Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04252005 . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL BUSINESS SESSION OF APRIL 25, 2005 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in special session this twenty- fifth day of April, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend temporary Council Chambers in the Cedar Room of the Waterman & Katz Building, Mayor Catharine Robinson presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were Frank Benskin, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. Freida Fenn arrived at 6:34 p.m. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. TRANSIT FACILITY RELOCATION Dave Turissini of Jefferson Transit presented an update on the progress of the transit facility relocation. He provided the Council with documents showing the final proposed site at Rhody Drive and lrondale Road. Mr. Kolff asked why the proposed site has more cost than the alternative near the airport. Mr. Turissini stated there would be more buses "dead heading" into Port Townsend (without passengers). Mr. Masci asked why the more expensive site was chosen. Mr. Turissini stated that the Transit Board was inclined to want to develop in an existing Urban Growth Area with existing Commercial zoning. Ms. Robinson stated that the costs presented are estimated costs at this time. City Council Special Business Meeting April 25, 2005 Page 1 . . . ORDINANCE 2897 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, AMENDING A SUBSECTION OF 17.08.040 I THROUGH M, DEFINITION OF "LOT AREA," AND AMENDING SECTION 17.16.030 BULK, DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS, OF TITLE 17 ZONING, OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO SETBACKS AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF LOTS AFFECTED BY STREET OR STATUTORY VACATION, AND ADOPTING INTERIM REGULATIONS REGULATING LAND USE Ms. Medlicott recused herself because she owns property within one of the plats subject to statutory street vacation and thus could have a financial interest in the result of the Council's action. Mayor Robinson read a statement of disclosure regarding an offer by developer Vern Garrison to donate a portion of the proceeds from the sale of certain properties he owns (which affected by the statutory vacation ordinance) to the Jumping Mouse Children's Center. Ms. Robinson is an employee of Jumping Mouse. The Board of Directors of the organization has accepted the offer of funds. She added that the City Attorney has advised her to disclose the matter and also that it is not a basis to disqualify her from voting as a Councilor on the ordinance. She stated that neither the Jumping Mouse Children's Center Board nor Mr. Garrison has asked or suggested that she take any particular position on these matters, she did not seek the donation and will receive no benefit from it. City Attorney Watts stated the matter is before the Council for possible second reading and adoption of the interim zoning ordinance. He added the matter was discussed at the April 18 meeting and changes approved at that meeting are reflected in the ordinance. He stated that adoption would preclude (on an interim basis) development, in the areas shown as rights of way on plat maps that might interfere with future City infrastructure planning. Mr. Watts noted that Council has received written communications from Harry Holloway and Steve Shiveley related to this issue. As a result of comments, a possible amendment has been added to page 3 as follows: "This ordinance does not apply to a replat or lot line adjustment that does not result in increased density." Mr. Watts also stated that because this is an interim ordinance, a public hearing must be scheduled within 60 days for a more detailed look at the issue and so that the public will have more opportunity to comment. The matter will also be referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 2 April 25, 2005 . . . Mr. Watts stated a lawsuit is pending on one statutory street vacation issue regarding a parcel owned by Vern Garrison and C.L. Flint; a settlement has been proposed by Mr. Garrison and the Council will discuss resolution of the matter on May 2. Mr. Masci asked if there were a retroactive clause in the ordinance. Mr. Watts replied that the language exempts any pending application for a permit or any existing permit although it does apply to previously vacated right of way if someone seeks to take action to build within a right of way that is precluded on any interim basis. In answer to a question from Mr. Benskin, Mr. Watts stated that the ordinance, as written, applies to all rights of way previously vacated unless a building or land use permit has been issued subject to or including vacation or a replat of the land. In answer to Mr. Masci, Mr. Watts stated that the City has not done a comprehensive inventory of which streets have or have not been opened. Mr. Timmons stated staff would be working on that inventory. Public comment Joanna Loehr: spoke in support of the ordinance and asked for a show of hands from people who were also in attendance to support passage. A majority of the audience indicated they were also in support. Thomas Loehr: spoke in support, noting potential for high density development on Morgan Hill and potential major street improvements that would be needed. Harry Holloway: expressed concern that each situation is different; in his case he wants to build a single family residence and ADU only; asked if Council could make an exception for property owners who have already implemented the lots of record certificate process. Cynthia Knudson: asked for consideration of affected properties on a case-by- case basis. Owen Fairbank: spoke in support, asking Council to consider choices that have long-term benefits for the community. Peter Lauritzen: spoke in support, noting that Comprehensive Density standards should not be increased arbitrarily by developers who are able to claim extra land by a statutory street vacation. John Rush: spoke in support of passage of the ordinance. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 3 April 25, 2005 . . . Allen Frank: spoke in opposition, citing restrictive land use policies which would result. Jan Hopfenbeck: spoke in support of ordinance, noted the issue is complex and that each case can be radically different; favored further public process so that all aspects may be considered. Kathleen Snow: spoke in support of interim ordinance. Joshua Bennun: commented on ethics. Imants Golts: spoke in support of ordinance, asked for clarification that only people who would increase density by replatting would be affected. Bob Sokol: continued to read Allen Frank's written comment, noting the process is tainted because other street vacations have already been approved. David Goldman questioned whether only statutory street vacations are affected. Mr. Watts stated that the intent of the ordinance is that if an application were made for a lot line adjustment or replat or any similar approval that did not increase density, it would be permitted and not subject to the setback provisions of the ordinance. Mr. Watts also noted that as written, the ordinance does affect all street vacations, not just statutory street vacations. He stated that if the Council does not want to include prior vacated rights of way, the ordinance could be amended to strike "effective pursuant to 35.79" in Section C of Exhibit "A". Mr. Watts also stated that in regard to questions by Mr. Frank and Mr. Bennun about whether a real estate agency owner would have an automatic conflict of interest in deliberating and voting on this issue, he stated that MRSC advised this would not be the case; in addition, the appearance of fairness doctrine would not be applicable since it applies only to quasi-judicial matters. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved for adoption of Ordinance 2897, striking Section 3, "Exemption" and striking references to regular street vacations according to 35.79 RCW in Exhibit A, section A, paragraph (C) and Exhibit A, Section B in the last sentence. Ms. Fenn seconded. Mr. Kolff requested a brief adjournment in order to consult with Mr. Watts about whether property he owns would be affected by the issue. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 4 April 25, 2005 . . . RECESS Mayor Robinson called for a five-minute recess at 7:50 p.m. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 7:55 Mr. Watts noted that Mr. Kolff had disclosed that he has property that is not within any of the affected plats that may be subject to the 1890 state law, but may have been subject to a street vacation and/or replat before he purchased it. Mr. Watts noted that the ordinance before the Council was meant to respond to statutory street vacations and was never intended to apply to previous vacations; he said inclusion of that language was a mistake and does not believe Mr. Kolff needs to recuse himself from the matter. He also stated that Mrs. Medlicott has properly recused herself as she does have property within one of the plats affected by the 1890 law. Ms. Fenn commented, in response to public comment, that the interim regulations will be addressed as quickly as possible and she favors moving forward in the most timely manner possible. Mr. Benskin stated that he believes the ordinance is ill advised in trying to prevent the granting of property under the 1890 statute and that the City's current or intended use of the rights of way does not constitute a reason for the City to claim them. He also noted that Port Townsend is an urban growth area and needs to accommodate increased density. Ms. Fenn stated that the County has designated two urban growth areas, the other being the tri-area and also noted that cities have to provide an urban level of services which is higher than that required by counties. Mr. Kolff noted he would support the ordinance because the city is an urban growth area and therefore density increases must be done in a careful way so we can preserve what is valuable as we continue to grow. Mr. Masci spoke against adoption of the ordinance, stating the land belongs to the adjacent property owners, not the city and he objects to "playing dominoes" with these properties. Ms. Sandoval spoke in support of the City retaining status quo until we can look carefully at how this affects our adopted plans; she stated the Council must look at the collective whole and not one person's individual interest. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 5 April 25, 2005 . . . Ms. Robinson spoke in support, stating the need to view implications of the statutory vacations given the City's adopted plans and infrastructure. She added the Council would schedule a public hearing as soon as possible. Vote: motion carried, 4-2, by roll call vote, Benskin and Masci opposed (Medlicott recused). Mrs. Medlicott returned to the meeting. RECONVENE C-II DESIGN STANDARDS COMMITTEE Mr. Timmons reviewed the agenda bill, noting that it would be helpful to review recently adopted standards in light of actual projects which have been completed since design standards were adopted. The process would be to reconvene the group and assist previous members to reconvene and complete a review in 60 days. Mr. Randall noted that only one project has been completed since going through C-II design review; two are under construction. Given the workload of planning staff, and the fact that more projects are nearing completion and two others are in process, he suggested that the project timeline be put out until an August workshop could be scheduled. This would involve the Committee meeting in July. He noted the August workshop meeting is August 8. Mr. Timmons noted that the committee could meet independent of staff if that is necessary. Committee member Ian Keith asked what the charge to the committee would be - whether difficulties with the process or the substance of the standards would be the focus. He stated he does not believe difficulties with the process need to affect the ordinance; however, if there are issues about the substance of the ordinance he would be willing to take that on but is not enthusiastic about putting a lot of effort in if it doesn't end up having an effect on the way things actually get built. Public comment: David Goldman: stated he believes that under the design provisions, there is totally inadequate public notice so would like Council to direct making the process more transparent. In answer to Mr. Masci's question, Mr. Keith stated that he personally would like standards to be much more strict, but with the balance you have on a committee, he can't imagine there would be much proposed change to the standards based on only two projects or unless there is a change in committee membership. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 6 April 25, 2005 . . . Ms. Fenn stated she believed when this was brought up it had to do with the transparency of the alternative design process. She would prefer that the process include only the alternative design process and how the review committee functions, then send to Planning Commission; after more projects have been built, the citizens committee could be reconvened to review the substance of the ordinance. Ms. Sandoval stated her other concern was review of the alternative design project by staff and how that is implemented, particularly given the apparent miscommunication between committee and staff regarding the PT Lumber site. She would also like to address guidelines for the alternative design process, and the criteria for a remodel vs. a new building. Ms. Robinson stated she has concerns about sending this to the Planning Commission, given their workload for the rest of the year. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to reconvene the C-II Design Standards Committee to review C-II standards with regard to recent new C-II development and redevelopment (adaptive fe-use) as to what worked and what did not, and request the review be completed in 120 days. Ms. Sandoval seconded. Amendment: Ms. Fenn moved that the matter be referred to the Community Development/Land Use Committee for oversight. Mr. Kolff seconded. Vote on amendment: failed, 2-5, by voice vote, Fenn and Sandoval in favor. Vote on original motion: failed, 2-5, by voice vote, Robinson and Sandoval in favor. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved that the CD/LU Committee be tasked to take the concerns regarding the C-II design standards into the committee work plan and schedule a workshop with former C-II Design Standards Committee members and bring suggested amendments on alternative design process, variance guidelines for alternative design, and definitions of remodel back to the Council. Mr. Kolff seconded. The motion carried, 4-3, by voice vote, Benskin, Masci and Medlicott opposed. COMMUNITY PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT Mr. Timmons reviewed the packet material, and noted the playground group plan is now under sponsorship of a non-profit organization, the Kiwanis, who will be the fiscal agent. He also stated they are currently looking at Pope Marine Park but hope this will become a working model for other parks. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 7 April 25, 2005 . . . Motion: Mr. Masci moved to endorse the City Manager's support letter for the Community Built Dream Playground. Mr. Benskin seconded. Motion carried unanimousy, 7-0, by voice vote. CITY MANAGER COMPENSATION Councilor Kolff referred Council members to the memo provided to the Council written by Councilors Kolff and Medlicott. Mrs. Medlicott noted her complete concurrence and support for the recommendation. Public comment: None Motion: Mrs. Medlicott moved to approve the Council Committee recommendation and authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement consistent with the Committee's recommendation according to the memo dated Apri/20, 2005. Ms. Fenn seconded. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to postpone the issue for one week to the next business meeting. Mr. Benskin seconded. Ms. Sandoval stated that committee formation and findings have already been discussed among the Council and she is reluctant to put this off. Mr. Benskin stated he has not had time to digest the report and would like to discuss some issues in executive session. Mr. Kolff said he was unaware of any concerns by council members prior to this evening so does not feel comfortable about postponing the decision. Vote on motion to postpone failed, 2-5, Benskin and Masci in favor. Brief discussion ensued on the details of the contract. Vote: motion carried, 5-2, by voice vote, Benskin and Masci opposed. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m. Attest: Q~V1 cK~ Pam Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Special Business Meeting Page 8 April 25, 2005