Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/13/2003 5177 Clerk's Note: A quorum of the City Council was present at this meeting and it was, therefore, considered to be a special City Council meeting. GATEWAY REVIEW TEAM MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2003 8:30 a.m. - ProTech Center The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. by Chair Karen Rogers. Roll Call & Attendance: Members Present: Karen Rogers, Larry Williams, Gary Braun (alt.), Orville Campbell, Mike Chapman, Kevin Thompson, Wayne Barrett, Jack Harmon, Russ Veenema, ex-officio Members Absent: Jan Harbick Public & Staff Present: Greg Benton (Merritt + Pardini), Arla Holzschuh, Sandie Barnhart, Dan DiGuilio, Gary Kenworthy, Michael Quinn, Brian Gawley, Paul Lamoureux, Grant Munro, Sam Martin Approval of Minutes: The minutes were unanimously approved as written with Jack Harmon motioning and Mike Chapman seconding. Discussion regarding Gatewa? LaFout Orientation of Building Chair Rogers turned the meeting over to Greg Benton, Merritt + Pardini, to discuss the orientation of the Visitor Center building. At the last meeting it was discussed that the wind factor could make a difference in the layout of the buildings on the site. It was brought up that the wind could possibly cause less public participation at the site. Then it was suggested that the rectangular brick building (Center) be flip-flopped and try to create a wind-break. Today Mr. Benton discussed the results of flip-flopping the building. He questioned whether that really was what this committee is wanting. The view corridor, which was important, is now removed with this concept. The fact that the wind changes direction daily, made some members comment that maybe it wouldn't be necessary to worry so much about the wind after all. Two handouts were passed around from Mr. Benton. One was labeled Port Angeles Gateway Planning Level Estimate dealing with the Project Budget and Gap Financing, and the other was Port Angeles International Gateway, a preliminary redesign estimate. Again discussion took place about the possible effects that the wind could have on the project and public comfort and participation as a gathering place. Russ Veenema spoke about where the Visitor Center front would be. It has a 20' sawtooth design and is 2/3 glass. It was verified that the buildings do go clear to the edge of the property. By flip- flopping the building, the public services are now at the northern end of the plaza. The police, bus driver rooms, and restroom facilities are then on Front Street instead of central. Mr. Benton felt they would serve better at the other [north] end where they were originally designed. Also, the street presence of the Visitor Center is less because it sits back on the site. Dan DiGuilio acknowledged that with the flip-flop design, it puts the drivers, police station annex, and public facilities farther away from the bus area. The suggested design would not be accessible for Transit employees. Russ Veenema suggested leaving the building as it was approved at the last meeting, but move the staging plaza more north. Jack Gateway Review Team Committee Meeting I November 13. 2003 5178 Harmon added that the original way the building was designed and accepted would keep the airy, see-through look that is very appealing and keep trying to address the wind factor, with possibly something designed to help block the wind. After discussion, the committee felt it best to not flip-flop the building after all. Just moving the staging area may be one solution. Chair Rogers asked if there is a motion to leave the building as it was accepted last meeting and move the staging area. The Committee answered to the affirmative, with the motion submitted first by Larry Williams and seconded by Wayne Barrett. Unanimously accepted to help keep the view corridor open. Plus, as Mr. Benton reviewed the height and placement of the buildings, and street trees, there should be a fair windbreak, depending on which direction the wind is coming from. A copy of a handout from Ada, generated by Brooke Taylor (from Port Angeles Forward meeting), was passed around so everyone could see the footprint as spoke of by Mr. Taylor. Aria clarified that all buildings go fight up to and borders the street. The downtown design has all building guidelines going to the street. Overall, Russ felt it would be good to get the staging area off of Front Street and moved back a bit and away from the heavy traffic. With the newer plan, you would now be looking at the front of the visiting area. Cost Estimates for Gateway Project Plan Chair Rogers turned the meeting over to Greg Benton, Men-itt + Pardini Architects, to discuss the layout and costs associated with the project. He handed out two sheets that he is working with, one being the Project Budget and Gap Financing sheet and the second the Preliminary Redesign Estimate sheets, which are the more detailed planning estimates. Mr. Benton said the overall costs have gone down from the previous discussion concept. The surrmaary sheet shows the original plan costs kept at the level of earlier design. It reflects the 120 stalls at approximately $11,000 per stall. The big item to be discussed at this time is the Visitor Center. He pointed out the two things going against 'h~s" at this time are (1) size of building is too small, and (2) because of the revisions made, the actual building is partially on grade and partially on the plaza. Structurally the building will have to be on piles to keep the grade from settling at different levels, which keeps cracks from forming. The building itself needs to be special to really stand out, and there will be extra costs associated with that. The cost is higher due to the changes. He said to look at the balance between cost and value. It will be the focal point of the project and downtown area. Greg made suggestions on how to cut costs down, with assorted outside looks of building. This structure needs to be built to be beautiful for many years in the future, rather than a boxy, get-by structure. Russ mentioned again that he could stay where he is if this has gotten too expensive to be feasible. He is fearful he cannot stretch the budget this far. The concern is that the prices have almost doubled from the original estimate. The 1 ~ and 2 story concept were discussed. Orville wondered if there was a way to determine the economic value and impact in moving the Chamber to this site. How much ora gain is there in doing this? What was the original concept of moving the Visitor Center to this site? Russ responded that it is a community gathering area and as such brings people that much closer to shops and downtown movement. He does feel they will be able to present more interpretive displays with the new building. Dan DiGuilio questioned if the 10-15 parking spaces below could be sacrificed to keep the building at grade to help keep the costs down? Dan said originally the concept was to have a building that could accommodate multi-agencies that would represent, for example, the Park Service and what they have to offer, besides the Chamber and other agencies. At that time, the thought was that there could be a second floor with rooms to let out to separate agencies, which would cut the overall costs. Discussion took place about possible movement of retaining wall, which Mr. Benton felt would not be feasible. The funding gap was discussed. Chair Rogers and Mike Chapman pointed out that this is a time to be bold in our decisions. It will be representative of our city for many years to come. She also feels that as this project is completed, the surrounding buildings will more than likely be brought up to a higher standard, also. The structural engineer at M + P felt that it needed to be either all on grade or all on pilings to keep the soundness of the building. Mr. Benton did not feel many parking spaces, if any, would be lost with the addition of pilings, as many parking garages have them and lay out their parking stalls to accommodate them. Chair Rogers summed up the conversation and asked how this committee felt about a bold move and / or go with a very base building. Mike Quinn pointed out that the gap does not look good at this time. Gary Braun voiced that putting up something costlier would make better sense in the long mn. He felt the "bar" should be set higher for the future acceptance of the work done now. Arla reminded everyone that it is important to keep the historical district designation area concept and feels the importance of a nice Gateway entryway to the city. By keeping it bold, yet of historical design, would accomplish that. Then that thought opened up the Gateway Review Team Committee Meeting 2 November 13,2003 5179 discussion of keeping the VC building in or taking it out. Mike reminded the group that the concept would be that the Chamber would be paying back the costs over time. Orville asked what we would really save by taking the Visitor Center Building out of the project? It was answered that it would be about $891,000. Mike Quinn explained his thoughts concerning the Chamber building and how he always assumed that eventually they would be paying the costs back to the city. He explained the original gap created and the fact that it is now almost doubled. Ada questioned if the City funding into this project is zero. She wondered where the $1.5 million funds go from the sale of the assorted individual property, which isn't listed on these sheets today. She then questioned if the $2.766 million gap for the city is really minus $1.5 million? Mike asked also where are you going to get the gap for the FTA? Originally the costs and funding were as one project and not broken down. Mike reminds us that probably Transit will not be adding into this project any funds. Arla felt this has developed into a bone of contention. She said it has been always understood that parking money always replaces parking. Mike considers the total cost; money from the land acquisition sales of city property should go into the project. Regardless, the gap is still there. He feels it is certain to be a bond issue, being paid for by city funds, downtown business funds, and whatever others they can come up with. Chair Rogers said the question seems to be whether we understand a real ceiling of dollars that we cannot go past? Mike said in the original fmancing, he felt that we could do this for about $2.5 million to $2.7 million debt. That was going to require about $225,000 debt service annually, taking 20 years to pay off that debt. He was using that amount of debt service to base revenue from parking, lodging tax, and private sector. If that debt service goes up to $300,000 - $325,000, he does not know where the extra $100,000 a year could come from. It was brought up that we are starting to design something we can't pay for; like putting the cart before the horse. Arla would like to know if we can fred out if some of those funds we were hoping to have, such as Lodging Tax, could be a fn-m commitment. Are they available? The known amounts available are the FTA fimds, TIB money, but we don't know for sure about the rest. Even the parking tax Mike hoped to use would have to be authorized by the city council. Chair Rogers said that now that we have consensus on the footprint and layout of the project, the work begins on costs. Do we have the combined VC? Is it in or out? Do we leave it out now and build it later? Do we try to make a plaza with just the Transit facility down there now? Now that we have the numbers, we have sticker shock. Mike said he spoke with some private property owners. There is one area that Mike can't get around.., in terms of the parking structure, one of the issues is whether the structure should be one level with 60 spaces, or two levels with 120 spaces. It is debatable if there is enough parking combining all the sources of parking. That is why we need to keep the parking money separate from the rest. Arla clarified that the history behind all of this, is the parking under the lid is park and ride. It is not downtown customer parking, it is only park and ride parking. Chair Rogers said we have to view this project with long-term in mind and cannot let one unhappy property owner hamper progress. The question is today that with this project and facility, can we be comfortable and look forward to having a Gateway plaza area with the Transit facility only at this time, with it having the looks that will make it outstanding, and at a furore time add the Visitor Center. Chair Rogers summed up that at this point the city is going to have to meet and go over the figures. They will meet soon - Orville, Karen, and Mike. They will firm up the numbers. Grant Munro, new city council member, was introduced to committee. Next Meeting Date: TBA Adjournment: 9:45 a.m. Respectfully Submitted: Sam Martin Executive Administrative Assistant Gateway Review Team Committee Meeting 3 November 13. 2003