Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11042002CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF NOVEMBER 4, 2002 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this fourth day of November 2002, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Kees Kolff presiding. ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmembers present at roll call were Freida Fenn, Joe Finnie, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. Alan Youse was excused. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, BCD Director Jeff Randall, Senior Planner Judy Surber, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Ms. Sandoval requested that the items under "Standing Committee Reports" (recommendations of the Transportation Committee) be moved forward to precede the public hearings to accommodate members of the Neighborhood Traffic Control volunteer group who are present. PRESIDING OFFICER'S REPORT Mayor Kolff reported on the trip to Ichikawa, Japan, which was a great success. He reminded everyone to vote in the general election. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Water Shortage Mr. Timmons presented an update on the current water shortage. He stated that City Lake, the backup water source, is full. The key to managing that is effectively underway. Both the City and Port Townsend Paper must reduce their water demands. He asked citizens to conserve water by not washing cars, watering lawns, etc. and noted that the Mill is voluntarily reducing their usage well over 50%. John Begley, CEO of Port Townsend Paper was present and made brief comments, noting that the city and mill are working together to mitigate the shortage. Parks Mr. Timmons stated he and Barbara Pastore attended a meeting with Jefferson County staff to discuss the county's timeline in regard to creating a park district. He said the county has agreed to produce a timeline for their proposed actions; this should give the city the ability to set priorities about how to partner with the county or to make the decision not to partner in this endeavor. The county is anticipating having the district in City Council Business Meeting Page 1 November 4, 2002 place by 2004 and this means the subject will be a council priority for the first of the year. A work session will be scheduled for council early in 2003. Housing authority- 35th Street Park Mr. Timmons stated he has received a request from the Jefferson County Housing Authority regarding the use of portions of the 35th Street Park for some type of residential development. He added he has not had time to research the issue or have discussions with council. He said the Housing Authority would simply like closure on the issue and a definitive answer as to whether affordable housing is still an acceptable alternative for part of the property. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (Consent and non-agenda items) James Fritz: warned that the economy will continue its downturn; gave information on the pro-active efforts of Clallam County and other communities to attract businesses; urged the council to act now to encourage and support economic development in the city. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Timmons said that two recommendations have come forward to the council from the Transportation Committee. The first was to publicly recognize and compliment the efforts of the citizen traffic control committee. This group of citizens has developed a community traffic control program which has been reviewed by the Transportation Advisory Board and the Council Transportation Committee. The report was prompted by the many neighborhood issues which come forward regularly mostly regarding the problem of speeding in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Timmons noted that the staff has understood the seriousness of the issues but has not been able to allocate sufficient time to deal with them. He commended the group for coming together and crafting a solution which was brought forward to the city. Michelle McConnell spoke on behalf of the volunteers. She stated this sort of process is an excellent way for citizens and government to work together for the common good. Public comment Conner Daily, Deputy Chief of Police stated he has reviewed the document and believes it is a tremendous opportunity to address the speeding problems throughout the city; he also commended the type of process that allows citizens to be part of the solution. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to recognize the Community Traffic Control volunteer committee and to endorse the program they have recommended and direct staff to begin implementation. Ms. Fenn seconded The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS City Council Business Meeting Page 2 November 4, 2002 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Mayor Kolff noted that the comprehensive plan amendments include both quasi-judicial and legislative public heating items. He added that he will read the rules of order which apply to both public hearings, only once. Mr. Finnie stated that he wished to recuse himself from deliberations on the Ron Pak - Indian Point Amendments because he is a business competitor and because he may at some point be involved in a similar issue. Mr. Watts agreed that because this formal application is quasi-judicial, Mr. Finnie's involvement does rise to a level which constitutes a reason for recusal. Mayor Kolff asked the city attorney to swear in all those, including staff members, who planned to testify in the matter. Mr. Watts administered to oath to all those who indicated they wished to testify. Mayor Kolffthen opened the public hearing for the formal application LUP-02-048, Ron Pak - Indian Point Amendments. He asked if any council members in addition to Mr. Finnie, had an interest in the property or issue, stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the heating, or had any disclosures to make. There were none. The mayor asked if anyone in the audience objected to any council member's participation in the proceedings. There were no objections. Mayor Kolff added that disclosure on the other matters on the agenda tonight would be in order. Ms. Fenn stated her wish to disclose for the official record that in regard to Amendment #4, Remove FUGA language from the Comprehensive Plan, John Lockwood, her domestic partner of fifteen years holds title to a block of undeveloped industrial land within the city limits. Mr. Watts stated that the state law regarding appearance of fairness applies only to quasi- judicial matters (land use affecting specific property and specific individuals). Amendment #4 is a legislative matter, regarding a portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan dealing with an area outside the city known as Glen Cove. He then stated that the city's ethics code does require disclosure of direct and indirect matters on public hearing items including legislative items. Therefore, because Ms. Fenn indicates she may have a property interest even though the lot is owned by another individual, the question arises whether this requires disclosure and/or disqualification from the proceedings. Mr. Watts stated that in his opinion, neither disclosure nor disqualification is required in this instance because the matter before the council is a legislative matter and any connection City Council Business Meeting Page 3 November 4, 2002 between that proposed action and a benefit to the property inside the city is too remote, speculative and tenuous to require disclosure or disqualification. He added that the same matter came to his attention last spring in a different format and was reviewed with legal staff of Municipal Research Services Center. The MRSC opinion was that even if the matter were quasi-judicial the connection would not be disqualifying. Cindy Thayer, chair of the Planning Commission, then addressed the council and briefed them on the Commission's findings and recommendations. She stated that she is confident the Planning Commission recommendations are based on sound policy guidance and that the changes suggested are entirely consistent with the Community Direction Statement and the Port Townsend Municipal Code. She stated that the Planning Commission conducted two workshops and an open record public hearing which spanned four meetings. She elaborated only on the amendments which resulted in a closely split vote or a minority opinion to introduce council to some of the discussion and deliberation which occurred for the amendments which did not receive full support. Amendment #3: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to divide the question, with the split vote occurring on the request to modify the P/OS(B)B Public/Mixed Use District to allow a maximum lot coverage of 25%. On a vote of 4-3-1, the majority agreed these properties will be utilized for uses which would not require significant structure, i.e. stormwater use, however in some situations such as the city water tower site, structures are needed for the public good and lot coverage of up to 25% may be required. A minority report showed concern over the uses permitted in the zoning district that appear inconsistent with the intent (RV parks, public parking garages, government buildings). The minority believed that although lot coverage would be limited to 25%, associated impervious surfaces could consume larger areas and they recommended that allowable uses within the district be revisited as well as a minimum open space requirement established. Amendment #4. Remove FUGA language from the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Thayer noted there was a large amount of discussion about docketing the item, but the final vote of the Planning Commission was a unanimous recommendation for adoption. Amendment #5. This amendment inspired much discussion and the recommendation was to approve the amendment and also implement future updates of the zoning code to offer density bonuses to builders who provide low-income housing in market rate developments. Mr. Finnie then left the meeting room. Formal Application: Ron Pak - Indian Point Amendments (LUP-02-48) City Council Business Meeting Page 4 November 4, 2002 Senior Planner Judy Surber then introduced quasi-judicial formal application LUP-02- 048, Ron Pak - Indian Point Amendments. The proposal is a request to amend the Shoreline Master Program to clarify that the subject site is specifically excluded from Urban Waterfront District Performance Standards concerning ground floor uses, and to allow conference centers as water-enjoyment uses, and to clarify that all water-oriented uses are encouraged in the PT Urban Waterfront Special District. As an alternative to adding Conference Centers as water-enjoyment uses under Appendix D as suggested by the applicant, staff suggests amending the definition of water-enjoyment uses (change shown in Exhibit P-14). Ande Grahn spoke on behalf of the proponent, Ron Pak. She stated Mr. Pak has owned the property for several years and would like to develop it but has been unclear about whether or not he could bring in an application on a particular project. She contended that the regulations governing this particular property are different from any other currently undeveloped commercial property. She stated that Mr. Pak is seeking some sort of clarification from the city on what he can do with the property and why his waterfront has different restrictions from all others. She noted that discussions with the Planning Commission and staff have resulted in some suggested changes to the regulations. She expressed appreciation to the staff for their work in coming to the conclusion that clarifying water enjoyment uses as part of the suite of water oriented uses would accomplish the applicant's purpose. Even though it is still clear that water related and water dependent uses are preferred, the clarification has been helpful and represents a sort of administrative decision which was developed through the course of the application. Ms. Grahn added that the applicant does not think it is fair that this is the only piece of waterfront property that has this restriction. He needs to be able to explain to a buyer why this is different from other properties. It is understood that any future development has to be consistent with shoreline standards; the applicant does not want any restrictions lifted but would like the clarification posed in Exhibit P-1 (A,B and C), the Formal Amendment Application. The applicant believes current restrictions unfairly affect his property while exempting other similar properties. She added that the applicant is not asking permission to build something, but simply to apply for something. She stated the applicant is very content with the language proposed by staff and approved by the Planning Commission regarding the definition of "conference center" and said that proposal meets the applicant's intention as originally submitted. She then stated that the cost of mounting an application is several thousand dollars which is a large investment only to find that the application will not be accepted. She added that the applicant has analyzed the need for a conference center and it is apparent there is a need in the city. The only comparable center, Fort Worden, is booked several years in advance. The applicant believes a properly done project would be an asset to the waterfront. City Council Business Meeting Page 5 November 4, 2002 Ms. Surber then directed the Council to exhibit P-14 which shows the final proposed shoreline amendments proposed by staff and endorsed by the Planning Commission. The changes are: On page 16-17 of the Shoreline Master Plan, definitions, the words "conference centers" to be added after "resorts" and prior to "and mixed use commercial enterprises" within definition 105: Water enjoyment uses. On page 32 of the Shoreline Master Plan: under Policies 1 (b): add "such as water- enjoyment uses" to the end of the sentence. Mayor Kolff asked for public comment. Speaking in favor: none Speaking in opposition: Nancy Dorgan reiterated her comments contained in the minutes of the Planning Commission deliberation. Her opposition is based on the fact that she perceives approval as a policy change rather than a clarification. She believes this may have a future bearing on changes to Point Hudson. She is offended that the amendment is being treated as quasi-judicial since she says it is a policy change for the entire waterfront district. She referred council members to the definition of water enjoyment from the state statute. Ms. Grahn spoke in rebuttal, saying that the state has long recognized restaurants as a water enjoyment use. She said the applicant is trying to work through multi-level overlays and tables to assure that if a project met all the criteria for water enjoyment uses and was a conference center, it could be considered to be permitted. She added that by adopting the change, council is not giving permission for a project, but permission for the city to consider a project. She added that the structure could then be judged by the design standards and that often buildings for commercial use entice the public to the waterfront and provide public access as well. BCD Director Jeff Randall stated that many complex issues are involved when dealing with shoreline properties. He added that approval of a project is always based on a specific proposal; he added that the reason the applicant presents this as a site specific issue is that all other properties in similar situation are developed; he stated there if there were redevelopment on a similar site, other properties would be subject to the same rules. Ms. Surber added that if approved, the shoreline amendments are required to receive approval from the state as well. Mr. Masci asked Ms. Grahn to confirm that the applicant was comfortable with Planning Commission's recommendation. She replied that the applicant feels the staff proposed amendments would work as well as the original solution. City Council Business Meeting Page 6 November 4, 2002 Mr. Masci asked what the rationale is for having a "minority report" included with the Planning Commission's Findings. Mr. Randall replied that sometimes it is felt the minutes may not adequately reflect discussion and a minority report is included if a Planning Commissioner requests that. He added that the minority report is voted on by the entire Planning Commission when they approve the findings and conclusions. Mr. Masci asked Mr. Randall is he believes that he feels the minority reports could bias or prejudice the council or the public. Mr. Randall replied that the report is a reflection of what occurred during the discussions. Ms. Thayer stated that the Planning Commission did, by voice vote, specifically endorse the inclusion of minority reports. Ms. Robinson said that is has been stated that a conference center could be allowed through the conditional use permitting process but the applicant has indicted that process is onerous. She asked Mr. Randall for clarification Mr. Randall stated that an application could be submitted as a conditional use permit under non-water related use. In answer to Ms. Robinson's next question, he stated that the current regulatory framework does not restrict the ability to apply for a development permit. Mr. Randall also stated that the thousands of dollars in cost are not for fees to the city, but consultant, engineering fees, surweys etc. that would be necessary in order for staff to review a project application. In response to a question from Mr. Masci, Mr. Randall stated that the fee for a pre- application is about $200 and all that is required for a pre-application conference is a conceptual design or site plan. Ms. Grahn stated that often a pre-application conference tells you all the things you have to spend money on. She stated she has been through pre-applications on projects that have not been allowed to continue. She stated the point of the Comprehensive Plan was to assure applicants that development could be allowed under specific conditions and her particular concern comes within the Shoreline Master Program. If a project which has already cost $20-30,000 to develop can turn on a single word it is difficult for applicants to know how to proceed. She stated her client just wants to bring in an application consistent with clear standards. Ms. Fenn asked if the 50% ground floor rule applies only to projects which have residential or transient facilities. Ms. Surber answered in the affirmative. City Council Business Meeting Page 7 November 4, 2002 Ms. Fenn then asked if conference centers are automatically considered residential or transient facilities. Mr. Randall stated that it would be possible to propose a conference center that is simply rental space. Ms. Fenn asked whether a change in the definition of water enjoyment uses could over time affect other pieces of property besides Indian Point. Ms. Surber replied that it could. Ms. Fenn asked specifically if it would affect Point Hudson. Ms. Surber replied that the definition itself applies anywhere within the Shoreline Master Plan jurisdictional area; she could not speak to whether it applies to a special sub-district without research. Ms. Sandoval asked if there is any reason an applicant cannot pay $250 and have a pre- application conference. Mr. Randall stated that there is no reason and all that would be required is a brief description of the project and a conceptual site plan. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to divide the question. Ms. Fenn seconded The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. Mr. Watts then advised the council that all votes on the Comprehensive Plan amendments are conceptual and subject to taking final action on an ordinance which will be presented at a future time. He noted that the Growth Management Act requires the comprehensive plan process once a year and that all proposed amendments must be considered cumulatively. All votes must be considered preliminary conceptual votes subject to action on other items either tonight or in the future. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of Amendments to Section 4.106 Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District, Introductory Text (3rd Paragraph) and Policy 1 (a). Ms. Fenn seconded The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of amendments to Section 4.106 PTUW Special District, Performance Standard #9 b (iii) giving exception to 50% rule. Ms. Robinson seconded Mr. Masci stated his belief that the 50% requirement is onerous and is a barrier to development of private property with further specific restriction on waterfront property owners; he stated that the original ordinance was passed in reaction to a specific project. Ms. Fenn stated that the requirement has a positive effect on development and was clearly a community value in 1992 and still is. She stated is complies with a vision for our community that makes sense, trying to retain a water-relating identity. City Council Business Meeting Page 8 November 4, 2002 Mr. Kolff stated that since the applicant has stated agreement with this denial, he does not see a need to remove the 50% rule. Vote: motion carried 4-1, by voice vote, with Mr. Masci opposed Motion: Mr. Masci moved to accept Planning Commission's recommendation to deny amendments to the SMP Appendix D, Examples of Water-Oriented Uses; Water- Enjoyment Uses (Page 104) to include "conference centers". Ms. Robinson seconded The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to accept Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the definition of water enjoyment use in SMP definition 105 as suggested by Staff Mr. Kolff seconded Ms. Fenn spoke against the motion, stating she wishes to retain the permeability of shoreline facilities. She said she is happy with the conditional use process that honors the wishes of the community. Ms. Sandoval agreed that there was no need for the change since the conditional use permit process is available. She added that there are no assurances for approval of a conceptual project. She also stated she does not oppose conference centers in general. Mr. Kolff stated he is not convinced of the need but does not see a disadvantage if it gives some clarification to an application. Because of the continued requirement that 50% of the ground floor be reserved for water orientation use it seems reasonable and does not limit public access. Mr. Masci spoke in favor, stating it will streamline the process, a desire expressed by many citizens. He is in favor of allowing a use within the code that allows citizens more clear answers to the development process. Ms. Surber then clarified that a conference center would be subject to the 50% rules only if it included transient or residential uses. In answer to Mr. Kolff's question, she noted that the original ordinance was specifically targeting transient/residential uses where water uses were supposedly a priority. Ms. Fenn stated she believes there are broader policy implications and that the conditional use process provides a gate of reflection. Vote: motion was defeated, 1-4, with Mr. Masci voting in favor. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve revisions to 4.106, Policy lb (Exhibit P-14) as suggested by staff. Ms. Sandoval seconded City Council Business Meeting Page 9 November 4, 2002 In answer tO a request for clarification, Ms. Surber noted that during the Planning Commission hearings, staff was contending that water enjoyment uses were not excluded but thought water enjoyment use was implied. The change spells this out. Vote: motion failed, 2-3, with Mr. Masci and Ms. Sandoval in favor. Staff was directed to prepare findings. The public hearing was concluded. RECESS At 8:58, Mayor Kolffcalled a recess for purposes of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 9:04 p.m. Suggested Amendment #1 Rezone Blocks 170 and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition (Quasi-Judicial) Ms. Surber reviewed the findings of the Planning Commission, and stated they had voted unanimously to approve the amendment. There was no public comment. Ms. Robinson asked about the letter received in opposition to the proposal from Scott Maxwell. Ms. Surber noted that the letter contained comments about amendments # 1 and #7 and clarified that there is no proposal to place a group home on Blocks 170/171. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the requested rezone of Blocks 170 and ! 71 of the Eisenbeis Addition lying southerly of Discovery Road from R-II to R-IV. Update the acreages by zoning district, listed in Table IV-2 of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the change. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. Suggested Amendment #2 Revise Comprehensive Plan Text to be Consistent with Recent GMA Amendments. The amendment provides for amending the goals and policy text of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect recent amendments to the Growth Management Act since 1995 (detailed in Exhibit 2-1). Ms. Surber noted that a letter was received from the Department of Ecology encouraging the city to include amendments to stormwater policies. Referenced sections of the Stormwater Program have been requested and when received will be forwarded to Public Works for consideration in development of the Stormwater Master Plan City Council Business Meeting Page 10 November 4, 2002 There was no public comment. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to approve Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the revisions shown in Exhibit 2-1. Ms. Fenn seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. Amendment #3 Revise Lot coverage in P/OS and P-I Districts Ms. Surber stated that the proposal would modify the zoning code to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan standards to allow maximum lot coverage of 25% in the P/OS(B) zoning district. The proposal affecting the P-I zone would revise both the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code to be consistent with the C-III and C-II zoning district standards. There was no public comment. Mr. Randall stated that the changes are for public property only so would only affect city or county projects. Mr. Randall clarified the difference between P/OS and P/OS(B) zoning, stating the first is primarily for pure park zones, mostly open space with few buildings such as rest rooms. The second is mixed for a variety of purposes including regional stormwater retention, water tank site, city shops and other city buildings, etc. He added that generally if a major building is planned for the site, the zoning will be PI Motion: Mr. Masci moved to approve the Planning Commission's recommendations to modify the zoning code to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan standards to allow maximum lot coverage of 25% in the P/OS(B) zoning district and to revise both the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code to increase the allowable maximum floor area ratio from 3 square feet(sJ) of gross floor area per 10 sf of lot to 3 sf of gross floor area per 1 sf in the Historic District and 2sf of gross floor area per 1 sf of lot elsewhere. Mr. Finnie seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. Amendment #4 Remove FUGA language from the Comprehensive Plan. Staff handed out corrected copies of some documentation for Section 4 of the 2002 Comp Plan Update notebook. The suggested amendment removes references to the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) as including the area beyond the present city limits known as Glen Cove. A June, 1995, recommendation of the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee was that a "preferred" conceptual alternative for the unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area be included in the Comprehensive Plans for both the County and City. The City included portions of the Glen Cove area beyond the present city limits within a conceptual final urban growth area (FUGA). The city's City Council Business Meeting Page 11 November 4, 2002 Comprehensive Plan clearly states that additional information and analysis was needed to refine and modify the conceptual FUGA boundary to ensure consistency with GMA and Growth Management Hearings Board Decisions. Mr. Randall noted that considerable time and energy was invested bringing forth the amendment two years in a row. In June of 2001, the city docketed two amendments to revisit the conceptual FUGA language. While one was recommended by the Planning Commission for adoption, neither amendment was adopted by the City Council. The 2001 Planning Commission supported FUGA amendment was placed on the docket again this year. The form of the amendment is identical to that recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission in 2001, with the exception of Major Industrial Development language adopted by the city council. Mr. Randall added that adoption of the amendment will give certainty to the process and will help clarify the city's position on the matter. In response to a question from Ms. Fenn regarding inclusion of the city's own definition of "accessory commercial" development, Mr. Randall stated that it would be unusual to include that detail of definition in such an inflexible document. Public comment: Speaking in favor: Nancy Dorgan, speaking on behalf of People for a Livable Community, requested extra time to read a written statement on behalf of others in the audience. Mayor Kolff requested that she summarize the report and limit the comment time to three minutes if possible. Ms. Dorgan read the first part of the statement in favor of the amendment. Nora Regan continued reading the prepared statement in favor of the amendment. John Lockwood completed reading the prepared statement in favor of the amendment. The written statement was provided by Ms. Dorgan for the record. Against: None Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as indicated in Exhibit #4-11 as further modified by Planning Commission during the September 26, 2002 hearing and to adopt revisions to Title 17, Zoning, Port Townsend Municipal Code, as shown on Exhibit 4-12, deleting reference to the FUGA and the C-IV Regional Commercial District. Ms. Sandoval seconded The motion carried, 5-1, by voice vote, with Mr. Masci opposed City Council Business Meeting Page 12 November 4, 2002 Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to continue the public hearing until the November 12 special business meeting. Ms. Robinson seconded The motion carried, 5-1, by voice vote, with Mr. Masci opposed CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Masci moved for approval of the following items on the consent agenda. Ms. Fenn seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. Approval of the following Bills, Claims and Warrants Vouchers 83747 through 83895 in the amount of $167,015.63 Approval of Minutes: Regular session of October 7, 2002 Special session of October 14, 2002 Regular session of October 21, 2002 ORDINANCE 2819 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL LOCAL FACILITY CONNECTION CHARGES FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTIN OF A SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM AND WATER SYSTEM, AND CREATING LOCAL FACILITY CHARGES FOR CERTAIN LOTS ON MASON STREET BETWEEN CAROLINE STREET AND COOK AVENUE Mr. Timmons noted the council had approved first reading of the ordinance on October 7. The matter was postponed first to October 21 and then to this meeting to allow staff time to review cost allocations. Revised allocations of costs have been done to reflect that Lots 16 and 17 should be assessed for sewer and engineering only but not assessed for water improvements constructed by the City because the lots have separate access to privately installed water improvements. In answer to Ms. Robinson's question, he stated that the investment would be recovered entirely by the city. Motion: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of Ordinance 2819. Ms. Fenn seconded The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by roll call vote. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 9:50, the Mayor announced the council would go into executive session to discuss property acquisition. He expected the session to last for 15 minutes and announced that no action would be taken. City Council Business Meeting Page 13 November 4, 2002 RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 10:15 p.m. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:1 $ p.m. Attest: Pamela Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Business Meeting Page 14 November 4, 2002