Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01132003 City-Port CommissionerCITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AND PORT COMMISSIONERS MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF JANUARY 13, 2003 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in special joint session with the Port of Port Townsend Commissioners this thirteenth day of January 2003, at 5:00 p.m. in the Point Hudson Marina Room. 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. City staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, BCD Director Jeff Randall and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. BUSINESS The purpose of the meeting was City/Port discussion and possible action on an agreement regarding the Point Hudson planning process and demolition; City Council Ordinance 2828 declaring a moratorium on acceptance of applications for demolition permits for buildings or structures subject to review under City historic preservation codes. Complete minutes of the discussion and public comment were taken by Port staff. The Port minutes are attached. Motion: Mr. Masci moved that the Port withdraw their request for a pre-application conference contingent on the city rescinding the first reading of Ordinance 2828; that the revisions to the Historic Preservation and Demolition Code will not proceed past the Community Development/Land Use Committee to the City Council and the Port will not submit a demolition application for a period of 90 days; that the City and Port staff'will meet within that time and that the City and Port elected officials will meet within that time to discuss demolition and other planning issues. Ms. Robinson seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. It was also agreed the Port and City will meet within three weeks to discuss progress. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Attest: Pamela Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council/Port Special Business Meeting Page 1 January 13, 2003 JOINT SPECIAL MEETING PORT COMMISSION AND PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL - January 13, 2003 The Port of Port Townsend Commission met in special session at the Point Hudson Marina Room, Port Townsend, WA. Present: Commissioners - Beck, Pimer and Sokol Executive Director - Crockett Facilities Manager -Pivamik Attorney- Winters Couneilmembers - Masci, Finnie, Kolff, Sandoval, Fenn, Robinson City Manager - Timmons City Attorney- Watts City Clerk - Kolacy Absent: Operations Manager - Radon I II. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE; Commissioner Sokol called the meeting to order at 5:03 PM. There was a quorum of Commission and Council present. Following a brief discussion about the Port's agenda as presented, there was agreement to reverse Discussion/Action and Public Comment, to allow the public to comment before action. PORT PERSPECTIVE ON PROCESS TO DATE: Commissioner Sokol provided a historical perspective of the buildings at Point Hudson. The buildings were constructed as a quarantine station, then served as a Coast Guard facility, and finally, as an army base during the Korean War, after which the Port acquired the property. Forty years ago, three successive master leases for operational control were arranged, the last of which was with the Rowley Corporation, The uses as they exist today were allowed under the P1 zoning. Under the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, the zoning was changed to manufacturing. Following public meetings in September 2001, the Port requested a zoning change to represent the variety of uses that currently exist as well as the variety of ideas suggested by the public. The Port has since agreed with the City to hold its proposed zoning code amendments (to request PUD to include light industrial, recreation and commercial) until the 2003 cycle so as to coincide with the completion of the Port Comprehensive Scheme. Structural deficiencies, electrical problems, and the widespread presence of lead, asbestos, and creosote were some of the issues noted in the 2002 engineering assessment. [Councilmember Robinson joined the meeting.] In response to a question ~om Councilmember Feun whether there would he a commitment for a certain percentage of the building spaces being marine related or water dependant uses, he said that the shoreline master program, which considers water enjoyment, water dependant and water related uses, might have a significant impact on this. Currently, many non marine- dependant businesses exist in the area. The Port indicated it might set a priority of marine- related and yet allow a short-term lease for non-marine related business until there is interest by a marine-related business. In light of the actions of the newly-created City Demolition Prevention Task Force, the Port met on December 19 to discuss the draft ordinance and its impact on the Point Hudson planning process, Because of the arduous process being created, the Port felt it important to go forward with demolition permits except for those buildings recognized in the engineering assessment as having stmemml significance - the Armory (sail lol~), cupola house, and Commander's Beach house. The intent was not to immediately demolish any buildings, but to become vested under the existing ordinance in order to reserve the Port's options uuntil its Comprehensive Scheme process is complete. At the December meeting, the Port akin discussed holding a workshop meeting with Council and the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) to provide all with an up-close perspective of these buildings. Without notice to the Port, the City on January 6 introduced a moratorium ordimmee targeting the Port. He hopes the tour mex the intent, which was to he educational. Port/City Meeting- January 13, 2003 Page 2 III. Commissioner Pimer noted he had voted for vesting under the old ordinance because it was the least expensive option for Port. The Port and City were in agreement that Point Hudson must be self- supporti~4~ and cutting costs is a step toward this. Commissioner Beck expressed concern about the feature of the dra~ ordinance that would have allowed the City to request an unspecified number ofreevaluation/reassessments. CITY PERSPECTIVE ON PROCESS TO DATE: Mayor Kolffthanked the Port for the tour and for recognizing the Council's desire to get together to discuss the issues immediately. He recognized that the Port got the City's attention with its pre-application for demolition and the. City got the Port's attention with the first reading of the ordinance. Tonight's meeting is a positive outcome. He suggested that, without a formal suggestion for proceeding, each Couneilmember give his or her perspective. He challenged officials to come to some kind of agreement during the meeting, so that future meetings can be spent discussing the Port's process, study results, next steps, and the City's objectives related to demolition and historic preservation. He acknowledged that discussions could take up more time than is allotted, but said it was important to come to an agreement that buys entities the kind of time needed to continue the dialogue. Couneilmemher Sandoval, as Chair of the Community Development Land Use Committee, which bad undertaken the historic preservation demolition ordinance, ehfified that the ordinance came from the full council. It originated from the HPC, was assigned' to this conunittee and had been sitting in draft form for several years. The Committee then assigned it back to a task forCe of three (Eric Toews, Barbara Marseille and Joan Cole) after which it came back to the committee who suggested it be reviewed by HPC. Clarifying the City's process, Couneilmember Fenn explained that she was unaware of the issues to be discussed at the December 19 meeting and was surprised to read of the outcome in the Peninsula Daily News article. She felt the City's option needed to be discussed immediately and therefore contacted City Staff about what Council's reaction might be to the Port's action. She was concerned that this application, made before the completion of the ordinance, would thwart the creation of a better process for the entire historic district, which would require an engineering structural analysis, financial analysis, and blueprints for the replacement structures or a clear adopted policy and plan for what is going to occur once the building comes down. This would recognize the need to be in conversation with the Port about its vision. Having learned of the Port's interpretation of the engineer's report as to the structural issues during today's tour, she is hoping to involve people from the State Department of Archeology and Historical Preservation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Jefferson County Historical Society, Chamber of Commerce, MainStreet, to consider the preservation of more than three buildings. She wants the City to work cooperatively to preserve one of the nation's historic maritime jewels. She would like to keep Point Hudson a working port while maintainin~ the vast majority of the historic buildings. She respects the assessment process to-date and acknowledged the costs the Port has already incurred in its master planning process and hopes for an outcome that recognizes both the City's zoning responsibilities and the Port's planning and riseal responsibilities. It would be good to work with the Port and she is open to proposals. Couneilmember Finnie explained his previous offer to first lease and then acquire the Point Hudson motel property and to operate it as it has been, with si~nificant improvements and mitigation of the ha?ardous condition. He reco~ized Point Hudson as a jewel He would subscribe to the visioning statement done in the early 1900s as to the future of Point Hudson. He had consulted with City Attorney Watts about any potential conflicts between this offer, his current properties and his participation in a discussion of this issue. Mr. Watts said that the criteria regarding an appearance of fairness or conflict of interest would be whether there was some benefit that Councilmember Finnie would derive from acting as a decision maker in reviewing those matters. He noted the issue also had come UP with Councilmember Fenn, due to her interest in a business that is a tenant at Point Hudson. After reviewing the matter with Municipal Research Service Center (MRSC), the MRSC opinion was that the connections between Mr. Finnie's ownership of a building and the legislation and Councilmember Fenn's interest in the business were too remote to rise Port/City Meeting - January 13, 2003 Page 3 to the level of a conflict of interest. He relayed to these Counc~lmembers that they would not be disqualified from participating on either the ordinance or the moratorium. Councilmember Finnie said that he first became aware of the proposed moratorium at its first reading and he was surprised and outraged because it impacted him as a business owner. He believes that this and all moratorium ordinances are by nature punitive and that this ordinance is also targeted. He feels the Port's action on December 19 was inappropriate and unnecessary and that the Port and City should have forced a meeting to occur. He is confident that the two entities that.would define the future of Point Hudson can work this out. He understands that the Port might have an idea that would preclude the need for the City to move forward with the moratorium and give the Community Development Committee and HPC additional rime'to finish their work product and to allow the Port and the City to meet as ~eqnently as necessary to discuss the Port's view and needs on Point Hudson and to educate the City on the condition of the buildings so that this issue could be resolved in all our interests. Commissioner Sokol recogrfized the City's need to convene a 6:30 Council workshop. Couneilmember Robinson said she S~tpported the first reading of the ordinan% in the hopes of getting this matter under discussion and would be interested in hearing mole about the Port's process on this issue. Couneilmember Sandovai said she agrees with Couneilmember Robinson and believes it behooves the Port and City to'work together to preserve this special place. She quoted a citizen who recently said it,seems that America is no longer a culture, but an economy. If we look for the least expensive means 'and the highest return on our dollar and not at the historical nature, we would be foolish. She thanked the Port for the opportunity to tour the buildings today with eitizeus, which she found informative, but believes there are less expensive approaches ttmt could still provide the income the Port needs. Mayor Kolffechoed what others have said about Point Hudson being an asset. He believes there can he an outcome that meets the needs of the Port, City and County as a whole. He urged that entities not get into labeling or making assumptions that one of us is economically driven and the other one of us is a preservationist we all share a combination of those desires but it is a matter of where we draw the line in trying to figure out what is going to work. Coming up with a solution will take more time than is available tonight. Councilmember Masci said he had .information that he planned to distn"oute tonight about health concerns in these buildings, He pointed out that the Port had omitted mold from the list of pathogens, carcinogens, mutagcns, and taratogens that are present in the buildings that they distributed. He noted that the Uni,)ersity of Washington Occupational Health and School of Public Medicine is having a class on March 19 entitled "Mold the Next Asbestos." As Vice Chair of the Jefferson County Board of Health, he reminded everyone preservationists or not that there are public health issues inherent in these structures in their present status, in their remodeled or renovated condition and in their demolition. He would remind Councilmembers that the City would not be doing the Morgan Hill water project had the Department of Health not required us to do so and that it currently has a major public works project in its hands that it had not anticipated four years ago. Since the same type of issue could occur here at Point Hudson, regardless of any decision that the City or Port might make, he believes it behooves all of us to investigate these matters on the front end before some superior regulatory agency requires us to do so. Mayor Kolff proposed rescinding the moratorium on which the City had its first reading and said the Port could withdraw its pre-application request and that would then give us time, without the feelings of threat, tO sit down and come to grips with some of these issues. Commissioner Beck said he wanted to amplify what Councilmember Masci said about the health concerns these buildings pose. With knowledge of a creosote injury lawsuit he said he does not want this to happen here. Commissioner Sokol commented that the Port does not disregard the need for preservation and that he bas a significant property himself that would he covered by the Port/City Meeting - January 13, 2003 Page 4 IV. moratorium and that has been described in architectural journals as a "crown jewel." At Point Hudson, the most problematic building structurally is the armory building. Commissioner Sokol proposed the Port cancel the pre-application conference scheduled for tomorrow, so long as the City rescinds the first reading of the moratorium ordinance. City and Port Staff should meet to consider the respective issues expressed tonight. The draft ordinance concerning demolition would not proceed past the Historic Preservation Committee level, the Port and City elected bodies would meet within three weeks to discuss demolition and planning issues, the Port would not resubmit for pre-application for a minimum of 30 days and the City would not introduce an emergency ordinance or moratorium during that same 30- day period. He clarified that the HPC could continue their deliberations, but the ordinance would not move to the Community Development Land Use Committee during this 30-day period. PUBLIC COMMENT: Al Frank commented that what Commissioner Sokol proposed is reasonable. He agrees that the health and liability issues are real and are not going to go away, particularly if knowing the risks we act to delay any type of corrections. He believes elected officials have potential personal liability here. He also thinks this has to be considered in conjunction with the fact that this is a county-wide Port district. County residents may have a hard time with a high-cost approach to these buildings. Economics does come into play. One idea is m go to a county-wide vote on what to do next. If the City wants m control it, perhaps the City ought m buy it. He emphasized that the Port as a county-wide district has an obligation to those taxpayers to get fair market value based on the highest and best use. He questioned whether this new demolition moratorium is akin to a taking, adding that it may appear to be, from a County resident perspective. He recommended a cool-down period to get more facts on the table. County resident Susan Miller said she believes Point Hudson is a Port Townsend "jewel." The sail lo,armory building was described on the Port's tour as a Port Townsend "icon" and therefore exempt from demolition. She is glad that that building is not in jeopardy, She showed an artist's rendering from the cover of the book "City of Dreams," which is representative of one of the buildings we want to tear dow~ Port Townsend is the City of Dreams people come here not because it is the most economical place to live, but because it feels good and has charm, beauty and authenticity. She reminded that Point Hudson belongs to the people of Jefferson County and is under the stewardship of the Port. As a Jefferson County taxpayer, she is outraged the Port has gone forward with a demolition permit without providing the public with more time and information to understand the issue. She learned today that there is a citizens advisory committee having their last meeting in this room tomorrow fright at 6:30. She believes it would have been good if this committee, which she understands was chosen by the Port Commission, had been open to the public to solicit a more broad view. She asked the City Council to provide more than 30 days for discussion. She thinks the Port should write more articles in the paper that say who the Port Commission is, what they do and what properties they have stewardship for and how this relates to the taxpayers of Jefferson County. If there is a permit to tear down these buildings, she is confident they would be tom down. The Port should publish its vision of the Point before anything is torn down. County Resident James Fritz, speaking as one with a degree in engineering and experience working as both a journeyman union carpenter and a private contractor restoring Victorian buildings in Seattle, demanded that the buildings at Point Hudson selected by the Commission for demolition be demolished and removed' to a toxic waste dump at the earliest poss~le time. He said the buildings, built "fast and cheap" by the military in the 1930s, have no historical value. Further, the construction techniques employed make the buildings impossible to repair or renovate. In fact, these structures represent an extreme health risk to people who work and visit there: they are clad in numerous layers of toxic lead paint, the pipes are wrapped with asbestos, which causes lung cancer; the timbers under the buildings, floor joists and subfloor are pressure-treated with extremely to:de and flammable creosote. And if the 65-year old electrical wiring shorted out and caused a fire, the buildings would quickly be engulfed in flames and thick, black and toxic smoke from the creosote. He also asserted that the County, the Port, the City - and individual Port/City Meeting - January 13, 2003 Page 5 Councilmembers who vote to save these buildings - would be held c 'rnninally liable for putting unsuspecting citizens in harm's way. Allowing people to use those "death traps" is unconscionable. Port Townsend resident Jeff Kelety appreciated the municipalities getting together and agreeing to working toward a'resolution. There are two separate pieces here - preservation/economy and health concerns - and they are not mutually exclusive. If there are significant health hazards that warrant it, the Port should empty the whole Point and then deal independently with the issues of preservation, economy, etc. Thirty days may not be enough time to resolve the differences between the two parties. He understands that the Port is considering enlarging the marina, which would require a demolition permit for at least one building. If the Port's scheme ultimately includes widening of the water down to Jefferson Street, then demolition serves-that purpose. Mayor Kolff reminded the public present that the issue under discussion was not a demolition proposal, but how to move forward. There would be plenty of opportunity to talk about the merits of the Port's Comprehensive Sehome regarding restoration, etc. He then invited the public to help the process by offering comments relevant to the task at hand, and by keeping those comments to 15 seconds. Commissioner Sokol noted that even though we start with a 30-day period, his intent was to get the bodies together in three weeks. Thirty days is not necessarily a magic number and ifa meeting at that time wguld not yet be productive, the schedule could be extended. Leola Armstrong said that what astonished her the most was that only two elected officials mentioned anything about the health ba~,_ards in these buildings. People who do not want to demolish these buildings never talk about the health hazards. This may be considered the '~ewel" of Port Townsend, but to her it smells and looks like crap that should be replaced with something beautiful. Gordon Trazim~ said he wants to echo the comments of Councilmembers Fenn and SandovaL This is the first meeting he has ever attended at Point Hudson. Point Hudson is the jewel of the community and part of the spirit that attracted him to Port Townsend. He hopes the Port and City keep the spirit of Port Townsend in mind even if the buildings are flattened. Even if the buildings must be razed, he would hope that the warmth and charm that are depicted in the pictures of Port Townsend would survive. Don Ffistow noted that one of the things that brought him here 26 years ago was the historic beauty of this town. While he takes great pride in the historic relevance of the buildings, he would like to remind members of the Council that not every building that is old has historic relevance. He believes that it is the property itself- the location and grounds - that makes Point Hudson the jewel that it is. There certainly are buildings here that do not have any relevance, either economically or historically, and they do represent a health baTard. For 26 years, everyone on his telephone crew has dreaded coming down to do any kind Of telephone work on these buildings and have stopped doing any serious crawling under these buildings because of the health baT,~ds involved. He said he could barely stand to be in the meeting's venue because of the smell He cannot go to the restaurant for the same reason. He remembers that the Kingston Trio made some pretty mean remarks about the creosote smell when they stayed here. We all want historical relevance and charm and beauty, but there comes a time when practicality dictates that we have to let go. Barhar~ Marseille thanked the Port for its seeking out information from professional sources on the situation. That was first thing that needed to be done and they have done it. She pointed out Point Hudson is'not only the jewel of Port Townsend, it is a jewel of the nation. It is one of the very last pieces like this in the whole U.S. It is a national concern. Because of this, we do need time to gather more help and support ~om sources not yet consulted, some mentioned by Councilmember Feun, but also many others. There are very few waterfronts with historic buildings because the property is very valuable and there is always someone who comes in and assert highest and best use, which is not what you do. Nancy Dorgan felt the 30-day proposal was pretty ridiculous in any sort of a planning context. After years of planning, the City Council and the Port signed a joint resolution in 1994 to adopt the goals and policies of the Port Hudson plan, one of which is historic preservation. We are not going to go hack and start over again and accomplish anything in Port/City Meeting - January 13; 2003 Page 6 Vo 30 days. We need to build on what has already been accomplished. We have adopted policies that affmn our desire to preserve Point Hudson~ She was extremely disappointed that the City did not get the moratorium underway as an emergency ordinance at the last meeting and hopes that the City cen do it soon. W'flliam Miller recognized this as the first open meeting he has witnessed between two government bodies and said that such meetings should be continued. Thirty days is not enough time. Because of the emotion involved in this issue, he suggested two months would be better. We are going m come to a resolution and while some of us are not going to be happy with the results, we will have participated in this deliberative issue and that is what we need to do. DISCU$SION/ACTIONi Councilmember Masci moved to accept Commissioner Sokol's proposed motion with a 90-day caveat, as. opposed to a 30-day. Councilmember Robinson seconded the motion. Councilmember Fcnu said her concern about extending this period to 90 days is that thc City has been in process with this ordinance for a long time and was about to bear fi'uit within four weeks. She has concern and always has - it has not been restricted to the Port - about other historic properties in historic districts that people may decide they also want to demolish under the current as opposed to any future ordinance. She reminded the Council that postponing work on the ordinance might put other properties at risk. Counciimember Sandoval suggested mending the motion to allow the ordinance to go through thc Community Development Land Use Committee, which is to meet tomorrow. This ordinance is still in a draft stage and would have to go through a public hearing, back to full council for a vote, then to a public hearing, and finally to two readings. Right there, it is months away. She suggested that this open, public process continue. Commi.~sioncr Sokol said there is a perccption that thc whole Point Hudson planning process would be completed in 30 days. Thc 30 days is only to allow the Council and Port Commission to talk about how best to proceed. The Comp.' Scheme process would not be finished for months. Councilmember Masci said his intent with the 90-day window, which is flexible, would give sufficient time for Staff to have discussion~ Councilmember Masci restated his motion that the Council rescind the first reading of the moratorium ordinance. City and Port Staff are instructed to meet to consider their respective issues. The draft ordinance concerning demolition would continue through the Community Development Land Use Committee and the Historic Preservation Committee and that the Port and City elected bodies would meet within the next three weeks either once or multiple times to discuss both the progress and nature of the demolition ordinance, and other relevant planning issues. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Robinson and carried by unanimous vote. Mr. Watts noted that Councilmembers Finnie and Fenn have interests indirect, remote or other that have already been previously identified. Commissioner Beck said he looks forward to working on th~ issue. Commissioner Sokol noted that if the Port is going to withdraw its pre-application conference which stops the Port's process on the demolition permit, it is his understanding that the City would continue for the next 90 days working on thc demolition ordinance. Commissioner Sokol moved that the Port Commission direct Staff to cancel or withdraw from the pre-application conference for tomorrow understanding that the City has already agreed to rescind the first reading of the moratorium ordinance. The Commission directs Staff to meet with City Staff to consider issues related to demolition and Point Hudson. It is understood that the draft ordinance concerning demolition would not proceed past the Community Development Land Use Committee and that the Port and City elected bodies would meet within three weeks to discuss progress. Staffwould coordinate a meeting time. He clarified that the Port would not resubmit for pre-application for 90 days and that thc City would not Port/City Meeting- January 13, 2003 Page 7 introduce an ordinance or moratorium for 90 days. The motion carded by unanimous vote. VI. ATTEST: Secretary ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 PM, there 'Wing no further business. President