Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Hall Renovation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architects and advisory board back a front addition for Pepper Pike City Hall while council raises accessibility and scale questions
Summary
Architect Paul and advisers presented two renovation schemes for City Hall — a front addition and a rear addition — and said the front option better resolves circulation and entry issues. Council pressed on accessibility during construction, cost differences (rear ~ $400K–$500K more) and whether the program size is needed; discussion will continue when a full council is present.
Architect Paul presented two competing plans to expand Pepper Pike City Hall at the council’s Sept. 25 meeting, telling members the alternatives grew from a feasibility study and that they should be weighed on cost, construction disruption and circulation. “We think this is the right thing to do,” Paul said, urging council to compare a front‑addition scheme with an option that builds at the rear of the building.
The front option would create a more prominent, accessible main entrance and add basement space for the building department; the firm estimated the front alternative at about $1.3 million to $1.5 million once professional services are included. Paul said building at the rear would be more complicated and “about four to $500,000 more” because of site utilities, added demolition and temporary accessibility solutions.
Hassan Gardi, chair of the city’s Architecture Board of Review, and an experienced volunteer architectural adviser told council the front solution improved massing and public approach and called it “an excellent solution” for circulation and interior function. Another adviser, Dick (architectural advisor), echoed that view and recommended design refinements rather than a wholesale move to the rear.
Several council members questioned the scope and size of the project, asking whether Pepper Pike needs a significantly larger chamber and whether internal re‑programming of offices could meet many needs at lower cost. Council members pressed staff on practical implications: whether employees could remain in the building during construction, how elevator choice (residential‑grade vs. commercial) affects both cost and frequency of use, and how the city would provide accessible entry if the rear were used during construction.
Paul said a front build would likely take about 12 months from groundbreaking; a rear build could extend the schedule by roughly two months and would complicate access because the elevator would need to be removed during construction. He cautioned the council that temporary accessibility measures – for example, temporary lifts or rerouted paths – could add roughly $50,000–$100,000 to the project cost.
Council members and advisers urged a more deliberate programming phase. One council member suggested convening an advisory group with the ABR to refine scope and reduce the risk of overbuilding; another urged tabling major decisions until all council members are present so a full body can review the plan and costs.
No formal vote was taken. Staff and the project team will return with revised materials and additional cost and program detail for further council consideration.
