Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022508CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in workshop session the twenty- fifth day of February, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. in the third floor conference room of City Hall, Mayor Michelle Sandoval presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were, Brent Butler, David King, Laurie Medlicott, George Randels, Michelle Sandoval, and Mark Welch. Catharine Robinson was excused. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, Public Works Director Ken Clow, DSD Director Leonard Yarberry, Planning Director Rick Sepler, Assistant DSD Director Pat lolavera, Police Chief Conner Daily, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Mr. Watts reviewed the packet materials and noted that the code enforcement amendments deal with procedures and policies regarding when monetary penalties are appropriate. In contrast, street use issues generally deal with standards; for example, what are the standards that govern private uses in the right of way such as a fence. Mr. Timmons noted that the draft ordinance, which allows discretion for staff, is a good model in terms of what is really happening; he noted that every situation has its own story and cautioned the Council from pre-judging situations before all the facts are known. Mr. Watts stated the current process calls for administrative notice and order where staff initiates the notice and an appeal is heard by the Hearings Examiner. The new process provides for a civil citation (equivalent of a traffic ticket) to be issued. For example, if there were a nuisance violation, then the Police could issue a civil citation. Mr. Timmons noted that we are trying to model what most other cities in the state are doing. Police Chief Conner Daily spoke about the tools currently available to the Police and the tools that would be available under the new ordinance. Mr. Watts stated that the infraction must always be corrected; the "should" or "shall" has to do with whether penalties are assessed in addition to the correction. City Council Workshop Page 1 February 25, 2008 Mr. Randels spoke in support of adopting the ordinance, keeping a log and monitoring the outcomes. Mr. Welch asked how this would affect individual homeowners. Ms. Sandoval stated that there are specific areas where she would like to establish a specific stop work order, fine, and remediation process. These areas are the listings 1-6 on page 2 of Exhibit A (emergency, repeat violation, etc.) She said that "should" or "shall" consider doesn't really make any difference because either way the staff will still "consider." Ms. lolavera noted that it is not always that simple for staff to figure out if there is a violation because in many cases it is necessary for a consultant to make the determination; for example, even a professional wetland delineator can come out off a little for a distinct buffer area. She added that staff needs breathing room to get resources to prove that violation occurred. Ms. Sandoval asked who would responsible for paying the consultant; Mr. Watts stated the City may be able to recover the costs if the City is correct about the violation. Mr. Timmons noted staff is enforcing the code, but would like to have the extra tool of civil citation; the use of "consider" allows the fact-finding period to take place. Mr. King stated he likes the moderate approach, so there could be a slightly lighter touch, which might lessen the reporting of code violations being used as a weapon in neighborhood disputes. Mr. King stated that for those clear cut violations, the City needs to stop damage prior to action or as soon as possible and a clear option for enforcement is available under the ordinance; he would like to tighten up specific areas, but he believes this overall approach is a good start and that monitoring incidents will give the Council an indication as to how this is working. Mr. Welch noted there is a nothing that precludes a citation from being written; with this fundamental philosophical shift, it is necessary to give the new rules a chance to work and trust that when those violations occur, the staff will do the right thing. Mr. King added that if in a year, the Council believes the "shoulds" should be "shalls" then they can act on that. Mr. Butler stated he believes "shall" should be used in as many cases as possible so that we are moving away from some of the discretion; however, he also noted we would not want the pendulum to swing too far in one direction. Mr. Timmons noted that the issues listed on page 2 are critical. He added the system is not broken and out of control, we should ground the current situation in truth so we know what we are dealing with. When there is clear direction, it takes City Council Workshop Page 2 February 25, 2008 the burden off administration and regarding those category areas, they are particularly important but we don't want to jump to a penalty provision without getting the facts and assessing whether or not a penalty is appropriate. Ms. Sandoval asked if there could be a provision for fact finding within a certain amount of time; then fines would follow if appropriate. Mr. Timmons noted that if irreparable damage is done, or the person is shown to have known they are in violation and refuse to communicate or cooperate, those situations could trigger an automatic fine. Mr. Watts noted the current tool would allow staff to modify or rescind an order of violation; however, the new tool would mean a civil citation is filed with the court and then is out of the City's hands; this is designed to avoid giving any city employee the means to rescind a ticket. Mr. Timmons suggested that the list on page 2 could be broken into two categories, stating that the director "shall" issue a notice of order to stop activity for items 1,2,4, 7 and 8. Then the director could deal with fact-finding and see if one of the other categories exists, determination of pre-meditation, for example, and if that is found to be true, the director "shall" issue a penalty in accordance with the code. He stated this has been blended together and could be separated. Mr. Randels noted that if we did that and kept the log it would be a solid program and could be changed upon a review after a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Clow noted that violations involving "damage to a City right of way or property" (8) is not uncommon during construction and not always intentional. He stated he would have some difficulty saying the City would automatically fine someone for an accidental as opposed to intentional violation. Mr. Watts noted that some enhanced penalties could include an assessment based on the benefit to the owner of breaking the law. Ms. lolavera spoke in support of the "report card" so that the Council can see the many issues that come up under the umbrella of code violation. Mr. Watts stated that themes are emerging; first that there is a culture of permissiveness and this ordinance, by establishing a tougher enforcement policy is sending a message that enforcement will become tougher. Second, there may be an explicit condition attached to a project and if those terms are violated you tie right into the "should have known" category. Ms. Sandoval suggested adding an additional category which would address violations of SEPA or a development agreement explicitly. City Council Workshop Page 3 February 25, 2008 Mr. Timmons stated that other jurisdictions require a performance bond; Mr Yarberry stated that staff is working on putting together requirements for performance and maintenance bonds. Mr. Timmons noted that this may be interpreted as an anti affordable housing regulation by builders and developers because it adds cost to the project. Mr. Watts stated the staff would take tonight's comments, create a new draft and bring back for another workshop with a flow chart of the process. Mr. Timmons stated that he would work with DSD staff to see when the stop work orders are deployed and how to best use that tool. Ms. Sandoval stated she has several smaller comments on the ordinance and will talk with Mr. Watts about them; she requested that changes to the latest draft be shown as strikeout and underline. RECESS Mayor Sandoval declared a recess at 7:55 p.m. for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:05 p.m. STREET USES Mr. Timmons introduced the issue, and used maps to show the various existing encroachments on rights of way and illustrate the challenges posed by these uses. Mr. Watts stated that typically most activities in unopened rights of way have not been regulated until it gets to the point where it is a safety hazard or interferes with public enjoyment. Mr. Randels asked if the City could differentiate between right of way uses that enhance public enjoyment of the space versus those that enhance a person's private space; in some case {ow level landscaping could be considered an amenity. Mr. Welch added that another criteria to consider is whether it denies others use of the public property. Mr. Butler stated that a complaint could trigger enforcement. He added it can be costly to be proactive. Ms. Sandoval said that she is particularly concerned that designated trails are not encroached upon. She also added that we need to be clear about proactive versus City Council Workshop Page 4 February 25, 2008 reactive nature of things; the public needs to trust the City's process that if there is a formal complaint there will be a formal response. Mr. Sepler noted that another type of street use is commercial use, such as sidewalk cafes, extensions, and overlays. Mr. Randels stated that the City should also have a policy about street ends, either to allow privatization or figure out a way to make them public. Mr. Clow noted that the Comprehensive Plan supports keeping streets narrow; there is a look and feel to preserve but there is also a goal to preserve shoulders and the City must strike a balance. There is so much variety on and off the roadway it is difficult to try and set up an overarching policy. He added that we often don't know where the property corners are since surveys have never been required. Mr. Watts added that there is now a mandate that a survey must be completed for a new construction project. Mr. Watts stated that the Council may need to develop a trail standard with help from the Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board. Other conflicts are between low level vegetation and parking; how much of a trail or street can be encroached with landscaping? Mr. Welch stated perhaps there should be a limit to how close to the roadway surface improvements could be. Ms. Sandoval asked about recreational vehicles parked in the streets with connections to electricity, etc. Mr. Timmons noted this is a problem encountered frequently and that rights of way can become neighborhood "war zones" when neighbors don't get along. Right of way encroachment by recreational vehicles stored in the right of way can also be problematic. Mr. Randels asked if there is any reason alley vacations should be different from street vacations. There could be a vacation policy where the City can reach out to adjacent property owners when we know an alley makes no sense to stay on the books and try to broker an agreement. Mr. Clow noted that adding signs to the trails has been helpful in showing pedestrians that they are there for public use. He stated there is a trail standard. Mr. Watts noted that he was referring to standard for a buffer area to deal with encroachments too close to the trail. Mr. Sepler asked what risk the Council is most concerned with, for example, cutting trees, privatization, etc. He asked the Council to consider the drive causing us to took at this and give staff an idea what you are most concerned with and what you most value. City Council Workshop Page 5 February 25, 2008 Mr. Timmons stated that privatization of the right of way is one of the big issues in terms of how to allow reasonable use which doesn't impact the ability of the public to use the space. Use of a right of way without making the necessary improvements to support the use turns into a mess; example would be parking that is adjacent to the roadway when it interferes with drainage, utilities, and undergrounds. Mrs. Medlicott stated she would like an additional consideration, which is access for public safety vehicles and personnel when rights of way are encroached upon. Ms. Sandoval stated she initially agrees on the direction of being proactive on new projects and reactive for existing uses. She also agrees that enforcement should be triggered if the encroachment interferes with public enjoyment and/or public safety; the City should not have to become referee between neighbors trying to use public rights of way. Mr. Sepler stated that staff needs specific direction on commercial use; he referred to a recent incident regarding a request for a commercial deck. Mr. Randels noted that some businesses have the idea they can set up a mini sidewalk cafe on the public sidewalk. It would be helpful to have a policy where people can apply to improve their business and also improve the City if done in the right way; this may become a source of revenue also. Mr. Yarberry stated that it is probably most effective to have some sort of right of way use and encroachment permit process; the City needs to have some control over that for commercial uses. Mr. Watts stated that it would be easier to move commercial street use standards forward on a separate track. Mr. Sepler stated the packet examples were intended to show the breadth of the issue and it wasn't intended to discuss specific solutions for each of them. He said he has heard a number of approaches which staff will apply to a draft ordinance. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:19 p.m. Attest: ~•' Pam Kolacy, MMC City Clerk City Council Workshop Page 6 February 25, 2008