Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/28/2003 5013 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING / GATEWAY REVIEW TEAM MEETING MINUTES August 28, 2003 9:00 a.m. - Clallam Transit Conference Room The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Chair Karen Rogers. Roll Call & Attendance: Members: Chair Karen Rogers, Gary Braun, altemate, Wayne Barrett, Jan Harbick, Orville Campbell, Kevin Thompson, Richard Headrick, Larry Williams, Jack Harmon, Russ Veenema, ex- officio Staff: Gary Kenworthy, Sandie Barnhart, Tim Smith, Sam Martin, secretary Public Present: Paul Lamoureux, Cherie Kidd, Brian Gawley Minutes of August 14, 2003 were approved with the following change: Arla Holzschuh is a staff member, and Russ Veenema is an ex-officio member, non-voting. I. Parking Area Usage Discussion Wayne Barrett reported that he monitored the present parking locations in the Gateway area to see what kinds of cars, sizes, etc. that are using the spaces now available, including RV's. Mr. Barrett provided a set of handouts to the group with his statistics. Tim questioned the ferry traffic, which Wayne said was slightly low this year compared to the average. Sandie questioned whether any of the Niichell property vehicle numbers included the Budget "rental" cars. Wayne didn't feel that the count there would have been accurate once it was known that he was monitoring numbers. Arla reported her parking permits are sold out at capacity +, even though people don't go down in lower parking behind the Dairy Queen as easy as street level. Most of the day, 12 spaces were used. Permit parking will shift to the First Street hill. People tend to want to park as close to where they want to go. H. Layouts received from Pardini Chair Rogers voiced concern over the costs spoken about at thc last meeting of August 14t~. The two-page Pardini handout, received since the last meeting, was discussed. Tim Smith reported on the layouts. The $30,000 per stall proposed on the current plan, dealt with excavation, support structures, etc., as the development of costs. He spoke about the structured parking being possible between $13,000 - $17,000 per stall, but the average cost of $15,000 will be used for discussion purposes. He decided to look at the original ad hoc committee's recommendation and information provided at that time by Darrell Vange, at Ravenhurst. It has gone from structured above grade to below grade, multi- Gateway Review Team Committee Meeting 1 August 28, 2003 5014 level structure. No net loss of parking was the goal and at that time was very satisfactory. Tim spoke to Lee Pardini and he said there still is a way to keep the lower per-stall cost. At street level and area that buses sit on, would stay at the current, filled, grade level so support structures wouldn't be needed. West of buses is two decks of parking, being 60 per deck. Tim used the white board to demonstrate the 5 ½ foot difference in grade between Railroad and Front Street, which has a variable grade of 5 ½' - 7'. The second page of the drawings shows a parking structure that will be partially below grade, but not as much as the old Harbor Tavern site. You would enter and exit the lower level from Railroad Avenue. Above, entering and exiting from Front Street, you would have another deck for additional parking. The differences between this concept and the concept of two weeks ago are two. The first difference is less excavation; and two, the support structures needed to support parked cars is less significant and thus less costly. Tim pointed out that Pardini agrees this gets us much closer to the $15,000 per stall that we looked at two weeks ago. He does feel that another level could eventually be added, even though losing a few parking spots due to the ramp that would be needed. The new design for the buses does not require any more designing than what is already developed. This is the earlier configuration of the bus needs as before. Chair Rogers called for discussion on the concept brought forward today. Russ questioned what would happen if we did not do the second level of parking, what is the net loss of parking. Tim responded that it would make about 30 - 40 short. Arla said in the past, we were trying to get to 100. She said with the last concept, they were at about 90. Russ feels today's concept would accommodate the ferry's traffic much better, as well as the Visitor Center. Jan Harbick questioned the costs and how closely it is to the past proposal. Orv commented that it is a great time to look at today's needs as well as the future needs. He feels this should be looked at closely, and if chosen, could move forward quickly. Currently the situation is that we have requested Merritt + Pardini to get some cost quotes for us. Now Karen feels we should ask him to cost out this concept instead. (Pardini has been on vacation since our last meeting, so hopefully he has not had hours put in on first request.) Gary Braun is wanting those numbers to compare, and he feels this concept would be much more acceptable and could be chosen quickly. Wayne Barrett questioned if we are losing more street parking with today's proposal, because of the two entrance/exit openings? Tim and Gary Kenworthy both answered that they felt it would not take away from any parking spaces. Sandie told how Transit has spoken to Rick Krochalis, Transportation Regional Administrator, and the fact that he told her they would not pay for the parking structures. Mike Chapman spoke of how the FTA wants this project to move ahead more quickly. Gary Braun concurred with that. Several things have slowed the process, such as acquisition of property. Even though he has shown full support of the project, Mr. Krochalis still said there are some things they will cover that are Transit related, and other things they will not, since they are not transit-related. Mike Chapman feels that Port Angeles is just too small to warrant FTA to pay for parking spaces, unlike Seattle. Tim said that much of the problem along the lines of this moving slowly is the fault of the "hired help". It goes clear back to March and what the Parking Ad-Hoc committee put forward at that time is essentially what was just presented today. It was changed by the consultant team and we went down the path to work with it, wasting time and money, and now we're back where we were before. Gateway Review Team Committee Meeting 2 ~4ugust 28, 2003 5015 Jan Harbick asked Russ if he would be comfortable in the new proposed spot for the Visitor Center and he said no. He felt the costs would be too much at this rate. Tim voiced frustration over the past architectural design for the Visitor Center. Russ felt the designs he had approved before have been tossed. Chair Rogers said this is exactly why this "revised" committee is meeting to get back on track and proceed. Russ needs someone to get back to him on the size of the building. He feels he might have to stay in the present Chamber of Commerce building and remodel it to suit his needs. The square footage proposal of two weeks ago is less than the current Visitor Center and is not adequate. Tim agreed that it was all wrong; the architect did not design the plans in the area within the Visitor Center building that is acceptable and functional. It should have had at least what it has now in square footage, etc. Sandie questioned whether Bill Lindbergh was in on the designs during that time, and Tim responded that she could inform us of the answer as she is the project manager. Tim feels the questions on the table are about cost and time. He would like those questions answered. Sandie didn't feel the Transit Board was involved in anything to do with the Chamber building, just to clarify that issue. Tim assured Sandie that he is questioning our consultants and the feeling that they have somehow been in error to omit this in the design. Again, Chair Rogers reiterated that is why we have reorganized the group here and have as point of contact the city manger, Mike Quinn. Chair Rogers said she will definitely be speaking with the architect and city manager to get us back on page one. Russ felt he has just not been questioned about what he needs. This is why the result of the frustration for Russ pushed him to say that if he cannot have the improved facility space that he needs, he may as well stay in the present building. He read out loud the email he had sent to Chair Rogers explaining all of this, the sizes he needs, etc. Pardini's concept design would leave him with about 200 less square feet, at a lease rate higher than current. (Jack Harmon arrived at 9:35 a.m.) Jack Harmon was brought up to date of the concept of today by Tim going to the white board and showing him the drawing he had made earlier. Jack then asked if we are going backwards. Chair Rogers explained that the "herky" structure of two weeks ago was costly. The one proposed today will be much less costly. Arla spoke of being comfortable going back to what the Parking Ad Hoc Committee had originally, which is what's reflected today. The cost is cut from $30K per stall to $15K per stall. Arla asked for an estimate to be costed out for the possibility of a 3rd floor. She would like an estimate both the two level design and three level design. Mike Chapman said that if the City wants to pay for that then it would be okay. Mike Chapman quoted the Transit Board doesn't want to keep writing checks for changes in design invoices. Again, Gary Braun agreed this is the case. Tim will work with Darrell Vange (Ravenhurst) to see what another level will cost that could possibly lower the cost per stall. Larry Williams questioned where the 3rd level would be, over the second level or plaza? Just over the 2nd level. Tim again explained that the earlier Ravenhurst study covers most of these questions. Jan Harbick spoke again of the Visitor Center. She felt that ifPardini, or whoever, cannot design in what the Visitor Center needs and wants, then pull it out completely. It is costly to keep designing it Gateway Review Team Committee Meeting 3 August 28, 2003 5016 inadequately. She suggested they design something with the $125 per square foot cost. Chair Rogers then asked group for a sense of direction to be taken now. Jan Harbick responded by asking about what remaining funding are available after the deductions and costs have been taken so far. It was decided that there is $4.5M remaining. She then asked what the remaining amount could cover, based on the March figures. Tim said the Ravenhurst study did not reflect the costs for that question. Jan said that maybe now we are looking at two projects, Gateway and City. Sandie said in order for FTA funding, the different elements would have to be tied into the project as transit related. She felt that the Chamber building could have some FTA funding, depending on how the space is shared and presented, like the elevator, or pass sales, schedules in lobby... The parking garage does not reflect Transit. If the business is on a piece of property, the FTA will pay for the property, and you will also buy the business on top of buying the property. Sandie feels "we" should talk to FTA about it for their feedback. Tim suggested the motion be to request Chair Rogers to instruct Merritt + Pardini to get a preliminary cost estimate on what's been presented on August 19, based on the two sheet fax received a day or so before. Mike Chapman proposed the motion and Wayne Barrett seconded. Unanimous approval. Mr. Harmon feels strongly that Merritt + Pardini has not given us the cost estimates we requested in the past. Tim suggested asking M + P to cost out the new concept brought up today, and see what they come up with. Arla discussed that today's proposal has already been priced out basically in the past, and shown at the January Annual Board Meeting. Since these figures already exist, we should be able to get them without a great cost. The next meeting: This will be either September 4 or 11, 2003. Members to be contacted. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 10:26 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sam Martin, Sec[,etary /Glenn Wiggins, May;r- Be~kry-L~p~c~n,~i~-Cr~rk- - /-----' Gateway Review Team Committee Meeting 4 ~4ugust 28, 2003