Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11292004 . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF NOVEMBER 29, 2004 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in workshop session this twenty- ninth day of November, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend temporary Council Chambers at Building 204, Fort Worden State Park, Mayor Catharine Robinson presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were Frank Benskin, Freida Fenn, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, City Engineer Dave Peterson, Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. LETTER TO STATE SENATE AND LAND USE COMMITTEE . City Manager David Timmons reviewed the packet material, stating that city staff has drafted a letter for the Mayor's signature that addresses the expenditure deadlines for state Shoreline Master Program grant monies. The letter requests that the state legislature allow unspent grant monies awarded to Port Townsend to be rolled from the end of the state budget biennium (June 30, 2005) into the second half of 2005 to support the Shoreline Master Program public review and adoption process. Public comment None Motion: Mr. Masci moved to approve the Mayor's letter to the State Senate Land Use and Planning Committee as presented. Ms. Fenn seconded. The motion carried, unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. RESOLUTION 04-060 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO A WARD AND EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH DAWSON CONSTRUCTION INe. FOR THE CITY HALL ANNEX AND CITY HALL RESTORA nON PROJECT . Mr. Timmons reviewed the packet material, including the history ofthe project, the two bids, and the potential plan for raising funds over the next two years. He stated that staff s recommendation is to move forward to award the contract and begin the process to City Council Special Business Meeting Page 1 November 29,2004 . address the revenue shortfall issues in terms of the difference between expense and cash flow. City Engineer Dave Peterson presented information about the project. Also present were Emily Wheeler of the ARC architectural firm, Kate Johnson, the historic preservation consultant, and Ben Thompson from Dawson construction. Mr. Peterson noted that several members of the citizen task force were also present. Mr. Timmons referred to a letter from David Hero, who has been an active fundraiser for the Historical Society, stating that important issues to the community are the transparency of the process, the vision of the future, and the desire to know where their donation money IS gomg. Mr. Timmons said that the project fits into a broader perspective; it may be looked at in terms of managing historic preservation citywide. He mentioned the public redevelopment agency concept; community development corporation and partnerships with entities such as the NW Maritime Center. The Historic Society's lease will be examined and there may be capacity there which has not been tapped in terms of becoming a revenue source; non-profit community lending organizations are available to assist JCHS with a business plan. . Mr. Timmons asked the Council to separate the two issues: award the project contract now and then look at the funding cycle in the broader context. The cost of the project will only continue to rise as time goes by. He added that it is past the point where the annex could be abandoned and the City Hall restored as the projects are too closely tied together. Ms. Fenn asked that we be clear that the "library upgrade" refers to the second floor of City Hall. Mr. Benskin asked about the total costs for the sprinklers. Mr. Timmons stated that sprinkler systems have been planned for the basement and the first floor. The second floor presents problems because of the asbestos in the ceiling; it is hoped that pipe can be run in the rafters through negotiation with the contractor but the second floor will not have a full sprinkler system. Cost will probably be about $30,000. Mr. Kolffasked about the size of the library; Mr. Peterson stated it was between 1500 and 1700 square feet. Mr. Benskin asked about the plans for the streets cape, street repairs and plaza. Mr. Peterson said the cost of the sidewalk and plaza would be approximately $150,000. He noted that the Madison Street repaving is not in this bid. . City Council Special Business Meeting Page 2 November 29,2004 · Ms. Robinson asked ifthe streetscape grant would cover some ofthe costs; Mr. Timmons stated that the City would be seeking funding for those elements from transportation dollars as a separate project. Public comment Nancy Dorgan: stated this is the most important thing this Council will be remembered for; she added that there needs to be a clear picture about what "City Hall" is and said she specifically wants a sign on the door of the building that clearly shows it as City Hall. The annex should be designated clearly as "City Hall Annex." Pat Durbin: JCHS Board of Trustees. Stated delays and additional studies have eaten up thousands of dollars and costs continue to escalate; said this has gone through all appropriate process, extensive review by citizen advisory committees and the silent majority of the town cares very much and assumes that this public process will win out and the project will proceed. Betty Harriman: spoke in strong support of restoration of City hall and City Hall annex; the vast majority of the city wants City Hall back and this Council has paved the way. · Bill Tennent, JCHS Executive Director stated the JCHS Board unanimously endorsed the project on April 30, 2003 and this vote was reconfirmed at their last meeting. He urged the Council to go forward with this plan which best serves the citizens by providing comfortable and welcome offices and public space in the annex and restoration of City Hall. Barbara Lea Wright, JCHS trustee and citizen: urged preservation of City Hall building and noted how it has been demonstrated that costs only go up and deterioration increases daily. She said the value of this building must be considered in context ofthe large number of historic buildings in the city and on Water Street; its value is undeniable. She urged the Council to approve the resolution. Mari Mullen: Executive Director, Main Street, stated she has spoken with a number of downtown merchants about the project; Main Street supports the project which will provide progressive stewardship for City Hall as well as an administrative annex that will meet our needs for another 100 years; she noted the work of the citizen task force which examined many options and approved this plan. Main Street and merchants share concerns about the cost of the project but believe the City Manager will explore creative opportunities for closing the financial gap. She stated the project does not appear to be a 'Cadillac" but a well designed asset to the town and investment in Port Townsend's future. She added that the downtown buildings are like a family, with City Hall as a grandparent and the annex as the grandchild which holds up the grandparent but also needs money. · Barbara Marseille: thanked the JCHS facilities committee for all their hard work and expressed appreciation to the Council in getting to this point. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 3 November 29,2004 · David Hero: stated that the city government has been talking about what to do with City Hall for 60 years; if we had all the money we spent planning, we wouldn't need any funding now. When concerns arose during the present planning phase, the process was stopped and the city spent more time and money to come to the same conclusion. He stated the city must have the faith we can do this and put the years of procrastination behind us. Todd Wexman: stated that this is not a City Hall but a facility for JCHS; is concerned about the shortfall in funding; spoke against seismic refit of City Hall and stated that a replacing the roof would be money squandered. Ken McBride: stated he has spent many hours with city staff and architects as a member ofHPC; buying Waterman & Katz would just result in the city owning another old building which would also be removed from the tax rolls. He asked the Council not to follow the County's example and purchase a building that must be totally renovated; he recommended that the Council go forward with the project now and be part of a civic Renaissance and that if it doesn't happen now it may never happen. · Mrs. Medlicott stated she will support the resolution but would prefer that people stop referring to "old" City Hall as the building in question is and always has been the City Hall for the community. She added that that this will never be less expensive and does not see how this or any other community would not consider a fiscal investment in such an important historic building. Motion: Ms. Medlicott moved for adoption of Resolution 04-060. Mr. Kolff seconded. Mr. Kolff enthusiastically seconded Mrs. Medlicott's comments Ms. F enn stated that she was opposed to the annex at first, but through public process and presentation of facts and options by the advisory committee, her mind was changed. She is now a wholehearted and enthusiastic supporter of moving into the future and vigorously exploring options to fund the shortfall. Mr. Masci stated there is a large segment of the community which is not in favor of the project; he is concerned about financing and the shortfall of $800,000 to $1 million keeps coming up. He believes the Council has not received real life numbers. He stated that the project will result in something the community can make use of and enjoy although he would have preferred addition of the third floor and a functioning City Hall. He will side with those who are not in favor of the project. Ms. Robinson asked for clarification that the amount being approved in the resolution is the bid of $3,768,000. Mr. Timmons confirmed that is correct. · Mr. Benskin stated his concerns about finances, noting that he has construction and project management and bidding background and likes to approach a project knowing City Council Special Business Meeting Page 4 November 29,2004 · what the costs will be. He believes the shortfall is more like $1.8 and does not believe a project should be started until all the funds are available to pay for it. Ms. Sandoval stated it is better to own than to rent and we were foolish not to have done this years ago. The project will help create community development and will revitalize that section of town. She understands the concern about money but believes that the options outlined by the City Manager are very viable. She added that a remaining concern is the stress the project will put on downtown parking and the city must make a commitment to finding long term parking solutions. She added this is a practical solution to the City's space needs as well as an exciting adventure for downtown. Ms. Robinson stated she is also concerned about funding and will be watching that closely; the resolution approves on the bid amount and she stated that if everything can't be done immediately because of a shortage of funding, some things may not be done. However, the project is very important and she will support the motion. Vote: motion carried, 5-2, by voice vote, Masci and Benskin opposed. RECESS Mayor Robinson announced a recess at 8:07 p.m. for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:20 p.m. · ORDINANCE 2871 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND RELATING TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION; ESTABLISHING HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR AWNINGS, MURALS, EXTERIOR PAINT COLORS, SIGNS AND SIGN FONTS, NEON SIGNS, AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS FOR PROJECTS SUBJECT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REVIEW Mayor Robinson thanked Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall for the thorough public notice and outreach regarding this matter. Mr. Randall reviewed the packet materials. He stated he has received no written comments and one telephone call from a person who has an unpermitted neon sign and was concerned about gaining compliance. He then reviewed the history of the ordinance, noted that edits to the last version of the ordinance (Exhibit C-3) are in the packet and explained sign issues will be reviewed next year when the Council takes up review of the entire sign code. · Public comment: Mari Mullen: Executive Director of Main Street, stated that her organization assisted the department in publicizing the changes and has received a few comments including City Council Special Business Meeting Page 5 November 29,2004 · caution against excessive use of neon signage; don't open the floodgates in an effort to grab business and make Port Townsend into a place you would have fled from before. She stated that Main Street is supportive of HPC work and commended all the work from 1992 to now in all its aspects. Main Street encourages a pedestrian friendly district with distinctive signage that promotes that and encourages the historic heritage. David Hero: stated he is a restaurant owner and not a fan of neon but has seen it used nicely; when the sign code was originally adopted, the principle was that if you had an equal playing ground, everyone wouldn't be competing for the biggest and best sign. This encourages people to work on their businesses and not just promotion. Specific suggestion include supporting signs only behind window glazing; doesn't understand how "only where others are not possible or ineffective" could be applied and suggested deletion of that line. He supports alternative placement being approved based on historical precedent. He added that traditionally neon has not been used for pedestrian traffic but to attract the attention of people in automobiles. Ken McBride of HPC noted that the Committee tries to do the best for the applicant in relation to their business needs in the historic district. The HPC encourages participation of the applicants and is able under the guidelines to make exceptions to fit certain circumstances. He emphasized that the Committee does have discretion in many instances. He also stated that neon should not be used as an architectural tool but if a proposed sign fits within reasonable guidelines the HPC will work with the applicant. · Coila Sheard: owner of the McCurdy Building: stated she has the cleanest corner in town as she does not allow sandwich board signs. She is basically against neon signs but very small ones may be okay. Phil Johnson: stated that if every building downtown decided they wanted three neon signs it would have a negative impact on the district; he is against allowing that many neon signs for each business. Jeff Randall responded: in regard to Mr. Hero's comments, he stated that it is true that neon is auto rather pedestrian oriented, the guideline that they should be as small as possible but visible across the street was an attempt to be reasonable; he added that neon sign guidelines do not change the sign code which allows a maximum of 12 square feet of signage per business in the historic district. Mr. Kolff asked for a response to Mr. Hero's concern about the sentence in Guideline 4 which states "Alternative placement should only be authorized in situations where other types of signage are either not possible or are ineffective." · Mr. Randall replied that currently the sign code only allows neon signs to be placed in windows; this does not address projecting signs, two of which have been permitted. Currently, a variance may be possible. He noted that the sentence is redundant and he would not object to striking it; also noted that the word "also" should be removed from the next line. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 6 November 29,2004 · Mr. Masci commented on the Urban Waterfront Special Overlay Review District and stated that leaving this area out of the HPC guideline jurisdiction would solve a lot of problems. Mr. Randall explained that is already under the jurisdiction ofthe HPC; it is the entrance to downtown and there are some historic buildings left in the area. Mr. Masci asked if staff has created a catalog of currently existing signs. Mr. Randall said the catalog is not complete but staff will go through one more time, match the survey with permitted signs and notify those who currently have unpermitted signs. He added that staff is proposing a one year grace period for those people to come in for HPC review or to purchase new signage. Ms. Fenn noted that allowing neon signs to be two square feet doubles the previous requirement and asked how that number was chosen. Mr. Randall said that was one of the issues discussed with the HPC at the first meeting; the original recommendation to prohibit neon signs came from the Field Report of the National Trust; however the HPC determined that neon signs do have a place in the historic district and recommended administrative review and a maximum of two square feet which seemed reasonable for administrative review. Ms. Fenn asked why there is a minimum letter height specified but no maximum. Mr. Randall stated that the minimum came from a book on sign guidelines that discussed visibility of letter heights at certain businesses. · Ms. Fenn noted that the proposed guidelines would allow three neon signs per business and doubles the coverage allowed per neon sign. She asked if the possible cumulative impact on the district was considered. Mr. Randall stated that this was discussed and is a difficult call; he added that the HPC thought this was reasonable as there is a balance among businesses who will have the maximum and those who will have none. Ms. Sandoval asked if a 12 foot square neon sign was allowed within the regulations. Mr. Randall said it is possible but review would also apply all the other guidelines in addition to maximum size. Ms. Sandoval asked if business owners will be contacted and informed of the one year grace period. Mr. Randall said that they would. Mr. Masci stated he encourages the grace period will begin after documented contact with the property owner rather an when the ordinance becomes law. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to adopt Ordinance 2871 with the edits suggested by staff in Exhibit C-3 dated November 22, 2004. Mr. Benskin seconded. · City Council Special Business Meeting Page 7 November 29,2004 · · · Motion to amend: Ms. Fenn moved to amend the motion to include reduction of the total number of administratively approved neon signs from three to two. Ms. Robinson seconded. Mr. Masci spoke against the amendment, stating certain business will require three signs. Ms. Fenn stated there aren't that many businesses which will be out of compliance and they will have the grace period. She is looking for equal application of the guidelines and noted that this is the administrative review threshold and does not preclude an applicant from going through the HPC process which would allow for a discussion of cumulative impact. Mrs. Medlicott noted that this has gone back and forth for far too long; she stated that the HPC has approved the current version, they have a higher level of expertise and she supports their version. Vote: amendment carried, 4-3, by voice vote, with Benskin, Masci and Medlicott opposed. Ms. Sandoval noted that the Council has taken formal action to trigger a review of the entire sign code in 2005. Mrs. Medlicott stated she will vote against the ordinance, although she applauds the valuable and necessary work of the HPC, she believes this to be a bad law that will only complicate things. Ms. Robinson spoke in support, citing the fact that the HPC has been using these very guidelines for many years. Mr. Benskin stated he feels the guidelines have finally been given a fair and thorough reVIew. Vote: adoption of Ordinance 2871 as amended carried, 6-1, by roll call vote, Medlicott opposed. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Attest: ~ CÞ(h"O' Pamela Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Special Business Meeting Page 8 November 29,2004