Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07082002 SpecialCITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF JULY 8, 2002 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in special session this eighth day of July, 2002, at 9:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Kees Kolff presiding. ROLL CALL Councilmembers present at roll call were Freida Fenn, Joe Finnie, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Catharine Robinson, and Alan Youse. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, BCD Director Jeff Randall and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. GLEN COVE LAMIRD Mr. Watts stated that at the July 1, 2002, meeting, the council made comments on a drafI letter to the County Planning Commission regarding their consideration of Glen Cove UDC amendments. The letter has been revised and is before the council again; a list of issues is also attached. He distributed an additional revision recommending changes to number 6 on page 3 of the letter (addressing unique needs of local businesses). Public Comment: Nancy Dorgan: stated the People for a Livable Community is concemed with premature UGA expansion and commercialization of Glen Cove as they believe it would compete aggressively with development of the city's own industrial zone. She stated that despite prior citizen visioning, a highly urbanized LAMIRD might topple quickly into UGA status and be annexed into the city. She said that increasing the size of the LAMIRD raises issues regarding GMA compliance. She stated the letter is weak because it does not say why the LAMIRD designation does not comply with the 1990 built environment. Erik Frederickson, Glen Cove business owner, thanked the council for adding language which would encourage the county to include existing businesses within the LAMIRD boundary. He added that his definition of a "logical" boundary is one that does not exclude currently operating businesses and does not include undeveloped land. He urged the council to consider that this process has been going on for years and has been arduous and painful for the land owners involved. John Lockwood: stated that there is precedent for the city to be involved in the county planning process; he said that when Councilors Masci and Finnie were representatives to the Growth Management Steering Committee, they were not shy about telling the commissioners what to do. He cited an August 24, 1999 meeting of the Growth Management Steering Committee as reference. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 1 July 8, 2002 Ms. Sandoval asked for clarification of the county's proposal regarding total square footage; i.e., does the 50,000 square foot restriction mean the total square footage of the building or does it refer to the footprint of the building. Mr. Randall stated that his understanding was that the 50,000 sf restriction indicated the allowable gross square footage of the largest building on the parcel. Ms. Sandoval asked if the staff could clarify that with the county staff. Mr. Watts suggested adding language to the effect of "which we understand refers to building size, not footprint." Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to adopt the language as amended by the City Attorney's draft dated 7/2/02 and the list of issues attached, to be forwarded to the County Planning Commission. Ms. Robinson seconded Motion to amend: Ms. Sandoval moved to clarify under "Development Regulations" in the attached list of issues, clarification regarding the 50, 000 square feet as total building size and not building footprint. There were no objections, and the amendment was accepted as a friendly amendment. Motion to amend: Ms. Robinson moved to substitute the City Attorney's newly drafted paragraph 6 as distributed There were no objections. Mr. Finnie spoke in favor of the amendment, stating that in his opinion by including references to legal action, the council is accommodating organizations who have already indicated they will challenge the county's decision. He said he is afraid that text will come back to haunt the council during any challenge that may occur. Ms. Sandoval stated that groups from either side of the political spectrum have the right to sue the county over land use decisions; she said that part of the council's job is to let people know exactly what the repercussions are of decisions that are made. She added that in her opinion, the GMA is a contract with the citizens and all the council is doing is reminding the commissioners in a simple and factual way what their legal obligations are. Ms. Fenn stated that the language in the draft letter is already a big compromise for her and she stated her belief that the negotiating team tried very hard to influence the County to find a factual basis for their decisions. Mr. Masci stated he cannot support the letter in any way. Ms. Fenn stated that she will not support removal of the wording regarding legal issues, as those are the last levers the city has to influence the county's decision. Mr. Kolff said that he believes throughout the letter, the city says repeatedly that what we seek is something that is GMA compliant. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 2 July 8, 2002 Motion to amend: Mr. Masci moved to amend the letter to include the names of council members who do not support the contents of the letter. Mr. Youse seconded There was brief discussion regarding the nature of how the public record would reflect the vote and that the record would be accessible to the public. Vote: the motion to amend failed, 2-5, with Mr. Masci and Mr. Youse in favor. Motion to amend: Mr. Finnie moved to amend the letter by removing three references to legal action: 1) paragraph 2, line 4 would change to "We have serious legal as ;~'e!! as .... ~;,~ questions... "2) also paragraph 2, remove "legal"from the sentence beginning "It may also help avoid procedural legal challenge" 3) paragraph 3, final sentence remove "is without legal basis". Mr. Masci seconded Ms. Fenn spoke against the motion, saying too much taxpayer money has been wasted by avoiding land use planning and pushing the limits so hard that they are constantly litigated. She stated that the words referring to legal action will help to forge a path of resolution. Mr. Kolff spoke in favor of the amendment stating it does not significantly change the impact of the letter. Ms. Robinson spoke in favor, saying the legal references may wave an unnecessary red flag. Vote: motion to amend carried, 6-1, by voice vote, with Ms. Fenn opposed Vote on the main motion as amended' motion carried, 5-2, by voice vote, with Mr. Masci and Mr. Youse opposed ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Attest: Pamela Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Special Business Meeting Page 3 July 8, 2002