Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10232000PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2000 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in special session this twenty-third day of October, 2000, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Geoff Masci presiding. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmembers present at roll call were Joe Finnie, Allen Frank, Sydney Lipton, Geoff Masci, and Bill Wolcott. A1 Youse was excused. Vern Garrison arrived at 6:34 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP CONTAINED WITHIN THE PORT TOWNSEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; AND CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO POLICY 1.8 OF THE NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN Motion: Mr. Finnie moved to separate the questions. Mr. Lipton seconded The motion carried unanimously, 6-0 by voice vote. Mr. Masci opened the public hearing with a statement regarding the rules of order for the proceeding. He then asked whether any council members had any interests, financial or property, to disclose in connection with the matter to be decided this evening. Mr. Finnie stated that he would recuse himself from the discussion of the change to Policy 1.8 of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan because vehicles enter the private parking lot of his business through an unopened right of way between Jefferson and Adams Streets. The decision in this matter could have an impact on his business dealings at some time. Mr. Watts stated that since the question has been divided, Mr. Finnie may participate in the first matter and then recuse himself. Rezone Block 283 of the Eisenbeis Addition from M/C to R-III Staff Presentation Judy Surber, Senior Planner, made the staff presentation. She noted that the two items were reviewed in an earlier session and placed on the final docket by the council. They were then subject to environmental review, with the Determination of non-significance issued on August 16 by the BCD Director. Planning Commission then held a workshop, an open record public hearing, and recommended approval of the rezone. City Council Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 October 23, 2000 She stated that the request was brought forward by several property owners to rezone the block from Mixed Commercial/Light Manufacturing to R-III, multi-family. The block was initially zoned R-I and changed during the Comprehensive Plan process to M/C (Mixed Commercial/Light Manufacturing) although the majority of the block is currently single family dwellings. It appears to staff that there may have been a zoning error in making that designation. The suggested designation would allow both single family and multi-family development A poll of property owners resulted in only one person not in favor. This property owner sometimes operates a second hand store on the ground level. Staff explained that his residence wasn't currently permitted in the zone and the business would not be permitted in either zone. She reiterated the Findings and Conclusions of the Planning Commission as set forth in their memo of September 14. The conclusions are that a rezone to R-III is appropriate as the area is flat, serviced by utilities and consistent with population projections. Because nearly the entire block was built out before the designation, a unique circumstance exists. She also provided full sized zoning maps for the council. Communications received since the packet was distributed: Mr. Watts read a letter from the State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development commenting favorably on both items. He also read into the record a letter from Mr. John Addie, dated October 20, 2000, a resident of the block, supporting the rezone. Public Comment Jack Cady: spoke in favor of adoption Robert Madden: spoke in favor of adoption Questions from Council Members and Staff Response Mr. Finnie asked whether the loss of the block of commercially zoned property would have the effect of reducing the total amount of land within the city below the minimum level recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Randall replied that the Comprehensive Plan did identify a potential shortage of manufacturing and commercial land for the ten year cycle; however when issues of annexation and potential growth are addressed, the change in zoning to this property will not have an effect since it is built out as a residential block and not available for development. Mr. Garrison asked whether there would be a desire to rezone Block 284 since there appear to be residences on that block. Ms. Surber replied that although Block 284 has two single family homes, there is much more land available for other purposes. There being no further comment, the public testimony was closed at 6:55. City Council Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 2 October 23, 2000 Council Deliberation and Action Mr. Masci referred to the Planning Commission findings and noted that there are clear reasons to proceed in the affirmative. He stated he would be heartily in favor of the rezone. Motion: Mr. Wolcott moved to adopt rezone of Block 283 of the Eisenbeis Addition from M/C to R-II. Mr. Lipton seconded The motion carried unanimously, 6-0 by voice vote. Staff was directed to prepare findings and decision. Mr. Finnie was recused from the meeting at 7:02 p.m. Revise Policy 1.8 of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Mr. Masci opened the public hearing on the amendment to Policy 1.8 of the Non- Motorized Transportation Plan. Staff Presentation Judy Surber, Senior Planner, gave the staff presentation. She noted that the proponent of the amendment is the citizen Non-Motorized Transportation Committee. Policy 1.8 of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan became an issue in the recent Rigby street vacation application where the proponent proposed vacation of part of the right of way. At that time it became apparent that the intent of the policy Was not quite clear, therefore the committee suggested the amendment before the council. Many questions arose from the Planning Commission hearing about the effect on use of unopened rights of way by abutting property owners. The Engineering Standards suggest native vegetation be preserved as much as possible but otherwise doesn't say explicitly that particular uses are prohibited. The proponents of the amendment desire that the policy shows the original intent of the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee, which is not to consider partial vacation of rights of way that are mapped as part of the walkway system. Ms. Surber stated that the Planning Commission vOte was 3-2 in favor of adoption of the amendment and that the dissenting voters expressed concerns over preserving the entire width of the right of way rather than allowing portions to be vacated. Communications received since the packet was distributed: Mr. Watts read recently received correspondence from the State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development supporting the adoption of the amendment. Public Testimony Nancy Dorgan: spoke in favor of the proposed amendment and submitted written comments for the record. She stated the amendment was proposed to clarify existing City Council Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 3 October 23, 2000 plan policies and that the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee believes it will assist in the review of land use applications involving protected rights of way. Although a replat or planned unit development of an undeveloped area may reasonably and feasibly require relocation of a currently platted unopened right of way, the idea is still to preserve it in a different location and not to overall diminish public assets and goals. She said that preserving the integrity of full-platted widths would result in adding to the enjoyment of people who could walk and bicycle around town and lessen the expensive and negative impacts of ever more automobiles on our streets. She referred to sections of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element (Goal 3, and Policy 3.7) and the Engineering Design Standards (6-5) noting that since currently platted also means fully-platted, the committee would like to have that clarification added to Policy 1.8 as requested in the amendment. She urged the council to adopt the amendment to preserve long-term options for the future public use of public rights of way. Richard Talbot, member of original committee: supports adoption. He stated that preservation of the entire right of way was the intent of the committee. He noted this would allow more buffers between trails and property owners, make them more accessible for people with disabilities, would allow meandering trails so that the grade and topography could be taken advantage of for a flatter trail. He added that part of intent was to discourage street vacations on those rights of way aligned with the non- motorized network and allow the city more flexibility in planning. Scott Walker, Chair of Non-Motorized Transportation Committee: supports ~he amendment, and noted the words "where reasonable and feasible" at the end of the policy; this means no one's hands will be tied to preserving the entire width of the right of way regardless of circumstances. He stated the clarification will accommodate future property owner needs and future city needs. Mr. Walker read a letter from Dana Roberts, supporting the adoption of the amendment. Mr. Roberts was on the original Non-Motorized group and states that no one ever urged protection of less than the full width of the right of way so saw no need to define the term completely. The amendment would amount to a clarification of the intent to protect the public's rights of way that are not needed by motorized traffic. The change would link to the proposed Green Streets Ordinance, if adopted. Helen Kolff, member of Non-Motorized Transportation Committee: commented in support and referred to heavy use of Seattle's Burke-Gilman Trail noting that the trail would be dangerous if it were not as wide. She encouraged maximum right of way so trails will have prospect for multi-use. Jim Todd: spoke in support of the amendment, would like to preserve as much non- motorized area as possible. Sally Robbins: spoke in support of the amendment, believe more non-motorized trails will provide safer walking conditions. City Council Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 4 October 23, 2000 Nora Regan: spoke in support of the amendment, favors preserving trail areas. The public hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m. Questions from Council Members Mr. Garrison stated that it is hard to foresee every use of every right of way and we don't want to reach the point where topography, trees, etc. take away form the creative use or installation of the pathway; however with the words "feasible or reasonable" give some flexibility and clarifying the policy as suggested would be uneventful except for memorializing the intent of the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee. Mr. Lipton asked whether passage of the amendment would have the weight of law of an ordinance. Mr. Watts stated that the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan is an element of the Comprehensive Plan and as such is a guiding principle. The clarification has been proposed to set forth the intent of the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee and must be balanced with the phrase "feasible or reasonable" and if private development can develop so that a partial street vacation would be shown to be feasible and reasonable it would not prevent that. Mr. Lipton asked if the right of way is required to be preserved for non-motorized use, does that imply that it cannot be used as the city requires? Mr. Watts replied that it might be helpful to add words at the end of the policy which would indicate "and other public uses." There is a balancing that goes on with respect to considerations of private development which also takes into account other public needs. Mr. Lipton stated he would like to be sure the policy does not restrict the city from using the property in another way if that is necessary or desirable. Mr. Watts stated that the policy must give way to feasible and reasonable use; he again suggested adding "and other public uses" to clarify further the intent of the policy. The only qualifying language currently in the policy refers to private development. The policy, for example, may be asserted to restrict a use such as Mr. Finnie's access to a private parking lot over unopened right of way. Ms. Dorgan commented that an interpretation which would allow cars to be parked on protected unopened public rights of way is disturbing to her. Mr. Watts noted that a rejection of private commercial uses didn't preclude some uses that are of benefit to the public; if the council believes an appropriate public use would include public parking, they may decide that. Public testimony was closed at 7:45 p.m. City Council Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 5 October 23, 2000 Motion: Mr. Garrison moved to adopt the proposed amendment to Policy 1.8 with an amendment to add "and other public uses" at the end of the sentence. Mr. If olcott seconded Council Deliberation and Action Mr. Wolcott noted that unopened rights of way can have a series of priorities, with the priority being the concern in clarifying that there is an intent that the non-motorized rights of way could be usurped for other uses such as public parking; he stated that he would clearly want to support the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan and as a goal of the community that they be enhanced for public use to the furthest extent. He asked if there would be some way to established priorities of use in the rights of way. Mr. Garrison stated that in order to do so one would have to attach a highly researched group of priorities which would be rendered somewhat ineffective when you allow the end of the policy to read "when feasible and reasonable" - that should be part of the interpretaion of any ordinance and code. He also stated he was not persuaded by the letter of support from the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development. Mr. Masci said that the dialogue in the Planning Commission minutes raised many questions in his mind and also noted the slim margin of approval. He stated that he is not convinced that the amendment would be consistent with widely held community values; although some segments of the community would place high value on it, others would place none. He stated that approving the amendment would limit flexibility in the future and would restrict certain actions of the council. Street vacations are a prerogative of the council and this language would not just restrict but prohibit the granting of certain street vacations; he acknowledged that this can be problematic but cannot support the amendment in its current form. Mr. Frank noted that sometimeS in the process of attempting to clarify an issue, more confusion can be created. He referred to the "green streets" ordinance which is in the planning stages at the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee. Mr. Wolcott stated that the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan is an intricate part of the Comprehensive Plan and he believes it is important for the council to acknowledge and support it; however he stated that the addition of the language merely prioritizes at least to some small extent that the unopened rights of way are initially and primarily for use as Non-Motorized access; with the additional language, the council would be allowed at any time to hear an appeal to change the policy on any given piece of property. Mr. Masci replied that the fully platted width statement has a binding effect on future decision making and tends to cast the rule in concrete; however, city and public needs and citizen requests can vary; are you are proposing that we instruct staff to do some sort of priority list? City Council Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 6 October 23, 2000 Mr. Watts noted that the city has a separate ordinance that deals with standards for street vacations and this portion of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan does not restrict nor limit the ability of the council to take action with respect to street vacations. However, a criteria for considering a street vacation is that it is consistent with adopted plans and programs of the city, so that would have to be taken into consideration. Mr. Lipton stated that the point is that if you as a council were considering this for some kind of adjustment or variation, then you could adjust the fully platted width. Mr. Watts stated his understanding that the original and intent of the amendment is to make a policy statement, which is the intention of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan that the fully platted width be preserved unless it can be shown that it can be modified, so "feasible and reasonable" is the test that must be met. Mr. Garrison clarified that the maker of the motion cannot speak against the motion but can vote any way. He asked about aesthetic and cost considerations. Mr. Timmons noted that the intent of the city is to retain fully platted right of way with public use as the premiere reason, with other uses for utility easements, etc. The intent is fairly well established in the code and plans that the fully platted width is intended for public purposes. Vote for the Motion as Amended: Mr. Wolcott voted in favor, and Messrs. Garrison, Lipton, Frank, and Masci voted against. The motion failed. Staff was directed to bring back a revised ordinance including the rezone but not the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan amendment.. The public hearing was concluded at 8:14 p.m. RIGHT OF WAY PROCEDURES Mr. Timmons stated that this would be a first touch on the item. Federal transportation programs require the development of certain procedures that the city will follow to develop rights of way. The city needs to put these procedures in place as it is a condition of the grant awards on the "F" Street project. He added that there may be some temporary use easements required for the project but that no permanent right of way acquisitions are anticipated. Mr. Garrison sought to recuse himself Mr. Watts noted that since this is only an informational first touch, he would not need to recuse himself. BUDGETSCHEDULE Mr. Timmons stated his goal is to formally present the City Manager's budget to the Finance Committee at its next meeting. He noted that a public hearing procedure is City Council Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 7 October 23, 2000 required for consideration of a real estate tax levy. He noted that the budget process may be completed by the first week in December although some unresolved issues will continue into the year. Mr. Frank requested that County Assessor Jack Westerman be asked to give a presentation to the council on tax levies and implications of other public agencies. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Attest: Pamela Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 8 October 23, 2000