HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/1978MINUTES_O~F_T_HE_ S~ECIAL SESSION OF MARCH 14, 1978 ~(c__o_n_t_._)
ewers between the Port Commission of tke Port of Port Townsend and the City
Council regarding deficiencies in application No.-7711-05 from the Port of Port
Townsend to rezone property bounded by Sims Way, Kah Tai Lagoon, Decator Street,
and the alley between Kuhn and Haines Streets all within the SE 1/4 of the NE
1/4 of Section 10; and the South 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 11, within Town-
ship 30N,R1W, WM, Jefferson County. He called on Mr. David Douglas from the
Port to explain what the plan is at present. Mr. Douglas indicated they have
prepared an eight page document in response to the legal opinion obtained from
Mr. Holloway pointing out in the application where some of the information is
located. He indicated they would like to make note as they go through this
document where the City Council needs more information in order for their ap-
plication to be considered complete.
Mayor Steve reminded Mr. Douglas that no new imformation could be intro-
duced at this time which Mr. Douglas agreed to. Mr. Douglas then reviewed Mr.
Holloway's opinion of February 14, 1978, point by point. With reference to
Section 4.05C.1, he indicated a construction schedule is included although fur-
ther assurances could be provided. The financial analysis of the project was
reported to be supplied to the Council at the public hearing February 6, 1978,
in a seven page suPPlement.
Councilmember Smith asked if the construction schedule includes the com-
mercial buildings. Mr. Douglas stated it does not.
With reference to Section 4.05C.2, Mr. Douglas stated consistency with
the spirit and intent of the ordinanCe must be determined by the Council. With
reference to Section 4.05B.l.b, Mr. Douglas asked for the Council to indicate
the scope of population, market,economic, and cost analysis they want to see in
the application and he indicated why it was not included on an item by item
basis. He asked for an indication from the City Council as to whether they
would approve of their application if it is completed before they make any major
outlay of funds.
Councilmember Smith asked Mr. Holloway who was present in the audience if
this presentation altered his opinion. Mr. Holloway indicated it did not, how-
ever his opinion was based solely on the application not including the supple-
ment. He further stated that the Council must have some knowledge of what is
going into it in order to evaluate the effect on municipal services and the
economic community.
After a brief discussion to varify the questions posed by the Port, Council-
member Camfield stated any economic study should evaluate the effects of some
of the most controversial uses. Councilmember Shaneyfelt stated that the con-
cerns expressed by the citizens towards the impact on the exsisting business
community should by addressed. Councilmember Ciprioti stated that he would like
clarification on how the Port would maintain the control of the P.U.D. Mr.
Douglas explained the owners association function as defined in the application.
Councilmember Wilson asked if it is the intent of the Port to turn the water
and sewer over to the City. Mr. Douglas explained that the streets,park, water,
sewer, and storm drainage system in all but the three commercial sections would
be turned o~er to the City after completion. Councilmember Wilson stated that
this is not the way the City usually works a P.U.D. Councilme~ber Camfield in-
dicated we will be receiving the "front of the cow" or the maintenance item.
Councilmember Ciprioti indicated the Council would prefer that the Port maint&in
the proposed improvements. The Port asked for a definition of a Planned Unit
Development as the City views it.
Councilmember Smith indicated every possibility would hawe to be weighed
in evaluating the economic impact of the application unless the intended use of
each commercial parcel were known.
Mr. Douglas sumarized the points brought out for consideration as follows:
First, that the Port consider maintaining the improved areas fcrmerly proposed
for dedication to the City. Second, that the City designate those proposed uses
of the commercial areas that. they want stricken which would allow the Port to
evaluate the economic feasibility of the development. Third, the Port needs to
know a concise definition of the s~ope of an economid study that the Council
would feel comfortable with. Fourth, can the Council imagine a park being put
in as described in the application or is there any land use the Council fe~ls
is acceptabl~ for this parcel. Fifth, the Port needs the definition of a Com-
mercial Planned Unit Development.
Mayor Steve referred the request to the Legislative/Environmental Committee
for a recommendation at the April 4th meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:08Mayor:P.m.~//~~~~~ _
ATTEST: ~~