Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06272005CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND • CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL BUSINESS SESSION OF JUNE 27, 2005 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in special session this twenty- seventh day of June, 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 (participated by telephone). Freida Fenn was excused. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, City Engineer Dave Peterson, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. Mr. Masci requested an executive session prior to Item IV, Garrison/Flint Settlement • for the purpose of discussing potential litigation with counsel. Executive session was added. FERRY TERMINAL UPDATE Russell East and Charlie Flores were present to give Councilors an update on the PT Ferry Terminal Preservation and Improvement Project. Several options are still being considered and determining factors will include budget (currently $35 million budgeted); over water holding capacity; links to the Keystone ferry project; impact to US Bank and Rotary Park; community traffic patterns. Currently construction is projected for mid-2008. A formal scoping meeting will be scheduled in Port Townsend in September. Both representatives urged Councilors to contact them with questions or for further discussion of the issue at any time. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Robinson announced that Council would retire to Executive Session at 7:20 to discuss a matter involving potential litigation that would last approximately 15 minutes. RECONVENE • City Council Special Business Mtg Page 1 June 27, 2005 The meeting was reconvened at 7:35 p.m. • GARR{SONiFLINT SETTLEMENT Mrs. Medlicott read a statement explaining reasons why she would be recusing herself from the discussion and action. She noted that the proposed settlement agreement involves rights of way affected by statutory street vacations and she is a property owner whose property could be affected by a statutory street vacation. She stated the City Attorney has advised that she does not need to recuse, but she prefers to do so in the interests of appearance of fairness. Ms. Robinson stated that she is a staff member at Jumping Mouse Children's Center and that the Center has been designated by Mr. Garrison for proceeds from some of the sales in this block of property. She added that the City Attorney has advised her that this does not constitute a property interest in the outcome and that she will not recuse herself. City Attorney John Watts reviewed the packet material and outlined the key terms of agreement: He noted that Council has received a communication regarding a request for a waiver of the city regulations on fencing. He stated that this cannot be addressed through the settlement agreement but would necessitate a change to the ordinance. • Mr. Watts also stated that the settlement agreement is not a binding precedent; the Council may choose to follow it as a model but doesn't have to; staff will return to council for direction on how to deal with the approximately thirty pending statutory street vacation requests. RECESS Mayor Robinson declared a recess at 7:58 p.m. for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:05 p.m. Public Comment: Joshua Bennun stated the Council should protect individual homeowners and property rights and recommended that all documents be filed and legally ratified at the County. Elizabeth Merrill: she stated she is the author of the a-mail asking for a change in the regulations on fencing as she believes she needs a fence to be protected from • the impact of the development; she added that the meaning of (2)(1)Q) must be City Council Special Business Mtg Page 2 June 27, 2005 clarified to be explicit about lot coverage as that is a different figure than the building • permit applications indicate. Imants Golts supported the previous speaker regarding the need to change fencing regulations. Mr. Watts replied to concerns brought up during public testimony. He stated there is a provision for a property owner to seek a variance to put up a structure, including a fence, in the right of way, but whether the variance would be granted depends on issues of hardship imposed and whether a variance is required to use the property as others are. He added that if the Council wants to amend the ordinance to allow fences in the right of way they can, but this cannot be done in this agreement nor at tonight's special meeting as the Council can only take action on items which are on the agenda. Council may direct staff to bring forward an ordinance, however. Mr. Watts agreed that 2.1 Q) needs to be modified as to what limitation applies to the building footprint and what to the impervious surtace. As to whether Garrison/Flint are vested only to the specific plans on file is an issue that needs to be clarified in light of the terms of the agreement. In response to concerns about filing documents with the County, Mr. Watts noted that if the agreement goes forward, all documents would be filed with the County; he added that there has been recent survey activity in the area and unless there is • reason to believe it is inaccurate, there would be no reason to initiate a new surrey. Mr. Benskin stated that 2.1(j) is still confusing; he asked if the actual vested permits can be revisited to see the difference between the vested permits and the agreement. Mr. Watts agreed it should be clarified - he stated that 2600 square feet is a rounding and may not be an appropriate rounding of one of the permits on file which shows a main structure, garage and ADU. It should be clarified whether the dimensional limitations include impervious surface or just building footprint and whether lot size includes the area of the vacated rights of way. He will revisit and check to see what the actual vested permits are asking for and see if the plot plan is an accurate reflection of that. Mr. Masci asked what the effect would be of the Council approving the settlement with the articulated questions unanswered. Mr. Watts replied that the Council may approve the settlement subject to revision of the language in question in 2.1 (j) so that lot coverage for structures vs. impervious surface would be clarified; if the Council wishes, they may state that the building permits on file are vested but that changes may not be made according to prior law. • City Council Special Business Mtg Page 3 June 27, 2005 Mr. Masci asked what the cost of a fence variance would be. Staff stated that the • variance fee is $100; Ms. Merrill stated that the staff told her expenses might be as much as $500. Mr. Masci asked if an amendment to an interim ordinance has its own six-month life or whether it expires within the original time frame of the interim ordinance. Mr. Watts stated that the amendatory language could take effect immediately and Council would determine the final rules when action is taken on the final ordinance. Mr. Masci asked if the amendment could have a sunset consistent with the interim ordinance. Mr. Watts affirmed. Mr. Kolff asked what is the key to the vesting of an application. Mr. Watts stated that the entire submittal would depend on the rules in effect when submitted; Mr. Kolff stated that he 6etieves the vesting should be for the actual plans submitted at the time the application is made. Mr. Watts stated this was one of the difficult points of the negotiation and this is the point where Garrison/Flint would agree. If Council's position is different, then we would have to renegotiate. Ms. Robinson asked for clarification of the agreement -was it 2600 square feet for structures or was it for structures and impervious surface? • Mr. Watts stated that discussions with neighbors focused on a footprint not to exceed 2000 sf for the main structure and a side structure (garage or garage/adu) of 550 sf ;that was the discussion point with the neighborhood group based on what came from Garrison/Flint. That was subsequently stated as a single number of 2600 square feet for the building footprints, of which the main structure could not exceed 2000 sf. He added that the impervious surface square footage was not really at the forefront of neighborhood discussions -they were more concerned with the bulk of structures on the property. Mr. Benskin stated there is some confusion about lot coverage and size of structures. Mr. Kolff agreed and stated that he believes the key issue is whether the Council wants to hold Garrison/Flint to the square footage of what they originally submitted in terms of the building; this may be different, but apparently the neighbors have agreed to it. Mr. Benskin stated if there is agreement among the neighbors and the Council needs to ratify it, the Council doesn't need to change the agreement but does need to clarify. Mr. Kolff stated concern about whether the neighbors truly understood what was vested and what is reflected in the agreement; he said he is getting a message that • City Councr! Special Business Mfg Page 4 June 27, 2005 L J they agreed with the number but he doesn't know if they knew this was different from the vested number. Mr. Watts stated the settlement proposal originated with Garrison/Flint through their attorney in April; that proposed settlement indicated they would place some limitations on the size of the structures; from their viewpoint they were proposing that as a settlement completely apart from their building applications as it included many other issues including trails, trees, road improvements, etc. Ms. Sandoval asked for clarification that the vesting was for a smaller number and this is beyond and aside from that. Mr. Watts confirmed. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to authorize the Cify Manager to execute the proposed settlement vacating portions of Root, Tyler, and Taylor rights of way to Garrison/Flint and others, and settling the Garrison/Flint lawsuit, subject to terms outlined in the agenda packets, including the rewording of Item 2.1(j) to clarify that the 2600 square feet refers to total building footprints and not impervious surface and that (friendly amendment by Mr Masci) impervious surface regulations be consistent with city code. Mr. Benskin seconded. Ms. Robinson asked about the statement that if the settlement agreement is accepted it could serve as a model for others; if that is so, could the Council be held to this "model?" How far reaching is this? Mr. Watts stated that the settlement deals with a specific situation and in a different situation, the Council could choose to draw on this model or not. It is not legally binding as a basis for other settlements but might have some practical impact in the sense that someone may wish to have the same terms that apply to this group. That may not be an inappropriate result, as this settlement provides that where there are improvements such as streets, the abutting owner dedicates some back with use provisions; likewise where there are no street improvements, the agreement provides easement for utilities as well as access needed to service adjacent and nearby properties -not necessarily public access rights but some access rights. Mr. Robinson stated her concern is that the vesting process exists and depends on the law at the given moment in time so that if changes are then initiated in the regulations, those applications are protected; it seems that in this agreement we are deviating from that; she said she is willing to entertain that in this situation, but not willing to take it too far. The timings are all off and it doesn't seem entirely fair. Ms. Sandoval concurred with Ms. Robinson's concerns. Mr. Masci stated it appears this is a concession from the parties; a limitation, not a license to go larger. • City Council Special Business Mtg Page 5 June 27, 2005 Vote: motion carried, 4-f, by voice vote, Robinson opposed. CAPITAL PROJECT APPROVAL: POOL, SKATEPARK, WAVEVIEWING GALLERY Mayor Robinson announced that discussion regarding capital project approval would be delayed until the July 11 meeting, due to time constraints and the fact that more information will be available at that time. RURAL HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE PILOT PROGRAM • Mr. Timmons reviewed the packet materials and noted that this was presented to the Finance and Budget Committee; timing is critical as the grant must be submitted prior to the next Council meeting and must contain a letter of commitment for funding from Port Townsend. The funding commitment is $30,000 for each of the next three years and this year's contribution would require a supplemental appropriation. He added that funding may be covered due to a new program approved by the state legislature, which allows businesses to voluntarily donate a portion of their B&O taxes to a local initiative. Our proposal is that this would bring in the funding to cover the City's commitment and that Main Street will assist the City in informing and encouraging local businesses to take part in this program. Mr. Timmons noted that the City of Port Angeles has already pledged to commit $30,000 funding for three years although the City of Port Townsend is the lead applicant for the grant. Mari Mullen, Executive Director, Main Street, stated they have been working very hard on the grant proposal and have gathered letters of support from Governor Gregoire, Norm Dicks, and the Lower Elwha Tribe, among others. This offers an opportunity to make our historic areas into a living classroom to study heritage tourism issues and will create a curriculum for people in preservation-based jobs. Carol McGough stated that if the grant proposal is not successful, no funding will be needed; only two sites will be chosen but this is a significant opportunity and the amount of support received is very encouraging. Announcements should be made in about a month about grant recipients. In answer to Mr. Benskin's question, Mr. Timmons stated that the City's support of Main Street this year is $40,000 with funding from LTAC and the general fund. He noted that the contributions from the local B&O taxes would go to the stated program, not to Main Street's operating fund. • City Council Special Business Mtg Page 6 June 27, 2005 • Ms. Mullin noted that there is a statewide cap of two million dollars total that can be re-directed locally through the new legislation. Public comment David Goldman: spoke in support; stated this project would be consistent with the notion that economic development, historic preservation and rural heritage are all part of how Port Townsend sees its future and that we are committing to go in a thoughtful direction. Jane Champion, Main Street Board Chairperson, stated that if we are fortunate enough to get this grant, it would put us in an incredible position for future grants; she stated the energy and support so far has been exceptional and in a climate of diversity it is good to see that these entities have come together in support and that even if we are not successful in receiving the grant, we have started something that can have a future in helping our community in other ways. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to adopt the recommendation of the Finance and Budget Committee to support the Port Townsend and Port Angeles Main Street Program Rural Heritage Development Initiative Pilot Program in the form of a letter of commitment of $90, 000 over three years and task administration to work with Main Street on the implementation of House Bill 1273 in order to access the available tax credit to provide the $90, 000 in matching funds. Mrs. Medlicott seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting as adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Pam Kolacy, CMC City Clerk Attest: ~~,~~ City Council Special Business Mfg Page 7 June 27, 2005