you at this point, for a decision on locating here or here would probably be unfair because we may not have everything we need.
I do think it's important for you all to be update on the challenges we are dealing with there on the ground floor and trying to balance the quality of menu versus getting a good vendor in there that would drive volume for the county's benefit.
we are doing what we were asked to do, which is to make a presentation on this.
we actually got the information for the votes we needed on the first two agenda items. This is more of an update.
I know we will be coming back to you, with schematic design.
I would also like to apologize to my colleagues here because I forgot to introduce bill mccallaghan, senior project manager, tom cornelius I president of grc architects and ken gady who has been working every step of the way.
>> if we are going to come back to the court with this, I think one thing we need more information on is if it look like the location there, for the kitchen, is in the escalator area, exactly what the grease trap and the venting is.
getting it out is one thing.
where it goes out is another.
I know where we talked about in the subcommittee, one of the options was to vent it out into the plaza area in front of the building at the second floor and I don't think we want to of involve our guests of Travis County walking up and smelling french fries or fried fish.
>> that is not what you smell when you clean a grease trap.
>> or worse.
>> [laughter] so I think if there are problems like Commissioner Eckhardt talked about, to have a good quality viable option of a remote commission then we have the question of whether or not we want hot service prep if we want to go with this proposed location here in the escalator area.
so I think we need more clarity on those kinds of choices.
>> frankly, we do, too, we know we have a little bit of work to do but I think since we had the opportunity to come before you today and show you the two options on the vault and the courtroom, we felt it would be appropriate to update you on this.
we are far from an optimal solution.
but we are still working on it.
>> okay.
>> but we are convinced that, to prepare hot meals, we need space, much larger than the space north of the freight elevator?
>> that is correct.
>> but then there is also the venting issue with that area by the elevators -- by the escalators.
correct?
>> that would be the worse location for venting and grease trap.
>> I would agree.
>> [laughter]
>> remind me of what is between the steward units and the building maintenance to the left?
>> that is a leased space to bullion.
>> what kind of firm is that?
>> I believe it's a securities firm.
>> a security firm.
>> and it's apparently a long-term lease.
>> okay.
so what you are saying for larger space, those are the two that are available on the street level?
>> unless you -- unless you domino in to the fitness center and then relocate the fitness center.
even that has its challenges.
>> yeah.
>> we are trying to obviously balance the equation between the loading dock and -- which would -- which would facilitate the grease trap and the venting versus getting it close enough to actually serving the clientele, which is completely on the other side of the building.
>> are we still reserving the space where the deli is on the ground floor as a deli?
>> yes.
that is a long-term lease as well.
>> so we would have deli on the ground floor that as nice street appeal and outside seating and cafeteria in the basement level?
>> that's correct.
>> I would speculate that no one will go to the cafeteria if they can go to the deli that has street appeal and windows.
>> most other eating plate places that are around are easier to get to than 700 lavaca and they are from here.
I guess I don't see the need for a cafeteria at the lower level.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> restaurants nearby charge probably double what a cafeteria would be able to provide hot meals for employees.
>> well, then, it sounds like it's -- if we contacted the the wellness clinic, think can make a lot of suggestion ises for foods that are healthy, keeping county employees going during the day, until we have to leave.
>> have we done a survey monkey of the employees on the -- we might consider doing a survey monkey on the employees with regard to ground level deli options and basement level hot food options.
we might -- we might discover that we are -- we have a preference -- references that we are not aware of.
I am still trying to think ahead, who -- what contractor would we be able to come in to do this in a less than optimal space when there is a long-term contract right above them that has street appeal, windows.
>> and great sandwiches.
>> you know, we may not have to even limit it to deli, because I know -- when we were looking at the manchaca fire hall and the kitchens, there were several restaurants who were interested in that space and would provide food prep off site and bring it in and I think that would go beyond deli, but I am not sure.
>> that would be something kin to a warming kitchen which a lot of people do.
prepare it off site, bring it in.
good hot food right there on site.
>> what are we asked to do today.
>> affordability, I think is something else we also need to look at.
you take the cafeteria here, and they have their prices.
they have their menus and of course the employees -- a lot of employees do use this cafeteria on the third floor in the this building and there are folks that even come outside and you see them sitting in the cafeteria who is not really associated with Travis County that also use the cafeteria, so it may come down to economics, also.
also, as far as affordability, as far as who will go where and spend what on what.
so I just think we may need to also look at affordability, as far as to the Travis County employees and, also, the folks downtown that may love to go to this site if it's affordable.
so I want to make sure we keep that in mind, affordability, also.
>> that's a great point, Commissioner.
judge Biscoe had driven that point home with me on two separate occasions.
>> judge, you did that.
>> for affordable --
>> it was stronger than I intended, but --
>> I got the message and it was a good point.
so we are trying to look for it.
>> we need to look at that.
it should be a consideration.
>> what are we asked to do today?
>> excuse me.
to address some of the concerns and questions that have been raised, I believe dan mansour and the wellness folks are doing a survey to help with the guidance on some of these issues.
>> great, thanks.
>> we were simply asked to be informed today?
>> this is just informational item to let you know the things we are working through.
>> so what's the time line on that survey that the wellness people are putting together?
>> we will probably be discussing that with him this week.
in advance.
>> you can shoot him an email and get it back in a couple of days?
>> yes, sir, that is the plan.
>> the survey would be designed to inform us as to employee interest in hot meals versus something else, I guess, and whether they would likely use a cafeteria-type restaurant?
>> that's correct.
it will take on a lot of different types of questions.
we don't want to slant the answers one way or the other.
>> yes.
but if they want to use it, there is no reason to do it -- I mean, I was just thinking, hot meal from nearby at a reasonable price, it is kind of special and every time I get in my car and get to a restaurant and walk around the corner, I am looking at twice as what it would cost in this building.
so that matters, I don't know to how much people.
and the reason it matters to me, though, because if I can go to the third floor, get something, and go back to the office, read a newspaper in an hour's time, I can get everything done.
whereas if I leave and go to a restaurant, it is problematic that I can get back to the office in an hour.
thanks for informing us.
this will be back on the agenda as soon as possible.
>> you will see us again at the schematic design presentation with hope pfully answers to these questions -- hopefully answers to these questions if not sooner.
>> let the wellness committee know the survey is important and that it's important that we get it done as soon as possible.
>> may I also ask that we find out from the cafeteria on the third floor what their highest selling items are -- the high-volume items are.
because we may find out what the high-volume items are not things that are are running on the grill.
>> we can do that.
thank you.
>> anything else?
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
