HomeMy WebLinkAbout05132002CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF MAY 13, 2002
The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this thirteenth day
of May, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend Council Chambers of City Hall, Deputy
Mayor Freida Fenn presiding.
ROLL CALL
Cotmcilmembers present at roll call were Freida Fenn, Geoff Masci, Michelle Sandoval
and Alan Youse. Joe Finnie, Kees Kolff and Catharine Robinson were excused. Staff
members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, BCD
Director Jeff Randall, Public Works Director Ken Clow, Planner John McDonagh, and
City Clerk Pam Kolacy.
CLOSED RECORD APPEAL - LINCOLN BEACH SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Deputy Mayor Fenn opened the closed record appeal for the above-named project.
She asked whether any council member had an Appearance of Fairness or Conflict of
Interest issue or an interest in this property or issue, or stand to gain or lose m~y financial
benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing, or have any discosure to make.
Mr. Masci stated that both the appellant and opponents are people with whom he has
socialized closely over the years but stated that he does not believe it will affect his
ability to make an impartial decision.
Ms. Sandoval stated she has sold property to one of the parties (Ted and Erica
Springstead); she has no financial interest in the project but wished to disclose the
association.
Ms. Fenn noted she had one ex parte communication with a member of the public who
approached her in regard to the matter.
Ms. Fenn then asked if there were anyone in the audience who had any objections to any
council member participating in the hearing. There were no objections.
Staff presentation:
John McDonagh, Planner, reviewed the record and memo from the BCD staff contained
in the meeting materials. He noted that the appeal issues are narrow in scope and do not
involve approval or disapproval of the project itself.
City Council Special Business Meeting Page I May 13, 2002
He referred to a memo from City Attorney John Watts regarding certain docmnents filed
by appellant Ms. Westall, many of which were determined by the staff to be irrelevant to
the appeal. The attorney's advice was to ask the project proponent (Mr. Theis or his
representative) if he has any objection to allowing the material to be part of the record
and then have the presiding officer make a ruling on whether the documents may become
part of the record on appeal. It was noted that allowing the documents to become part of
the record does not mean they will be considered relevant or have any bearing on the
decision on the issues raised in the appeal.
Mr. McDonagh stated that the meeting materials also include the letter of appeal from
Sara Westall and a response from Dr. Richard Lynn on behalf of the opponents to the
appeal.
The three specific modifications requested by the appellant to the Hearing Examiner's
determination are:
1) Modify stipulation #2 to read "Due to the fragile nature of this undisturbed area, no
permission is granted to remove materials from the beach or beach area owned by
Westall."
2) Add a new stipulation in the section "Prior to Clearing and Grading' to read "The
common property line between the Westall and Lynn property shall be staked by a
licensed surveyor clearly showing the common boundary line where (1) it intersects the
Lincoln Beach Rood Loop and (2) where the property line intersects OHWM"
3) Add a new stipulation in the section "During Construction" to read "No land
disturbing activities are to take place, including people and/or machinery, on the Westall
property as defined by the survey markers."
Regarding appeal items (1) and (3), Mr. McDonagh noted that the BCD staff had taken a
slightly more permissive, optimistic attitude in the original staff report. He stated that
obviously no trespassing would be allowed, but it is possible that objects straddling the
property line may need to be moved and such activities would be the result of agreement
between the parties.
In regard to the second appeal item, Mr. McDonagh said that a number of surveys have
been done in the area, with varying degrees of accuracy. Project proponents'
representative, Jim Johannessen, a licensed geologist for Coastal Geologic Services, has
considerable expertise in the field and has performed similar surveying work on
numerous projects. Staff believes that if he felt a survey was necessary he would have
given that advice to his clients. In addition, the Department of Ecology has reviewed all
of the project documents and has worked with Mr. Johannessen and did not feel such a
condition was needed.
Mr. McDonagh said that in summary, staffs recommendation is to deny the appeal
because nothing in the Hearing Examiner's decision grants the proponent permission to
City Council Special Business Meeting Page 2 May 13, 2002
trespass or otherwise disturb any land or beach area outside of the project boundaries; in
addition, sufficient testimony at the public hearing was given to convince the Examiner
that no need for additional licensed survey work was warranted.
He then added that, given the fact that the opponents have not objected to appeals (1) and
(3), staff would concur that those may be granted but would recommend denial of the
survey request.
Ms. Fenn asked if the City Clerk had received any written materials or if anyone in the
audience wished to submit written materials without speaking. There were none.
Argument from the Appellant:
Appellant was represented by Steve Burke of Poulsbo. He stated that assuming issues (1)
and (3) are agreed to by the parties, the main remaining issue is the survey. He stated
Ms. Westall is concerned about construction approaching or going beyond her property
line. Her concern is that the design as submitted is based on the past survey he says the
city agreed was a questionable docmnent. He said that in order to document and provide
horizontal control, the property lines need to be identified; the existing documents do not
show northing and easting, bearings, length etc. which he contended were required by the
Port Townsend Municipal Code and the city's Engineering Design Standards. He stated
that a licensed surveyor would be required to do that work.
Argument from Opponents:
John Thies: Mr. Thies referred to the letter from Dr. Lynn, stating that the added expense
of a survey is unnecessary and that benchmarks were done by a registered surveyor and
go back to the original platting. He added that a recent survey was made on the purchase
of the Springstead residence and that benchmarks have been verified from licensed
surveyor's mark and marks on the ac!joining property. He stated it has been the
experience of the beach residents that the beach is very active and there is much
movement of heavy logs; that there is no existing meander line because of the wave
action by wind, storms and logs and all surveyor marks would soon be washed away or
buried by logs.
Ms. Fenn asked if anyone else eligible to speak who has not spoken wished to speak.
No other speakers came forward.
Ms. Fenn asked if the opponems to the appeal had any objections to the admission of the
documents submitted with the appeal into the records. The opponents stated they had no
objections and the documents were deemed to be entered and become part of the record.
Rebuttal from appellant
City Council Special Business Meeting Page 3 May 13, 2002
Steve Burke: stated that the Ihct that other properties have been surveyed by licensed
surveyors lends credence to the request by appellant to set property lines with a survey
and establish a benchmark at the lneander line. He reiterated that the appellant just wants
to achieve what is requested by having a licensed surveyor survey the property and stated
he feels that basically city standards require that work be performed by a licensed land
surveyor.
Staff response
Mr. McDonagh clarified that although many sections of the Port Townsend Municipal
Code allude to licensed surveys, there is nothing specific in the Master Shoreline
Program that says a licensed survey must be performed. Staff is required to review the
project itself and in this case, staff thought there was enough information there without
requiring another survey.
Ms. Fenn asked is any of the speakers had any clarifications in response to questions
from council members. There were none.
Ms. Fenn closed the public comment portion of the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Motion: Mr. Masci moved lo deny lhe requested appeal. Mr. Youse seconded
Mr. Youse asked whether the council needed to approve the items which are agreed upon
by all parties to make it legal.
Mr. Watts stated that agreement could be reached between the parties if they wished to
sign a settlement agreement. No document has been produced and so the decision is
before the council.
Mr. Masci stated that he does not agree that the area in question is "undisturbed" because
of the well known wave and wind action and storms which will remove material whether
permission is granted or not; much of that is dependent on acts of nature. He added that
there have already been two established and registered surveys which are sufficient. In
regard to the third item, he stated it may be an impossible condition if a log were
straddling two properties - any attempt to move or chainsaw it on one property would
necessarily affect the other property.
Ms. Fenn stated that her preference is to divide the question and encourage the resolution
of the two items which the parties have agreed upon.
Mr. Watts confirmed that a motion to divide the question would supercede the original
motion.
Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved that to divide the question, with parts 1 and 3 or the
appeal to be considered separateI)o'i'om part 2. Mr. Youse seconded. The motion
carried, 3-1, by voice vole, wilh Mr. Masci opposed.
City Council Special Business Meeting Page 4 May 13, 2002
Motion: Mr. Masci moved to deny item #2 of the appeal. Mr. Youse seconded The
motion carried 3-1, with Ms'. Sandowd opposed
Motion: Mr. Masci moved to approve requested changes (1) and (3) of the appeal,
amended to change "no permission is granted" to "no permission has been granted" in
(1) and to strike the words "as &fined by the survey markers" in (3). Mr. Youse
seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0, by voice vote.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Attest:
Pamela Kolacy, CMC
City Clerk
City Council Special Business Meeting Page 5 May 13, 2002