HomeMy WebLinkAbout11192001CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF NOVEMBER 19, 2001
The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this nineteenth day
of November, 2001, at 6:30 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, Geoff Masci, and Alan
Youse. Mr. Lipton and Mr. Wolcott were excused. Staff members present were City
Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Building & Community
Development Director Jeff Randall, Public Works Director Ken Clow, and City Clerk
Pam Kolacy.
CHANGESTOTHEAGENDA
There were no proposed changes to the agenda.
PRESIDING OFFICER'S REPORT
Mr. Masci reminded the public that regarding the items under Unfinished Business
(Comprehensive Plan ordinances), public comment will be limited to the construction of
the ordinances rather than the subject matter since the public hearings have already taken
place.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Mr. Timmons had no items to address.
PUBLIC COMMENT (Consent Agenda and items not on the agenda)
There was no public comment.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Finnie moved for approval of the following items on the consent agenda. Mr. Frank
seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote.
Approval of Bills, Claims and Warrants
Vouchers 78629 through 78779 in the amount of $676,263.79.
City Council Meeting Page 1 November 19, 2001
Minutes
Regular Session of November 5
Special Session of November 8
Resolution
Resolution 01-050
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Port Townsend Authorizing Legal Defense
Services to City Employee Police Chief Kristen Anderson
ORDINANCE NO. 2782
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON,
ADOPTING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER X, GLOSSARY OF TERMS
AND CHAPTER VII, CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT, OF THE PORT
TOWNSEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (THE PLAN); ADOPTING AMENDMENTS
TO THE TEXT AND MAPS OF THE PORT TOWNSEND URBAN WATERFRONT
PLAN (UWP); ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT AND TABLES OF
TITLE 17, ZONING, OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE (PTMC); IN
ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH,AND IMPLEMENT THE GOALS AND
POLICIES CONTAINED WITHIN THE PLAN AND USP; ADOPTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP CONTAINED WITHIN THE PLAN;
ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
Because of previously announced recusals from specific amendments, discussion was
held regarding separating out some amendments from for separate vote.
Motion: Mr. Garrison moved to separate amendment 9from the ordinance for separate
vote. Mr. Youse seconded The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote.
Motion: Mr. Garrison moved to separate amendment 6from the ordinance for a
separate vote. Mr. Frank seconded The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice
vote.
Mr. Randall then gave an overview of the ordinance. He stated that on November 5 and
8, the Council held open record public hearings to accept public testimony and consider
the Planning Commission's recommendations on nine proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendments. The council took action on Amendments 1,2,4,6,7,8, and 9 and directed
staff to produce an ordinance.
Mayor Masci asked for public comments on the form of the ordinance with the exception
of items 6 and 9.
There were none.
City Council Meeting Page 2 November 19, 2001
Motion: Mr. Frank moved for adoption of Ordinance 2782, regarding amendments
1, Z 4, 7, and 8. Mr. Youse seconded The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by roll call
vote.
Mr. Youse then recused himself and left the Chambers.
There was no public comment on amendment 6, resolve zoning of US West facility on
Lawrence Street.
Motion: Mr. Frank moved for adoption of amendment 6, contained within Ordinance
2782. Mr. Finnie seconded The motion carried unanimously, 4-0, with Mr. Youse
recused
Mr. Youse returned to the meeting.
Mr. Finnie then recused himself and left the chambers.
There was no public comment on proposed amendment #9, Northwest Maritime Center
Height Amendment
Motion: Mr. Frank moved for adoption of Amendment 9, contained within Ordinance
2782. Mr. Youse seconded The motion carried unanimously, 4-0, by roll call vote, with
Mr. Finnie recused
ORDINANCE 2783
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON,
ADOPTING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
RELATING TO MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOMENTS ("MIDs"); AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; ALL IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHPATER 20.04 PTMC AND THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED (CHAPTER 36.70A RCW)
Mr. Randall noted that staff has prepared an ordinance in response to the comments and
deliberations from the public hearing.
Mr. Timmons recommended approval of the ordinance with an accompanying motion to
direct staff to negotiate with the county on issues developed by the city's representatives
to the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee to get to a final interlocal
agreement which will be subject to city council approval.
The list of issues was provided to the council and public and is attached as part of these
minutes.
Public comment
City Council Meeting Page 3 November 19, 2001
Nancy Dorgan stated her understanding that County Planning Director Scalf had
informed the County Planning Commission that bulk and dimensional requirements
would not apply to MIDs.
John Lockwood expressed serious concems about Major Industrial Developments and
said he would rather have it written into the Comprehensive Plan than into an interlocal
agreement which could be done without public comment or an annual amendment
process. He added that the list of "talking points" presented is substantive and should
have been available to the public earlier so there would be opportunity for comment. He
stated concerns about the impact on the tax situation in the city, citing national studies
showing figures regarding the amount of tax funding received through residential
development that supports infrastructure. He concluded that the worst conceivable "rim"
development occurs just outside the taxing district and stated that this would make Port
Townsend a bedroom community for economic entities outside the city, resulting in. a net
loss to the city and gain to the county. He strongly recommended not passing the MID
ordinance.
Freida Fenn addressed revenue sharing concerns, and lack of a citizen review process.
She noted that part of zoning is predictability for citizens when they purchase property.
She said that rezoning formerly residential property is a powerful change and notice to
adjacent property owners is critical. She also expressed concern about 100% lot coverage
in the county and possible litigation from citizens. She recommended that the ordinance
not be passed since it has not been fully considered.
Gloria Bram: concerned that a city council which is 50% lame duck is making a
decision at this late date on something important. She stated that more information
should be made available to the general public.
Motion: Mr. Frank moved to suspend council rules and that the first reading be the
second and the third by title only. Mr. Youse seconded The motion carried
unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote.
Ms. Kolacy read the ordinance title.
Mr. Frank moved for adoption of Ordinance 2783. Mr. Garrison seconded
Mr. Frank asked if the proposed language has been reviewed by the county.
Mr. Randall stated that previous language was circulated to county staff but there were no
comments as it merely reflected the process in which they were already involved. He did
not believe the new language had been forwarded to them but stated that the language is
simple and based on the previously proposed process.
Mr. Finnie spoke in support of the motion, noting he has struggled for six years with
Economic Development Council and the City Council to find a way to identify and place
medium large conforming industrial development somewhere in north and east JefferSon
City Council Meeting Page 4 November 19, 2001
County. He stated he remembers the discussion on the Uniform Development Code and
the impetus that gave to accelerating the discussion of MIDs; he does not want to see the
process to find appropriate siting and still protect the city's investment stopped.
Mr. Masci stated that as a member of the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee,
he helped craft the concept along with county and city staff; he noted it is an example of
cooperative planning with the County and the Port He said he trusts the county and
county staff and the prudence of public process in the matter and will support a vote in
favor of the ordinance as this evening.
Mr. Garrison noted that provisions for cooperation between agencies are delineated in the
draft literature that accompanied the MID discussion. He added there was much public
review and supported the need to allow opportunities for commercial development to
Occur.
Vote: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by roll call vote.
Motion: Mr. Frank moved to direct staff to negotiate an interlocal agreement regarding
MIDs with the County following the discussion points posed in the memo [attached the
the minutes as Exhibit "A "] Mr. Garrison seconded.
Public comment
John Lockwood posed the following questions: does state law require a public heating be
held regarding an interlocal agreement? Must an interlocal agreement be taken before the
Planning Commission? What happens if the city and county cannot come to an
agreement? He reiterated the concern about a lame duck council making a decision of
this importance at the end of their terms and said that rim development was a defining
issue of the campaign. He asked for deliberate and careful process.
Gloria Brain stated that if an industry is sited with 100 employees, with half in the city
and half in the county, the city will "pay through the nose" to provide services. She
suggested a revenue sharing plan weighted according to the number of individuals living
in each area be worked out out with the county.
Mr. Watts responded to Mr. Lockwood's questions: state law does not require a public
hearing for every interlocal agreement; interlocal agreements are not required to be
considered by the Planning Commission; intent of the language tonight introduced by
the manager and staff report provides a policy basis for MIDs to occur in the county if
consistent with the Growth Management Act and with the negotiated interlocal
agreement, therefore if there is no agreement, the county would not be acting in
consistency with the city's Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Timmons then noted the city's intent is to close the loop. He stated that in the
absence of an interlocal agreement the city cannot be consistent with the Growth
Management Act.
City Council Meeting Page 5 November 19, 2001
Mr. Finnie stated that the council asked specifically that an interlocal agreement be a part
of the MID process. The result of the numerous comments at the public hearing, at
informal meetings and meetings of the JGSC delegates is on paper for consideration at
this time; what evolved was a number of"talking points" of an interlocal agreement
which would speak to defining a threshold beyond which we would not have the
wherewithall to support MIDs and ensure a look at the city in depth before we release
proposed developments to the county. There are other things that speak to the
protection of the city; he stated he thought there would find broad based support for the
content of the interlocal agreement, and noted that this is the beginning of the process in
which the community will be involved. The effect of a lame duck council was to listen
and fashion a work paper that would drive our future discussion with the county. He
asked for patience and involvement in the process as opposed to opposition
Vote: the motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote.
At this time the mayor presented the Key City Sailing trophy to Captain Stig Osterberg
and read a proclamation regarding this year's victory.
RECESS
Mayor Masci declared a brief recess at 7:40 p.m.
RECONVENE
The meeting was reconvened at 7:50 p.m.
ORDINANCE 2784
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON,
ADOPTING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
RELATING TO GLEN COVE FINAL URBAN GROWTH AREAS (FUGAS) AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; ALL IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 20.04 PTMC AND THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED (CHAPTER 30.70A RCW)
Jeff Randall, BCD Director, stated that following the November 5 public hearing,
Council deferred action on this item, indicating support for the adoption of proposed
amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission with possible modifications.
Changes made by staff included leaving C-IV language in, effectively allowing the
Council at some point in the future to designate land within the City as C-IV; also
language was changed to provide reference to the Glen Cove area as a LAMRID rather
than FUGA and striking MID language because MIDs have been addressed by Ordinance
2783.
City Council Meeting Page 6 November 19, 2001
Mr. Watts noted that the language on pages 12 and 13 show how Goal 8 would read if the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment is passed tonight.
Public comment
Nancy Dorgan stated that according to the draft Comprehensive Plan, C-IV means big
box retailers and so-called "regional retail" has a history of rejection by citizens. She
reiterated the results of the 1994 survey which she said showed that the majority of
respondents wanted no large scale retail developments; most liked neighborhood centers
instead of expansion to Glen Cove. By January of 1996, C-IV zoning had been dropped
from the plan and relegated to Glen Cove. She referred to the City's brief in response to
the Eldridge appeal which in part stated that the city had determined in its discretion that
"super stores" were not appropriate. She concluded by stating that the history of C-IV
zoning is clear, and not supported by the residents of Port Townsend.
John Lockwood stated that Councilors Garrison and Frank ~vere not in attendance for the
public hearing regarding the subject amendment and therefore have not heard the public
testimony.
City Attorney John Watts asked whether the Councilors had read the materials in the
packet and the meeting minutes.
Both replied they had.
Mr. Watts then asked if, in addition to reading the materials, they had reviewed the
transcripts or tape of the proceeding itself and added that if they had not they would need
to do so before participating in the discussion and vote.
Neither had heard the tape of the proceedings.
Motion: Mr. Frank then moved to postpone the matter until November 20 and continue
the meeting at 6:30for discussion and action on Ordinance 2784. Mr. Finnie seconded.
The motion carried unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Nora Regan asked to comment since she cannot be at the meeting tomorrow. She stated
that she supports Ordnance 2784 as submitted by staff and Planning Commission and
spoke against the reinsertion of C-IV zoning. She said it is important to remove the
designation as it inspires sprawl. In her view, Wal Mart can happen and if the zoning is
in place it will happen as the chain traditionally picks towns with populations around
10,000 population with no threat from local business. She added that the council is
failing to legislate protection for existing businesses in Port Townsend. She supported
the need for light industrial business rather than big box retail.
Gloria Bram stated that amended language should have been inserted properly with
copies available earlier. She said she is against sprawl.
City Council Meeting Page 7 November 19, 2001
NEW BUSINESS
Community Development Committee Recommendation re: Common Ground's Proposed
Affordable Housing Coalition
Mr. Randall introduced the topic, noting that the organization Common Ground, a non-
profit affordable housing consulting agency has proposed a series of public meetings to
discuss affordable housing in Jefferson County and is looking for funding to help cover
the costs of the meetings. Jefferson County has indicated it will make a financial
contribution and the city's contribution would be between $2,800 and $4,300.
Mr. Timmons noted he has met with the group representative and based on his extensive
experience with affordable housing issues, he believes this is a good plan. The funding
would be used for the process to build community consensus and bring the players
together to address the issue. He added that the funds can be allocated from the budget.
Mr. Garrison spoke as chair of the Community Development Committee and supported
the item.
Public comment
Gloria Bram stated that the city's main problem is affordable housing and urged the
council to support construction of housing for the disabled and poor.
Motion: Mr. Frank moved to direct the City Manager to set aside the requested funds
for the affordable housing meetings and for the council to support city staff anddor
council member representation at the meetings. Mr. Garrison seconded.
Mr. Garrison spoke in favor of the action, noting that the group is interested in putting
"units on the ground" and said that he likes the fervor, intent and commitment of the
group.
Mr. Masci stated he would like to limit the process to the city and invite the county to
participate. He noted that OLYCAP has been doing a great job of this for 25 years; he
added that this is a laudable project and he will support it with those caveats but is
hesitant to support vague verbage that says "affordable housing" and would like to adopt
a the HUD standards for reference to affordable housing issues.
Mr. Timmons noted the the HUD standard is probably the one used by Common Ground
for acquiring funding. Mr. Masci stated he would like it codified at some time.
Vote: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote.
City Council Meeting Page 8 November 19, 2001
RESOLUTION 01-049
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
ENCOURAGING THECITY MANAGER TO CONTINUE THE PROMOTION AND
NURTURING OF A REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT WHICH SUPPORTS
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR POTENTIAL HOMEOWNERS IN LOW AND
MIDDLE-INCOME RANGES
Mr. Garrison proposed to amend the resolution by adding language in the first paragraph
after "thereafter" so the final sentence would say "...potential homeowners in general
and low and middle-income ranges in particular, with the following ....
He also proposed to amend the definition of "Permit" to say "to allow to occur; to
consent to; ....
Motion: Mr. Frank moved for adoption of resolution 01-049 as amended Mr. Garrison
seconded The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote.
Community Development Committee Recommendation' Code of Ethics for Staff and
Elected Officials
Mr. Watts introduced the issue, stating the City Manager first raised the issue a year ago,
and has discussed it with council members. Several cities have adopted codes of ethics
and the actiOn taken by the committee was a follow-up to the introduction of the idea.
Public comment
Gloria Bram spoke in favor of adopting a code of ethics.
Motion: Mr. Frank moved to adopt the Community Development Committee's
recommendation and direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance providing for a Code
of Ethics, to be presented and the December 3, 2001, business meeting. Mr. Youse
seconded Vote: the motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote.
Community Development Committee Recommendation: Skate Park
Mr. Timmons noted that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was tasked to work
with a consultant to recommend a site for the skate park. The Board reported their
recommendation to the Community Development Committee to continue development of
the Skate Park at its present location.
Mr. Garrison stated he will support the motion but has serious reservations about the
recommendation. He believes the site is promoted for the wrong reasons, because the
skateboarders have it now and want to keep it; he does not believe the result is based on
particularly thorough research; however he will acquiesce to public opinion and
momentum.
City Council Meeting Page 9 November 19, 2001
Mr. Frank also characterized himself as a reluctant follower.
Mr. Youse stated that any time you give away a piece of downtown, you need to think
seriously about the consequences. He added that the skate park only serves a specific
portion of the city's youth; he felt that that population center was closer to other siting
options but will accept the consultant's report. He predicted that this is the tip of an
iceberg which will be apparent when other downtown issues come forward.
Mr. Finnie stated that it is incomprehensible to him that this was the conclusion. He
stated that he believes it is a mistake to consume city property when we have serious
questions relating to traffic flow, etc., that should be part of a omprehensive exercise. He
predicted the site would have to be changed in three years.
Mr. Garrison stated that the "wrecking balls" heading for this site include the Point
Hudson plan, the Maritime Center, and the parking needs that come with development.
He stated his hope that the construction would be as temporary in design as possible
while still being as good as it can.
Mr. Timmons stated that with proper design most issues can be negated; that a park
probably can be accommodated downtown and may add an element of vitality. He added
that skateboarding enthusiasm may die out at some time, so we must look at a design
which can be readapted in the future.
Public comment:
Barbara Pastore, chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Stated that this
issue has been before the Board for three years and started with a request from
skateboarders for a perment site. She noted that the Board can only look at the project
from the viewpoint of the facility as a park; tradeoffs that the Council may have to deal
with in the future are above the purview of the Board. She added that other sites looked
at include the "pea patch", school tennis courts, the lot by the PSE transformer.
Lyn Hersey, Parks Board stated that a hired professional with no political interest applied
a 17 point basic list to each site and the study resulted in an the opinion that the
downtown site is the closest to meeting the critera.
Motion: Mr. Frank moved to adopt the recommendation of the Park and Recreation
Advisory Board and the Community Development Committee to continue development of
Port Townsend's skate park at its present location on Monroe Street. Vote: the motion
carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote.
Playground Equipment at Chetzemoka Park
Mr. Timmons noted that a citizen brought this item to the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board in August. A subcommittee was formed which had three public meetings and has
proposed play equipment improvements.
City Council Meeting Page 10 November 19, 2001
Public comment
None
Motion: Mr. Frank moved to adopt the recommendation of the Park and Recreation
Advisory Board and the Community Development Committee for pay equipment
improvements and include funding for the purchases in the 2002 budget. Mr. Garrison
seconded. Vote: the motion carried with 4 in favor. Mr. Finnie was not in the
Chambers for the vote.
YMCA Recreation Services for the City of Port Townsend
Mr. Timmons noted that the Park and Recreation Advisory Board was tasked to conduct
a public forum regarding the proposal to contract with a new Jefferson County YMCA to
provide recreation services for the City of Port Townsend. The forum was held October
17, 2001 and televised on PTTV. The Board's recommendation is based on the
comments received during the forum.
Public comment
None
MOtion: Mr. Frank moved to adopt the recommendation of the Park and Recreation
Advisory Board and the Community Development Committee to continue development of'
a service contract with the newly forming Jefferson County YMCA, with particular
attention to: non-discrimination;financial assistance for low income residents, non-
exclusive provider, tangible benefits of change and performance standards to measure
those benefits. Mr. Garrison seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice
vote.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Masci noted there were no items for executive session.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Attest:
Pam Kolacy, CMC
City Clerk
City Council Meeting Page 11 November 19, 2001
I~-t~-z,~ ~.'./rl~
List of City Issues to be addressed in an City-CoUnty Interlocal regarding MIDs
1. Modify permit process to exempt certain large-scale prqjects from even starting a search
for a site with the City, consisting of prqjects:
A. Over 40 acres (and project requires 40 acres for construction of improvements
covering overall or in first phase; for projects not requ/r/ng 40 acres or will Undertake project in
phases, provide for City review) or
B. Use is not allowed in City under current zon/ng~ Or
Under 40 acres, and use is pern~tted in City, but only land available would not
allow proposed bulk/density
2. For projects that do not meet the exemption~ then process allows City site review which
includes consideration to the fonowing:
· Is land reasonably available (has applicant explored available of sites, made offer, is there
w~lllng buyer and seller)
Land may be reasonably available even if rezone is required (so long as the rezone is as
likely to provide a site as an MID application)
Land may be reasonably available even if new infrastructure is required (so long as
inf-mstmcmre is comparable to infvasmm~ likely to be required ifMlD is approved in
Couuty). Specify that land may not be reasonably available in. City if there is no
available capacity
Project must be consistent with City plans and regulations.
Add to Agreement provisions that:
* Specify that presumption favors site in UGA before site allowed in County MID
Specify that UDC provisions relating t.o bulk and dimension apply to MIDs
Specify that guarantees project inftasmcmre is build before occupancy, or bonded for
completion- For phased projects, specify that. in~ for each phase is complete
(or bonded for completion) before succeeding phases are started.
Provide review criteria that project proposed for phasing is reasonably likely to be built
(Project asserting need for say 100 acres but only needing 10 acres to start may or may
not be suitable for MID depending on whether need for 1 O0 acres is reasonably likely.), ,,,