Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout090506 CITY OF PORT TOWNSENDCITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this fifth day of September, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend temporary Council Chambers in the Port Townsend Fire Station conference room, Mayor Mark Welch presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were Frank Benskin, Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, and Mark Welch. Michelle Sandoval and Scott Walker arrived at 6:40 p.m. Staff members present were City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, Planning Director Rick Sepler, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mr. Benskin requested adding reconsideration of the decision to approve a back-in parking trial in the street fronting Pope Marine Park to the agenda. The agenda was added as Item C under new business. Mr. Masci requested that item "C" on the consent agenda (Monroe Street and Howard Street repair) be removed to New Business. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (consent and non-agenda items) Steven Archer regarding utility pole in front of Police Station as a parking hazard. David Langum regarding Key City Players locating uptown; asked Council to require that off street parking be provided. Mike Bosold [sic] regarding proposed sea turbines. City Attorney Watts noted in response to Mr. Archer that the City has insurance through a pool; that these types of claims are turned over to the insurance authority as required by contract and if the claim is denied, the party must file a claim in court. CONSENT AGENDA Motion: Mr. Masci moved to approve the following items on the consent agenda. Ms. Robinson seconded. Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. City Council Business Meeting Page 1 September 5, 2006 Approval of Bills. Claims and Warrants: Vouchers 98922 through 98934 in the amount of $31,143.03 Voucher 98936 in the amount of $22, 500 Vouchers 99036 through 99065 in the amount of $32, 974.68 Vouchers 820061 through820069 in the amount of $99,241.71 Vouchers 905061 through 905069 in the amount of $1 04, 689. 67 Approval of Minutes: August 21, 2006; August 28, 2006 UNFINISHED BUSINESS ORDINANCE 2928 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND ETABLlSHING INTERIM STANDARDS AND AMENDING THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE IN REGARD TO CLARIFYING THE MEASUREMENT OF DEVELOPMENT DENSITY IN R-1I1 AND R-IV ZONING DISTRICTS; ADOPTING A NEW METHOD FOR MEASURING BUILDING HEIGHTS TO LIMIT THE ALTERATION OF SITES; ESTABLISHING AN OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSROY DWELLOING UNITS AND RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE UPTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; AND ESTABLISHING A UNIFORM METHOD OF COUNTING DAYS FOR LAND USE PROCESSES Planning Director Rick Sepler reviewed the packet material, noting that the section regarding establishing an interim maximum height in the C-III zoned portions of the Uptown Historic District be amended has been removed as well as the associated "whereas" clauses. Public comment: Nancy Dorgan stated in regard to the amendment concerning ADU parking requirements, that she feels this is a punitive approach rather than an incentive for the creation of ADUs; requiring an off street parking space would radically change the look of the main property. She asked for a redefinition of multiplex units in the code. Bertram Levy suggested the City buy a vacant lot in the uptown district and develop a parking lot, as this would relieve the parking pressure caused by ADUs. Ms. Robinson asked for clarification of the definition language referred to by Ms. Dorgan. Mr. Sepler stated that the section as written would allow for a detached single family home to have an ADU, but multiplex units would not be eligible to add ADUs. City Council Business Meeting Page 2 September 5, 2006 In reply to Mr. Benskin, Mr. Sepler stated that there is no question a single family detached home can create an ADU; in the code "single family attached" refers to the multiplex structures. Mr. Masci spoke in general opposition to interim legislation. Mr. Benskin spoke in favor of the amendment regarding off street parking requirements for ADUs; stating that the burden should be put on the developer of the ADU, not on the rest of the neighborhood through the increased number of cars parking on the street. Mr. Walker spoke in opposition to a single piece of legislation which deals with several different issues. He stated that requiring off street parking would destroy the walkability in the town; he is opposed to any more paving; road edges should be defined and repaired. Ms. Sandoval suggested dividing the issue. Mr. Benskin noted that street maintenance is a separate issue which can only be solved by appropriating funds; he added that parking spaces do not have to be impervious surfaces. Mr. Welch stated his concern about increasing impervious surface. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to proceed with the vote section by section; individual votes on each section will be recorded and the final ordinance will reflect each individual vote. Mr. Walker seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to adopt Section 2, Clarification on Density Requirements in R-III and R-IV Zoning Districts. Ms. Robinson seconded. Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by roll call vote. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to adopt Section 3, Revised Method of Measuring Building Height. Mr. Welch seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by roll call vote. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to adopt Section 4, ADU Parking Requirements. Mr. Benskin seconded. Ms. Robinson stated she agrees that this is a method of trying to fix one problem (street edges) with something that isn't related to the core problem; she does not like to increase non-natural surface any more than necessary, and doesn't believe that people will park off the street just because a space is provided. Mr. Masci agreed and stated the answer is funding Tier 1 development and streets. City Council Business Meeting Page 3 September 5, 2006 Mrs. Medlicott stated that there is at this time no money for the major street repairs required; the uptown historic commercial district overflows into the residential parking areas and off street parking is needed. Ms. Sandoval stated she wishes to support affordable housing through encouraging ADUs but does understand the extra congestion that comes with higher density; she does not want to build parking lots to try and solve the problem. Mr. Welch stated he is concerned about impervious surface but also about the concerns of the neighborhood and parking congestion. He added that the streets need to be repaired, but the money must be found to do that. Mr. Benskin stated he believes this will help preserve neighborhood integrity. He believes more cars parked on the street do not make for a walkable community. Mr. Walker stated that each off street parking space also requires a driveway and curb cut which would take away from the amount of public parking available. He stated he would like to look at this in the larger context of mandating sprawl. Mr. Benskin stated that all off street parking spaces would not require a driveway or curb cut. Vote: motion carried, 4-3, by roll call vote, with Robinson, Walker and Masci opposed. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved for approval of Section 5, Limitation on ADU Development for Single-family, Attached Housing. Ms. Robinson seconded. The motion carried, 6-1, by roll call vote, with Masci opposed. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved for adoption of Section 6, Standardize Calculation of Days for Land Use Actions. Ms. Robinson seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by roll call vote. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved for adoption of Section 7, Uptown C-III Commercial District Parking Requirements. Mr. Benskin seconded. Ms. Sandoval stated that she does not want to limit economic development because of the onus of having to provide parking. Mr. Walker stated the cost of requiring off street parking for a condo or multi-family structure is really an impact fee; if you want to add density, you can't require parking. He stated he couldn't support this because it does not help build a walkable community. City Council Business Meeting Page 4 September 5, 2006 Mrs. Medlicott stated that many people have lived here a long time and do not have the perspective that having a walkable community is the most important criteria driving regulations. Ms. Robinson stated that because this is an interface of residential and commercial she does think that new construction of mixed use which includes residential should include parking; this would not apply to adaptive re-use. Mr. Benskin stated he would support this on the basis that it is wise urban planning. Mr. Walker stated it would be foolish to do development without providing parking - potential gold mine for us to tap into for collecting some on street parking fees. Vote: motion carried, 4-3, with Masci, Sandoval and Walker opposed. Motion: Mr. Welch moved to request the Planning Commission to expedite review of the interim ordinance and bring a recommendation back to the Council as soon as possible. Ms. Robinson seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. Mr. Watts noted that the Council must have an advertised public hearing within sixty days of passage of the ordinance. ORDINANCE 2929 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 289 ADOPTED JULY 5,2005, IN ORDER TO INCLUDE THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE AS REQUIRED UNDER RCW 36.70A.172 City Attorney John Watts reviewed the packet material. In response to a question from Mr. Walker, he noted that "significant" is defined in the State Environmental Policy Act and added that courts have fleshed out the definition. Nancy Dorgan referred to the written material forwarded to the council and spoke in favor of adopting the ordinance; she stated it is important to get the Ecology Manual into the Critical Areas Code; she feels not all issues have been resolved but this is a big step forward. She then asked Council to postpone action until reviewing the Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Watts stated that the ordinance is before Council tonight primarily due to the desire to explicitly adopt the Department of Ecology 2005 Stormwater Manual into the Critical Areas Ordinance and thus would allow the Growth Management Hearings Board Appeal to dismiss Ms. Dorgan's "best available science" challenge. The other issue brought forward by Ms. Dorgan - whether to retain the word "significant" or not may be addressed later. The language in the current Critical City Council Business Meeting Page 5 September 5, 2006 Areas Ordinance was recommended by the City's consultant and the ordinance was reviewed by DOE, CTED, the Washington Environmental Council and the Puget Sound Action Team. This was not part of the specific challenge to the Growth Board; he stated he has no objection to dealing with that language but he urged Council not to hold up adoption of the Manual due to pending discussion on whether "significant" language should be retained or eliminated. He noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of the ordinance as written. In response to Ms. Robinson's question, Mr. Watts stated that the September 30 deadline was set by the Growth Management Hearings Board upon stipulation of the parties to bring forward the ordinance for Council adoption; the Board's written decision must be issued on September 30; delay to September 18 mayor may not give the Board enough time to incorporate into the opinion. Motion: Mr. Benskin moved to waive the rule for two separate readings of the ordinance. Mr. Welch seconded. Motion failed, 3-4, with Benskin, Medlicott and Welch in favor. Motion: Mr. Benskin moved for first reading of Ordinance 2929. Mr. Welch seconded. In response to Ms. Sandoval, Mr. Clow stated that getting staff up to date on the Stormwater Manual took precedence over adoption of the Stormwater Plan; short staffing has also delayed the project. Mr. Walker stated that if adoption were delayed to September 18, the Council would have time to read the Planning Commission minutes and incorporate any minor changes into the ordinance they might wish. Mrs. Medlicott stated that the unanimous vote of an advisory board should be taken seriously, without having to go back over meeting minutes. Vote: motion for first reading carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. RECESS Mayor Welch declared a recess at 8:15 p.m. for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:25 p.m. NEW BUSINESS There was consensus to move item "B" to the beginning of new business. City Council Business Meeting Page 6 September 5, 2006 CITY COMMAND CENTER VIDEO CONFERENCING CAPABILITY WITH EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER Ken Horvath, Public Safety Analyst, reviewed the packet material. He stated this would allow the Emergency Operations Center and City Command Center to operate simultaneously and see each other in real time. Mr. Walker expressed concern that the City is being asked to contribute funding while the County's share is paid for by a Homeland Security grant. There was no public comment. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Jefferson County to implement the expenditure of $3, 000 and authorize a sole source procurement of the video conferencing system. Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. MONROE STREET AND HOWARD STREET REPAIR Mr. Masci said he asked for discussion of the item so he could ask why Council approval was necessary for this level of expenditure. Mr. Clow stated the City Manger brought it forward as a courtesy for Council's information. He also added, in response to Mr. Masci, that this was an effort on behalf of the city, not a developer. There was no public comment. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with Lakeside Industries for Monroe Street asphalt repair and Howard Street repair. Mr. Welch seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. INITIATIVE 933 "PROPERTY FAIRNESS ACT" John Watts reviewed the packet information and stated that all materials are part of a notebook available to the public at City Hall and through the Association of Washington cities and Municipal Research and Services Center. Mr. Masci stated the material is biased and that he opposed placing the item on the agenda for discussion. It should be debated at the ballot box, not at the City Council. Ms. Sandoval stated she asked for this information and wanted to discuss how the Council might facilitate an informative process for the public. Public comment: City Council Business Meeting Page 7 September 5, 2006 Richard Hild spoke in favor of Initiative 933 and in agreement with Mr. Masci. Jim Hagen spoke in support of Mr. Masci's comments and in favor of 933. Nancy Dorgan supported action by the Council to try to get information to the community in an organized way. Roger Short spoke in favor of the initiative. Ms. Sandoval stated that the item was placed on the agenda to determine whether or not the Council should hold a public hearing to hear from citizens on this issue. She stated there are significant potential impacts to the city and state if the initiative passes. Mr. Welch stated that holding a "hearing" implies that there will be an outcome and decision; he would prefer to support sponsorship of a forum or workshop. Mrs. Medlicott suggested a paragraph in the City's newsletter asking voters to inform themselves on the issue. Ms. Robinson stated it is the City's business since it will affect the City budget, but she is not sure the Council should be the sponsors of a forum; rather someone who does not take positions, like the League of Women Voters would be a more appropriate entity. Ms. Sandoval stated the Council should have the courage to make the space for people to come together for the purpose of engagement. Mr. Walker stated he believes the Council does need to take a stand on the issue as the Council's responsibility in a representative government. Ms. Sandoval asked that the information binder be placed at the Library as well as City Hall and that AWC and MRSC links be made available on the web site. RECONSIDERATION OF ACTION TO APPROVE BACK-IN PARKING TEST Motion: Mr. Benskin moved to reconsider Council's action on August 21 approving a test of back-in parking adjacent to Pope Marine Park. Mr. Masci seconded. The motion failed, 3-4, by voice vote, with Masci, Medlicott and Benskin in favor. Mrs. Medlicott requested information and studies available about back-in parking; Mr. Masci requested fiscal impact of the project. City Council Business Meeting Page 8 September 5, 2006 ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:41 p.m. Attest: --L ) CM~ ~-PV~ Pam Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Business Meeting Page 9 September 5. 2006