Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 18
>> 18?
>> Austin is to discuss and take appropriate on the broaddus and associates central pus master plan phase ii work to date including civil and family chowrs cfch concept options overview and b, clarification of intended use language regarding the cfch concept options and master plan phasing schemes.
good afternoon.
>> good afternoon.
belinda carl and leslie strickland, project projectmanagers.
broaddus last week gave a presentation on where we are to date and started to catch up work that was going on for the civil and family courthouse site.
you looblgd at various options that were -- you looked at various options that were included by broaddus in the master plan and a recommendation for a request to use an option for the baseline.
you asked us to do language that would identify the options in the reports and the various distributions of the information as illustrative information only to be used in finalizing our master plan and that they did not necessarily express a preferred development approach.
so we have actually taken a liberty of inserting on the option a slide where that language might appear and what it might say about adopted today or give us direction on how we might change the language before we send it to broaddus for use in their materials.
we did it for both the options and we can repeat it on every slide or put it on the opening slide of each option.
we also created language for the preliminary phasing hutter slide that's on the last page of your backup that discusses what the phasing plan is intended to be as well, which again is -- represents a baseline planning tool for use in making decisions in the future.
we also made sure to highlight that it is intended to guide discussions and it is not necessarily -- it is subject to change based on differing facts.
so the plan is based on our understanding of the facts as we know them, as we're developing them, and they're not intended to tie the Commissioners' court's Commissioners' court's hands in any way.
we're happy to take any edits you would like to see on either of the language elements.
or any other comments or things you would uld like to see us do.
>> questions or comments?
>> I just have a question.
do you believe that the language that you could hear does not -- it is descriptive enough that future design parameters would not necessarily be limited to a two-building structure, because every plan has two buildings in it.
I used the term architectural design last week.
if you think your language here is such that the -- those who may be partnering with us either -- in whatever form in the future for this courthouse understand that we're not locked in to necessarily a two-building concept.
I'm fine with it, but I used architectural design haft week when we were talking about this.
>> we can certainly expand the language so that it is -- if you would like to see us do that.
I would point out that option c and d do try to represent in following the tall building parameters in the downtown plan do have structures that share a base and pull towers how.
they're differing sizes, but they would be more like that approach for the block and use the guidelines.
I'm happy to take any suggestions or additions to the language.
it was certainly our intent to represent that this isn't necessarily a preferred approach, it's just the simplest baseline.
>> I just want to be sure that potential partners understand the right flexibility there and the two-building -- whether it's a common base or separate, may be preferred by everybody in the future when we get all the pieces together.
but I hate to visually direct our potential partners and have them assume that it's a direction we are going.
and that was why he used the word architectural design.
if you feel like the language is descriptive enough for them to understand, if they have something creative like the brooklyn courthouse, which was one building with exterior private stuff, you know, we've seen things like that.
I just don't want us to look -- perceptually lock us into something.
>> I think we may need to go back and have a discussion with broaddus to expand some narrative about flexibility and adherence to the dap guidelines.
they're not adapted guidelines yet, but we know the city is trying to move towards that and that's where you actually start to see some of the that architectural form be designed as multiple towers on the site as opposed to single tower.
and we can certainly do that again in other parts of the document, reinforce that the county wants a creative approach and what we're doing is working within some of the guidelines the city has set to date, but I think I have a better understanding of your concern today the way you've expressed it.
so we can certainly do that.
>> we can work on crafting some draft language for the narrative introductory section of the final report package for which these more cryptic exhibits will be exhibits to as clearly as possible cover the openness to create solutions that we want to keep the door open for.
>> that would be fine with me.
>> okay.
>> is there any other changes to language or anything?
>> I'm not sure if it's change the language, but look at that on -- let me get to option a.
I wasn't sure if the way that county building is being portrayed here.
if that is -- does that go 80 years.
is that going to last 80 years?
or the things, the number of courts that are needed and then all of the space that families will have to have for -- the way it's been described before, the parents and children and each having their own attorneys?
>> I understand that the program that you've adopted is a 30-year program.
so it's not 80 years' worth of space.
when we talk about an 80 year building, it generally speaks to the quality of the finish and the stability of the structure, the longevity of the site.
so part of what we've been looking at in all of these options is where you might have additional ability to grow throughout the life of this fight for the county.
and that's part of the difficulty in discussing and coming up with a creative solution that would allow you to grow into other parts of the property over time.
so I think the direct response is that the red building that you see represents the program that is intended to fit until 2035.
we've also looked at making sure that the building has floor to floor height, so you could displace some office functions and grow courts down within the structure, but certainly everything that's programmed to be in the building until 2035, you would not be able to say you could extend that to how is it within the same building square footage for 80 years.
that's not how the program is done.
>> within the 30 years.
>> within the 30, sure.
>> but it doesn't really fit what I believe is a civil courthouse and family center.
>> no.
this is just like kind of a lego building block stacking.
we didn't want to again go back to -- there's already so much that's defined as architectural form by some of the code.
we didn't want to presume any other type of architectural dine design or elements.
this is very, very basic building block, not intended to reflect the building as much as it is to reflect the massing and the size of what it might look like on the site.
so I would suspect that you're going to have something when you move into the design that looks very different than this.
we just wanted to give a sense of scale in these reports.
I know it's not -- it's very disappointing to look at --
>> it's not quite what I had foreseen.
>> but we don't want to forecast an impression for design when we're not close to doing that yet.
>> so the new language is what's next to option a.
>> yes, sir.
>> and also the phasing -- the preliminary phasing page?
>> yes, sir.
>> looks fine to me.
I do think Commissioner Huber's recommendation is a good one, though.
anything else?
judge livingston?
>> just here if you have any questions.
>> we'll put you to work over here now.
this is the granger building.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> anything else?
with that move approval.
>> second.
>> and we've got one other visit from the consultants, right, a final?
>> two more.
>> two more.
one that is more of a briefing and the other one would be a final approval.
>> so this is approval of the phase two work.
>> this is information to move forward into the completion of phase two work.
we'll be back sometime in October or early November for final approval of the phase two work, but we'll have an interim briefing in September.
>> that's what my motion was.
and did I get a second?
>> yeah, judge.
>> discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Davis, Eckhardt, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
>> I'm abstaining.
I don't believe I understand this as well as I should.
>> Commissioner Gomez abstains.
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.
