Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11052001CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF NOVEMBER 5, 2001 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this fifth day of November, 2001, 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, Geoff Masci, Syd Lipton, and Alan Youse. Mr. Wolcott was excused. Mr. Garrison absent (arrived at 6:40 p.m.) Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, BCD Director Jeff Randall, Senior Planner Judy Surber and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Mayor Masci stated that the first five proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be considered at tonight's public hearing, with public testimony on the final four proposed amendments to be heard on Thursday, November 8. He stated that the Building & Community Development Department had contacted all known parties of interest to inform them of this change in the schedule; however he noted that if anyone was present tonight to testify on amendment 6-9, that testimony will be allowed. There was no public testimony on amendments 6-9. At this time Mayor Masci asked the council for a consensus that the council rules be waived so that council will remain in session beyond 9:30 p.m. in order to hear all public testimony on the amendments to be considered this evening. There were no objections to adjourning at 9:30 or after public testimony in completed, whichever is later. Mr. Garrison arrived at 6:40 p.m. Mayor Masci then stated that the public hearing on Amendment #4 and Amendment #5 would be combined. He stated to the council that their options are to either take action on any of the amendments presented tonight or postpone action. According to the Port Townsend Municipal Code, action on Comprehensive Plan Amendments is required to be completed by the second business meeting of the month, which would be November 19. He added that the November 19 meeting could be continued to November 26 as an option. All amendments to be considered this evening will be open-record legislative hearings and the same set of rules applies to all. He noted he would read the general procedural rules one time which will apply to all the hearings. City Council Meeting Page 1 November 5, 2001 Mr. Masci then read the rules of procedure for public hearings and asked if any council member had any property or financial interest in any of the matters to be heard this evening. There were none. PROPOSED AMENDMENT # 1 CLARIFY DEFINITIONS OF UNIT/BEDROOM AND VARIOUS HOUSING TYPES Staff Presentation: BCD Director Jeff Randall addressed the chronological history of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, noting that the Planning Commission has held three workshops and four public hearings for a total of over 24 hours of testimony and deliberation on the proposed amendments. Senior Planner Judy Surber summarized the first proposed amendment, noting that several inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code (Title 17 PTMC) were revealed during the recent appeal of the Port Townsend Assisted Living Facility. The amendment seeks to address the inconsistency between allowed uses and density limits in the R-I and R-II zoning districts. In addition, the suggested amendment clarifies that "halfway houses" are prohibited in the residential districts, adds "detached bedrooms/guesthouses" and "detached office/studios" as permitted uses in the R-I and R-II zoning districts, allows congregate care and nursing homes outright in R-III and R-IV zones, and revises the parking ratio for one bedroom/studio units in multi- family dwelling units from 1.5 to 1 off-street parking space per dwelling unit. Planning Commission Chair Larry Harbison stated that an issue the Planning Commission had spent significant time on was the definition of "guest house" or "bedroom" and that such a unit would not necessarily have a kitchen but would have a bathroom. The concern was brought up both from the public and from commission members. He added that the Planning Commission vote was unanimous in favor of adoption of this amendment. Public Comment: Collette Kostelec: representing herself and the Olympic Environmental Council. Her general comments were that she believes the process used to docket the amendments did no include specific line in and line out language and was therefore not in compliance with PTMC 20.04.020(b); in addition, she believes that there was a lack of"early and continuous public involvement with broad proposals and alternatives" (20.04.01 Ob). Specifically, in regard to proposed Amendment #1, she stated her appreciation of staff's efforts to resolve the problems in the municipal code that lead to the appeal of the Assisted Living project. She stated, however, that the amendment proposal does not do what it sought to do, namely clarify the issues related to dwelling units and bulk and dimension. The definition of dwelling unit in the Comprehensive Plan refers to a "food preparation area" which can be any sink, receptacle, etc. and she stated that definition is fine and should not be changed but rather the PTMC code definitions should be made City Council Meeting Page 2 November 5, 2001 consistent with the definition. She stated that where there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the PTMC, the Comprehensive Plan should prevail. She said bulk and dimensional requirements for R-II and R-III zones can be resolved through the Planned Unit Development regulations. PTMC 17.32.090 allows for very specific development standard modifications including setback, building height, off-street parking, Engineering Design Standards, etc.; however, does not address modification of the four unit requirement and that is not dealt with anywhere else in the code. She stated adoption of the amendment would result in the city setting up for continuing inconsistencies. Ian Keith: stated that during the Assisted Living appeal, there was a big discussion about the definition of "dwelling unit" and the surrogate issue which he felt strongly that the council had gotten the point and agreed the real issue that couldn't be addressed was bulk. He stated that that is still the issue to him: how large an individual building is reasonable in an R-II zone? The proposed changes contained in this amendment do not deal with that core issue and leave the door open to a large bulky building in the R-II zone. Fiddling with definitions as a way to get at bulk will just lead to other misunderstandings and unhappy applicants. He stated the city should deal with bulk by talking about bulk. Although some confusion is eliminated, more confusion is added. He urged that inconsistencies be addressed and that these amendments be passed over for the time being until the bulk issue is addressed. Paula Mackrow: speaking as a member of the neighborhood to be impacted, stated these definitions seem to reflect a desire to actually allow the building we appealed and would have hoped that in clarifying the code the staff and Planning Commission would have worked so that such a building would never be allowed without a full rezone process. She asked the council to examine the code so that appropriate uses of the R-II zone are appropriate. Gloria Bram: clarified statements regarding Alzheimer units. She stated that both assisted living centers and nursing homes may deal with Alzheimer patients and the decision would be based on whether or not there was a need for 24 hour care. Dana Roberts: urged the council to adopt definitions that satisfy nearly everyone and put all on the same playing, field. It would do no good to have fuzzy rules. Second, he asked that the council recognize that bulk is perhaps the major factor in the impact upon others yet bulk does not materially need to affect the number of units or the persons served; however it does affect the character of the project. There was no further public comment. Staff response to issues raised during public comment. Mr. Randall stated that the proposed amendments were meant to bring the issue to a head as a policy decision and not a time when a project is before the council. He added that congregate care of fewer than seven residents becomes an adult family home. He said City Council Meeting Page 3 November 5, 2001 that Alzheimer's facilities are carryover units and although they could be served in a more intensive unit, they can also be seen as a component in congregate care facilities; they are listed in both intentionally because both facilities may serve them. He stated that the Planning Commission did discuss whether or not congregate care facilities should be prohibited outright, but felt that because of the aging population and demographics, more of our town should be available for such facilities and didn't want to push these units into only R-III and R-IV districts. If the council does not feel that these are appropriate in the R-II zone, they could choose to determine at this time that they should be prohibited. Ms. Surber added that in regard to the Planned Unit Development process, where it says this chapter permits the development of limited multi-family developments in R-I and R- II, but in .090 says "may be modified" did not include the number of units per structure and if Planning Commission's recommendation is adopted, additional language could be added that the number of units per structure can be modified through the PUD process. Mr. Watts stated in regard to the allegation of lack of process, in his view the process was utilized and substantially complies with the code. Many public hearings have been held on the matter. Council questions: Mr. Garrison asked whether opportunity for public input would be provided if someone wished to put more than four dwelling units in one structure and the only process applicable was the PUD process. Mr. Watts stated that if options are left within the code, there is room for interpretation by the Hearings Examiner but if you remove those options entirely it will remove any chance of such a structure. He added that neighborhood sentiment is not a criteria for approval, although criteria may include "harmony" with surrounding area. Mr. Frank asked for clarification on the matter of conflict between the Municipal Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Watts stated that if there is a direct conflict, then the Comprehensive Plan prevails. The Comprehensive Plan is a guide, and development regulations should be consistent with the plan. It comes down to a matter of interpretation. The Comprehensive Plan is a higher order of law. Speaker clarifying questions raised by council members. Paul Mackrow noted that the Code is unclear whether density in the R-II zone is determined by counting dwelling units or bedrooms. Council discussion: Mr. Finnie expressed concem about unclear regulations fomenting challenges to the code such as the one last year. He suggested that the council may discuss whether to formally City Council Meeting Page 4 November 5, 2001 limit the size of congregate care facilities in an R-II zone even if they go through conditional use and the PUD process. It may save challenges if we try to err on being too flexible; may prefer to craft some "not to exceed" standard. Mr. Frank stated that next year's five-year comp plan review might be a good time to address the bulk issue. Mr. Randall suggested that if the council is comfortable regarding the proposed changes except that one, the council could for the time being prohibit congregate care in the R-II zone and at the time of the Comprehensive Plan review, bring back as a conditional use subject to bulk and dimension. Mr. Masci suggested an amendment proposal that would remove the use from the R-I and R-II zones which could then be revisited in the five-year revision process next year or simply allow it. A year of development possibilities will be either precluded or allowed or could have the option of modifying the number of units per structure through the PUD process. Mr. Randall noted that the result would be to take the uses from conditional to prohibited in the R-II zone. Motion: Mr. Frank moved to approve the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation to amend the staff's proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code definitions and use table to resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities with the addition of staff's suggested language which would allow the number of units per structure to be modified through the Planned Unit Development process. Mr. Garrison seconded Motion: Mr. Garrison proposed an amendment which would strike the 1 per dwelling unit parking requirement for residential~studio~1 bedroom unit (in multi-family)from Table ! 7. 72. 080, Minimum Parking Space Requirements. Mr. Frank seconded Mr. Randall stated that it is really a density issue and feels that the parking requirement is appropriate. He noted that in 1999 the residential table was changed to bedroom density specifically to encourage studio and multi-family construction and the parking allotment is really a density bonus. He recommended that the language be left and modified later if necessary. Vote on amendment: The motion failed on a 3-3 tie, with Mr. Garrison, Mr. Frank and Mr. Youse in favor. Mr. Finnie moved to eliminate the recommended language which permits congregate care facilities as a conditional use in the R-I and R-Il zones for one year so that the matter may be addressed in next year 's five-year Comprehensive Plan Review process. Mr. Lipton seconded The motion carried 4-2, by voice vote, with Mr. Frank and Mr. Garrison opposed City Council Meeting Page 5 November 5, 2001 Mr. Randall noted that the action would contradict the main motion as presented. It was suggested that the main motion be rephrased. Mayor Masci suggested rephrasing the main motion to see if there is consensus. Mr. Lipton moved to reconsider the vote on Mr. Finnie 's proposed amendment. Mr. Frank seconded The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. Mr. Watts added that it would not be appropriate as part of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to put a specific time limit; it either automatically reverts back in one year or needs to be placed on the Comprehensive Plan docket in 2002. Motion: Mr. Finnie moved to amend the main motion to change language so that congregate care or assisted living facilities are prohibited in R-II zones, changing the language in Table 17.16. 020 to remove "In R-II zoning district, facilities proposing greater than four units per structure require a PUD, Ch. 17.21" and docket the issue for the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. The motion carried 4-2 by voice vote, with Mr. Frank and Mr. Garrison opposed Vote on main motion: approve Planning Commission's recommendation as amended approve Planning Commission's recommendation as amended (to prohibit congregate care or assisted living in the R-Il zone and docket for 2002 Comprehensive Plan process.) Motion carried 4-2 by voice vote, with Mr. Frank and Mr. Garrison opposed The staff was directed to prepare findings and ordinance to include a provision for amendatory action. PROPOSED AMENDMENT #2 REVISE GOALS AND POLICIES WHICH IMPLY A SPECIFIC UTILITY PROVIDER Ms. Surber noted that existing policies in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan refer to "Puget Power" or "the local serving utility" and the existing language may be construed to limit the city's ability to contract with other uility providers in the future. Ms. Surber introduced a letter from Puget Sound Energy which commented on certain terms in the text. Specifically, page VII-20-21, proposed replacement text substituted "city's selected utility provider" for "the local serving utility." PSE suggested using "serving utilities" instead, stating that the proposed language implies a regulatory authority which the City does not possess and that making the reference plural clarifies that a number of utilities may provide electric service within city limits. In addition, the suggestion was made to revise Policy 31.5 to remove the words "Puget Power to install" so that the policy begins: Encourage construction of an electric car charging station..." City Council Meeting Page 6 November 5, 2001 Ms. Surber stated that the staff supports the suggestions made by Puget Sound Energy, which results in even more general language than the original proposal. Mr. Harbison, Planning Commission Chair, stated that the recommendation as revised to reflect the comment from Puget Sound Energy, is consistent with the Planning Commission's intent to protect the city's options in the future. Public Comments: None Mr. Watts stated that the proposed change in language does not compromise the city's planning process. He agreed that the city does not select a provider but establishes a franchise for a provider. The new language would not limit the city's ability to bring the electric utility in house. Mr. Frank moved to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation to revise the goals and policies which imply a specific utility provider with the suggested modification substituting "serving utilities "for "city selected utility provider. " Mr. Garrison seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. AMENDMENT #3 ADD A POLICY REGARDING MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS (MID) TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Staff presentation: Mr. Randall noted that the City/County's Joint Growth Management Steering Committee has directed Jefferson County staff to draft an MID ordinance in consultation with city staff. He added that staff feels it is appropriate for the city to include MID policy in its Comprehensive Plan which calls for cooperation between the two agencies and stated that adoption of the proposed MID policy is consistent with County-wide planning policy. Public comment: Michelle Sandoval: stated that as a member of the County Planning Commission, she has been working with MID for some time and has been theoretically in favor of the MID process. She characterized it as having the potential to be a wonderful vehicle with which to bridge our rural community to what GMA is about, i.e. creating infrastructure in a defined area. She is concerned, however, that there does not seem to be any effort to define the limit of MIDs that would be available in the county. Currently before the County Planning Commission is a bulk and dimensional ordinance that would do away with bulk and dimensional standards. She said that if the MID is passed (and considered a UGA) MID could be created over and over again in the county with no bulk and dimensional standards, no limit to the number of MIDs and no minimum or maximum number of acres. For example, an MID could have 100 acres with 2 employees or 10 acres with 30 employees, with no rhyme or reason and no cost benefit analysis. She City Council Meeting Page 7 November 5, 2001 stated it is necessary to look at the best and worst case scenario and make sure the worst does not happen. She stated that growth must come into the city first and foremost. Collette Kostelac: speaking for herself and the Olympic Environmental Council, stated that maybe there should not be so much enthusiasm about MIDs; that it is not in the city's best interests to promote MIDs in the county; the city should be making use of our UGA and encouraging economic development within that UGA rather than having it go out into the county. She added that she is not sure why it is really being proposed or what it accomplishes and stated that much more work should be put into developing criteria before the city comes out with a blanket support for the MID proposal. She stated that the city should be careful about giving the impression the city is in favor of promoting and work on the prevention of cumulative impacts. John Lockwood: expressed several concerns about his addition to the Comprehensive Plan and noted it is a powerful tool which could benefit or could hurt the community and the county. He stated concern about the lack of limitation on the number of MIDs which could be sited with no provision for cumulative impact. Bob Sokol expressed concern about whether or not the MID proponent will come to city first, would prefer something in the Comprehensive Plan that requires location in the city or an adjacent parcel if possible. The issue needs more public visibility and specificity. Nancy Dorgan: asked why Jefferson County is the only county in the state using the MID. Mr. Randall noted that the county welcomes comments and in his opinion it would be appropriate for the city to have the ability to comment. The city does currently have an inventory of available lands. He noted that he does not know why other counties have not pursued the MID, saying that it is a fairy recent state law and does require a certain level of cooperation between the city and county to enact. There was discussion regarding criteria for those wishing to locate outside the UGA after having made a "good faith" effort to find land within the UGA. What would this entail? Is it reasonable to consider only those parcels which are for sale at the time the proponent is seeking property? Mr. Lockwood clarified that the proponent would need to look at non-rural areas first and go beyond parcels which are on the market currently. Mr. Lipton noted that the county staff seems to be uncertain about what an MID is. He stated that the county staff has never replied to the questions put forth by the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee. Clarification: City Council Meeting Page 8 November 5, 2001 John Lockwood stated that an automated warehouse is an example of a business requiring a large amount of land which would employ few people. Michelle Sandoval clarified the definition of available property, noting that an example of"available" may include property which is offered at a price less than 10% above the appraised value; there should be some protection against price inflation. She added that the UGA should take the density. She also stated that if we work out the city/county inteflocal agreement now it will save costly appeals in the future. She stated we should not bypass the opportunity and then use muscle against the county. If we are waiting to see specific comment, perhaps efforts should be directed toward preparing comments rather than addressing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Public testimony was closed for this item. Mr. Masci noted he was loathe to support the amendment in view of the lack of response by the county to the Growth Management Steering Committee questions. Mr. Youse added that he is also interested in seeing more information and answers from the count planning staff. Motion: Mr. Finnie moved to revisit the proposed amendment at the regular session on November 19, after a Joint Growth Management Steering Committee meeting during which the county provides answers to questions posed by the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee. Mr. Youse seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. Staff was directed to communicate in writing to the county. RECESS Mayor Masci declared the meeting recessed for a five minute break at 9:30 PM RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Garrison and Mr. Frank did not retum from the break. AMENDMENT #4 REMOVE GLEN COVE FINAL URBAN GROWTH AMENDMENT #5 REVIEW AND AMEND GLEN COVE FINAL URBAN GROWTH AREA (FUGA) POLICIES City Council Meeting Page 9 November 5, 2001 Mr. Randall stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of Amendment #4 and adoption of Amendment #5. Adoption of #4 would remove all references to the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) and would include deleting discussion of implementation of the County Wide Planning Policies and important policy language about the City's urban growth area (UGA). Staff proposed language resulting in Amendment #5 which would update the land use, economic development, capital facilities, and other portiOns of the Comprehensive Plan that contain references to the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) including Glen Cove. The amendment would also eliminate the C-IV Regional Commercial land use designation and recognize that Glen Cove has been designated a LAMIRD by Jefferson County and identifies the need to improve infrastructure to existing vacant commercial and manufacturing zoned land currently in the city to facilitate economic development. The Planning Commission modified Amendment #5 primarily to recognize that it may be appropriate to extend the City's UGA at a future date when the city approaches build-out of land zoned for commercial and manufacturing development or if growth rates increase. Larry Harbison, Planning Commission chair, noted that the Planning Commission considered the appropriate response to proposed Amendment #4 was the crafting of the new language contained in proposed Amendment #5. Ms. Kolacy noted that written comments had been received via e-mail in support of Amendment #5 from Sandra J. Stowell, Lynn Nadeau, and Jack and Elizabeth Becker. Public comment: Nancy Dorgan: spoke on behalf of herself and the PLC. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan is out of date and full of language about potential FUGA but we have one with boundaries at the city limits. She said that Amendment #5 has the full support of the PLC. Emphasized that the F in FUGA is for "final" not "future" and only used to describe the shift from interim into final. She added that all cities are automatically UGAs while the counties finish their plans. This allows later changes when expansion is needed and can be justified; she stated that that time is clearly not now for Port Townsend so the Plan should be updated to accurately reflect prior events. She added that removing the language is no more than housekeeping and only looks complicated because there is so much text. She called Amendment #5 an excellent, workable and realistic amendment and added there is no advantage to delaying something so neutral. John Lockwood: speaking on behalf of the proponents, People for a Liveable Commuity, stated that they will support staff's written amendment #5 which is fleshed out and complete in important ways. He supported the suggestion that references to "Glen Cove area" be changed to "Glen Cove LAMIRD." Alice King: speaking for PLC: in support of Amendment #5 and importance of a low density buffer established adjacent to the UGA. She provided written comments and City Council Meeting Page 10 November 5, 2001 stated that the county has policies to establish a low density buffer area, and those are found in the Land Use and Rural Chapter of the county plan. Pete von Christierson spoke in support of Amendment #5, stating it will encourage new business and create jobs. He urged an inventory of vacant lands and rezoning land within the city to provide needed infrastructure. Jim Todd: added his support of previous speakers and urged adoption of amendment #5. Lyn Hersey: noted that the Community Vitality Plan presented by Mr. Lockwood had not been presented to the Planning Commission. She said that more statistics are need before voting on adoption of the amendment; some language states that there weren't enough people participating in the discussion. As a member of the original PT 2020 coffee hours and the Parks Plan, she stated that there were not enough people who were interested at that time to comprise a reasonable survey. Does this mean the whole plan needs to be thrown out? In regard to language stating that a "large portion of the public wants the change proposed in amendment #4," she asked for substantiating statistics. She also noted there is plenty of language about jobs and businesses in the Comprehensive Plan. Richard Berg stated that when Amendment #4 was docketed, he spoke in favor of that amendment but would like to urge tonight that Amendment #5 be adopted. Jim Lindsay: representing Barber and Evans families, Glen Cove area property owners, referred to a letter submitted to the Planning Commission. He stated that to propose that a LAMIRD will automatically be in Glen Cove is questionable as the area is not suitable for that designation. He said it gets ahead of where the county is now and that the proposed amendments may be in opposition to the county-wide planning policies and could have fairly severe economic consequences. He added that the action lacks public input from the Glen Cove landowners and employees who may not even be aware that these amendments are before the council. He also said that there has been no demonstration of substantial change in the area. He added he did not think the amendments would stand up with GMA goals and policies. He requested that action be postponed until the county has determined whether Glen Cove will be a LAMIRD or a UGA. Joe Pipia supported the amendment and discussed the ways in which it will enable the creation of good jobs, family wages and business opportunities in light industrial. He submitted a written copy of his statements for the record. Judy Surber stated that the Community Vision Satement was presented to the Planning Commission but the second page was inadvertently omitted. Staff requested the second page for provision to the council. City Council Meeting Page 11 November 5, 2001 Mr. Finnie asked if approving the amendment would mean that the city could not ever consider annexing or expanding to Glen Cove. Mr. Randall replied that it would not. Ms. Hersey stated that growth rate must be considered in relation to opportunities for job growth in the community. Lindsay: stated that the proposed county LAMIRD is less than 500 feet from the city boundary, no 3,4 of a mile. He cited a case in Pierce County he believes is relevant to the present matter. Mr. Watts stated that he is familiar with the Pierce County case by but does not agree that the facts are similar as the area in question was directly adjacent to Tacoma and very urbanized. Motion: Mr. Youse moved to accept Planning Commission's recommendation and deny proposed amendment #4. Mr. Lipton seconded. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. (Mr. Garrison & Mr. Frank were not present for the vote as they had left the meeting.) Mr. Masci noted that removing the C-IV zone completely from the Comprehensive Plan is short-sighted as the zoning may be needed at some time. He also questioned the need to eliminate policies under 8.1 (I-5). He added that he has never been convinced of the need for either amendment. He acknowledged the huge effort of Planning Commission and staff but considers it a reactive activity. Mr. Finnie stated his concern that in order to vote in favor he would need some satisfaction that the land reserved within the city is in fact appropriate in terms of an informed buyer. He added he doesn't think that this fact exists since it was not the basis for the original determination of industrial property. If the council is going to do this and as a community encourage relocation of businesses, there should be appropriate land. He stated that we are skipping some of the appropriate process. Motion: Mr. Lipton moved to defer action on Amendment #5 until after the previously proposed meeting with the county at which time the council will take action; in addition staff is directed to draft an ordinance adopting Planning Commission's recommendation amended by the inclusion of the proposed deletion of C-IV Regional Commercial zoning (Section IV, Page IV-lO) and adopting BCD staff's changes to the LAMIRD (change references to "Glen Cove Area" to "Glen Cove LAMIRD. " Mr. Youse seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0, by voice vote CONSENT AGENDA Motion: Mr. Finnie moved for approval of the following items on the consent agenda. Mr. Lipton seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0, by voice vote. City Council Meeting Page 12 November 5, 2001 Approval of Bills, Claims and Warrants Vouchers 78347 through 78318 and 78400 through 786228 in the amount of $609,643.82. Approval of Minutes Workshop Session of October 8 Special Business Session of October 15 Special Session of October 18 Workshop Session of October 22 Study Session of October 29 Approval of Resolution RESOLUTION 01-048 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE 2001-2006 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) TO REFLECT ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT THIS TO THE STATE Approval of Motion Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute Release and Settlement Agreement settling dispute with Port Townsend Carousel Association for $5,000. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Attest: Pamela Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Meeting Page 13 November 5, 2001