Attachment A

 

Design Comments

 

 

1)       The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) returned no comments.

2)       Architectural Review Board (ARB) returned the following comments on September 19th:

a)       Dais as shown on the plans should have an elevation change (step down) for staff as in the room 241 dais.

b)       Request that room 241 be retained as an alternative smaller board room.  Theater style seating could be removed in favor of flexible seating so that the room could also serve as a conference room.

c)       Consider the possibility of wireless broadcast so that audience members could see the presentation on personal laptops.

3)       Planning Commission returned the following comments on September 20th.

a)       Serious concern that the scale of the auditorium would overwhelm most PC meetings.  Would like for room 241 (current Board Room) to be retained as an alternative smaller board room.  Theater style seating could be removed in favor of flexible seating so that the room could also serve as a conference/training room.  Current Board Room also useful for work session room – Meeting Room 235 (adjacent to Board Room) not always sufficient when public wants to sit in on work sessions.

b)       Concern with the basic concept of spending significant money upgrading the Auditorium for the relatively infrequent need of it to support Board meetings.

c)       Strong preference for staff to be at the dais as opposed to at tables to side/rear.

d)       Decided preference for the initially-proposed horseshoe configuration, accommodating staff at the dais and also not having backs to audience that would be seated near the sides of audience seating.

e)       Concern about awkward movement between dais and meeting room at stage level.  If staff were using the Executive Session/Meeting Room as a “green room” it’s awkward for staff to go from there to the dais.

 

Go to Attachment B

Return to executive summary