Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11122002CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF NOVEMBER 12, 2002 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this twelfth day of November, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Kees Kolff presiding. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmembers present at roll call were Freida Fenn, Joe Finnie, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Catharine Robinson, Michelle Sandoval, and A1 Youse. Staff members present were City Attorney John Watts, Finance Director Michael Legarsky, Public Works Director Ken Clow, BCD Director Jeff Randall, Planner Judy Surber, Police Chief Kristen Anderson and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. City Manager David Timmons arrived later in the meeting. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mayor Kolff requested that Item V (Water Status Report) be moved to the beginning of the meeting. There were no objections. WATER STATUS REPORT Public Works Director Ken Clow reported that recent rainfall has alleviated the water shortage for the time being. He added that city staff have continued meeting with the Port Townsend Paper Corp. An action plan and response plan have been written in response to the Department of Health's request, and a management team has been formed consisting of city and paper company officials. Although the situation is improved, he asked that all citizens continue to be prudent in their water usage. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE 2817 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PORT TOWNSEND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM AS CONTEMPLATED BY CH. 7.75 RCW; ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THE ORDINANCE AND PROVIDING FOR REVIEW OF THE PROGRAM RESULTS RESOLUTION 02-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON RELATING TO THE PORT TOWNSEND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 2817, APPROVING A PLAN FOR City Council Special Meeting Page 1 November 12, 2002 ESTABLISHMENT OF A PROGRAM FOR MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES AS DESCRIBED IN THE PROGRAM PLAN ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION, AND FURTHER FINDING THAT SUCH PLAN MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF RCW 7.75.020 Mayor Kolff opened the public hearing. He read the Rules of Order and asked if any council members had any interests, financial or property, to disclose in connection with the matter. There were none. He asked City Attorney John Watts to present the staff report. Mr. Watts stated the matter was considered by the Council on October 7, 2002 and at that time Council moved for first reading of the ordinance. Based on comments from that meeting, the element of the program which provided $5,000 in funding for possible use in retaining outside mediators was removed from the implementing documents. Instead, parties who feel they must seek mediation services outside the City program would be responsible for the cost of those services. He summarized the overview of the program dated October 2, 2002 found in the council packet which elaborates on which matters are subject to dispute resolution, the difference between facilitation and mediation, program process, and mediator selection and qualifications. He also noted that the ordinance provides a one-year trial process; at the end of the year the City Manager will report to the council and council can determine whether to continue or repeal the program. He read into the record several of the City Manager's comments from the last meeting including comments regarding his prior experience and training in mediation and facilitation, and the percentage of time currently devoted by the Manager and staff to conflict resolution issues. Police Chief Kristen Anderson stated that the department in the last 5-10 years has experienced a number of non-criminal requests for certain services from the same parties. She supports the attempt to utilize a dispute resolution program to see if it would alleviate calls for officers to resolve these conflicts. BCD Director Jeff Randall stated that the BCD Department has seen their code enforcement load go up on a yearly basis. He noted that many of the issues are less about a code violation than about a personal issue between neighbors. He stated the program would be a way to help neighbors communicate in way not available to them when dealing with city staff. He also said he supported it on the recommended one year experimental basis since we don't yet know how it will affect staff resources. The hearing was then open for public testimony. Comments from public City Council Special Meeting Page 2 November 12, 2002 Michael Hyland described a neighborhood dispute over a local skateboard facility which went into mediation, with the main issue a 1982 street vacation ordinance which prohibited the cutting of trees. He complained that although all the participants signed a confidentiality agreement, he knows that information was passed along outside the meeting and his opinion of the proposed process, based upon his recent experience, is not high. Larry Thomas spoke in favor of the program, stating it is an altemative that helps people help themselves to work out problems. He praised the program for being free, voluntary, and confidential and believes it will make good use of volunteers which will enable city staff to deal with other matters more efficiently. He recommended adoption and evaluation after the one year trial period. Richard Berg spoke in favor of the ordinance characterizing it as a refreshing movement away from police intervention and toward good relations among neighbors. He stated it would remove disputes from police and code enforcement and would allow staff to concentrate on more important issues; he believes the value of that time will outweigh the cost of the program to the city. His written comments were submitted for the record. Staff response Mr. Watts replied in answer to the public speaker that confidentiality is a required element of the program and forms would be signed that would provide that confidentiality. He commented on the neighborhood matter referred to by another speaker and noted it involved a volunteer who agreed to serve as a facilitator. He said there was no dialogue among neighbors regarding the dispute prior to the city becoming involved and the city facilitating a meeting of the neighbors. Now there is a process begun that may or may not lead to a resolution of some or all of the issues; at least the neighbors are now in discussion. He also stated that the issue involving the street vacation conditions has not been forgotten by the city; it will be dealt with in an appropriate manner and the council will be advised. Mr. Finnie asked for clarification of the requirements of Chapter 7.75 RCW regarding the standards and procedures required for operation of a dispute resolution program. Mr. Watts stated that the requirement for filing has been eliminated and the intent of the city would be to comply with all required elements of state law and take advantage of all immunity provided by state law. Ms. Robinson stated that she is also concerned about confidentiality and understands how easy it is to slip. She asked for clarification on RCW 7.75.040 and .050 which seem to contradict each other. Mr. Watts stated that the agreement itself would be binding and operative but would not be public record unless both parties agreed to release it or one party asserted the agreement was being violated in a judicial proceeding after the fact and entered the agreement into the record. Work notes or products or case files would not be subject to disclosure except in the limited event the court determined the materials were submitted to the center for the purpose of avoiding discovery in a subsequent proceeding. City Council Special Meeting Page 3 November 12, 2002 The final agreement can be introduced into a court action to enforce the agreement. Preliminary agreements and settlement discussions can not be used to influence the outcome of a subsequent judicial proceeding. Mr. Masci stated that he never got information which he requested at the last meeting regarding what other cities have adopted a similar program and what the costs are; the funding issues affected by having to maintain and track extra confidential records; and a general dollar amount ascribed to staff time for record keeping and implementation of the actual process and facilitation. Mr. Watts stated that he is aware of two cities, Vancouver and Bellevue, currently using a dispute resolution process. Vancouver has six people and office space and the costs associated with that; he did not know as much about the Bellevue program. Mr. Watts estimated that no more than a dozen cases will be dealt with the first year and that he believes it will be a small matter to file those records in existing locked file cabinets. He also stated that some time will be spent for initial training, so that volunteers will understand how city departments respond now to concerns. There were no clarifying comments from any audience member and Mayor Kolff closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to approve Ordinance 2817 and Resolution 02-045. Ms. Fenn seconded. Ms. Fenn stated that a great deal of work has been done on refining and improving the proposal by the Community Development/Land Use Committee. She clarified that the professional mediation firms work primarily on domestic and child custody cases which would not be addressed by the city program. The types of disputes anticipated for the city program are generally not taken to professional mediation. Ms. Robinson stated her inclination to support the program although she expressed some remaining concerns, one of which is the maintenance of confidentiality. She also noted that in the ordinance, mediation and facilitation are used interchangeably and she encouraged the implementers to lay out very clearly and formally the steps and progression available showing that formal table mediation is the last step in the process and if that is something the city cannot offer it should be clear. She added that the public must be educated regarding what is available and be aware of the limitations of the service. Mr. Finnie referred to a memo from Frances Andrews which he stated raised concerns in his mind as to why the city is undertaking the program; he noted that the letter seems to indicate that a professional mediator and the city attorney are not in agreement about liability and that is a concern. City Council Special Meeting Page 4 November 12, 2002 Mr. Finnie raised concerns about confidentiality, stating that we will be asking non- professional mediators and persons with various levels of experiences to be responsible for keeping privileged information confidential. He added that he does not see a compelling need for the program. Ms. Sandoval said that Ms. Andrews and other professionals attended meetings early in the process and recommended that the city hire the Peninsula Dispute Resolution Center to perform this function and also supplied examples of cities where the group is hired or used as a subset of city government. She said that the city has created a hybrid program due to limited funding and because of the difference between facilitation and mediation. She added that she believes this is a worthy effort well worth the one year trial. Mr. Masci stated he is not against resolving disputes but he believes the proposal is out of sync with the city's legislative timelines. He offered a number of objections including: 1) the service is offered in the public sector and is underutilized; 2) land use disputes are settled by a professional Hearings Examiner who is a paid professional; 3) reservations about using local, minimally trained mediators; 4) no rationale for the program to begin with; 5) the non-mandatory nature makes it toothless and ineffective; 5) it will duplicate the current citizen concern process; 6) serious concerns about confidentiality; 7) program will consume stafftime which translates into money; 8) program is a needless bureaucratic intrusion into citizens' lives; 9) would rather delay until the proposed noise ordinance has been dealt with. Mr. Kolff stated that the program cannot be considered intrusive since it is voluntary. Programs in Vancouver and Bellevue provide the service through city staff that we plan to provide through volunteers; he added, in regard to duplication of service, that the staff currently spends a great deal of time dealing with these issues; clearly there will be some investment of time up front but this is intended to decrease staff time on issues that others can deal with. He also said that if citizens are uncomfortable with the city process they have the option of going to a private mediation service. Mr. Finnie asked if the committee had discussed the possibility of charging a modest reasonable fee instead of offering the service for free or did the committee feel this would defeat the purpose. Ms. Fenn stated that many community members have undergone mediation training and part of the process is a requirement to do free mediation within one's community. She believes there is a core of well-trained volunteers within the PT community for the city to utilize. Vote: the motion carried 4-3, by roll call vote, with Finnie, Masci and Youse opposed. RECESS Mayor Kolffdeclared a recess at 7:55 p.m. for the purpose of a break. City Council Special Meeting Page 5 November 12, 2002 (Mr. Timmons arrived at the meeting at approximately 7:30 p.m.) RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS Mayor Kolff declared the public heating reopened to address suggested amendments 5-8. He introduced Planner Judy Surber for the staff report. Amendment #5: Revise Density of R-III and R-IV Zoning Districts Ms. Surber stated that the suggested amendment would revise the maximum density for the multi-family zoning districts to allow calculation of density to be based on either bedrooms or units. Amendments to the code in 1999 have had the unintended effect of lowering allowable densities in some cases. The proposed amendment would change the density requirements to: R-III: 24 bedrooms or 16 units whichever is greater/40,000 sf of lot area and R-IV: 40 bedrooms or 24 units whichever is greater/40,000 sfoflot area. The Planning Commission and staff agreed that the1999 revisions have had the unintended effect of lowering allowable densities in some cases although the intention of the change appears to have been provision of affordable rentals, efficient land use, and the ability to fluctuate with market demand. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the amendment as proposed and that the city also implement, through future updates of the zoning code, Policy 4.2.2 of the Housing Element. Ms. Sandoval asked about a suggestion regarding the institution of a density bonus program to encourage affordable housing. Ms. Surber noted that this can be done outside the comprehensive plan cycle because it is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Masci asked whether language can be amended to limit an applicant to one of the criteria per project. Ms. Surber suggested a footnote to the table. Mr. Randall stated that the footnote could require a choice of method per parcel. The change could be incorporated into the formal ordinance. Ms. Robinson noted that the Planning Commission has stated support for an alternative which would take "bedrooms" entirely out of the equation and asked why the approved amendment still includes them. Ms. Surber stated that there are no other jurisdictions which use bedrooms to calculate density; she stated that staff and Planning Commission City Council Special Meeting Page 6 November 12, 2002 worked with what was proposed and saw it as an improvement. The change, however, would require another Comprehensive Plan amendment. Ms. Fenn asked if there were consensus on the recommendation. Mr. Watts suggested that action be deferred tonight and he will review the suggestion to see if the suggested amendment can be modified to that extent. Richard Berg, Planning Commission, stated that he and Commissioner Michael Hyland are both present and believe the Planning Commission may have been unanimously in favor of removing the bedroom density calculation. He recalled the feeling was that coming up with a program of bonuses for certain kinds of units would be a better way to address what the bedroom density calculation was trying to accomplish, i.e. allow smaller/more affordable units. He added that the reason the Planning Commission and Council may not wish to move ahead is that the bonus density program needs to be designed and in the meantime, this solution of either bedrooms or units should be more flexible than what is now available. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to approve suggested amendment #5 as proposed in Exhibit 5-1 and include a footnote that reflects that one method or the other (either bedrooms or units) shall be applied to the entire parcel. Ms. Fenn seconded. Mayor Kolff reminded the council that all votes on suggested comprehensive plan amendments are understood to be in principle and will be considered in an ordinance which determines the cumulative impact. Vote: the motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. Amendment #6: Revise Setbacks/Lot Coverage for Corner Lots Ms. Surber noted that the original item was an amendment to reduce side-yard setbacks and increase lot coverage in the residential zoning districts; after research and discussion, the notice was expanded to include possible increases in the front yard setback. One letter of support was received and several concerns were addressed by Puget Sound Energy and the City Public Works Department. The Planning Commission divided the question into three parts: (A) Recommendation to deny the request to reduce setback; however recommend that some flexibility be incorporated into the PTMC to allow for minor encroachments into setbacks and averaging of front-yard setbacks in non-conforming neighborhoods; (B) Recommendation that setbacks for garages with doors facing the street be 20 feet (not applicable to garages facing on alleys); (C) Recommend to approve the change of maximum lot coverage to 40% in R-II where the lot accommodates an Accessory Dwelling Unit and deny the change to maximum lot coverage in R-I. City Council Special Meeting Page 7 November 12, 2002 Research has revealed that the setback requirements in the city are relatively minimal compared to other jurisdictions. Increasing setbacks would result in conflicts with utilities and an increase in setback for garages fronting on streets would reduce the number of cars blocking sidewalks as well as deemphasizing garages as the primary focus of a residential fagade. The Planning Commission supports reasonable, minor encroachments into the setback area either through amendments to the code or through a simplified process. This could be accomplished on a case by case basis through adoption of a new "Administrative Adjustment" procedure which would not require amending the Comp Plan. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to adopt Amendment #6 in its original form as proposed by the applicant. Motion died for lack of a second Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to accept Planning Commission's recommendation on suggested amendment #6. Mr. Masci seconded Mr. Masci noted that when a proposal is drastically modified from the original form, it should be considered out of respect for the process. Vote: the motion carried 5-2, by voice vote with Masci and Youse opposed Amendment #7- Revise Zoning Use Tables to Allow Group Homes Outright in Certain Zones Mr. Surber stated that the proposal would amend definitions and use tables in the zoning code to differentiate group homes for the disabled and emergency shelters from residential treatment facilities whose clients may be considered a risk to the public; these homes would be treated the same as similar residential structures occupied by a family or other unrelated individuals. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to accept Planning Commission's recommendation to approve amendments as shown in Exhibit 7-1 to allow group homes outright in certain zones. Mr. Masci seconded The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. Amendment #8; Strike the 50% Rule for Accessory Dwelling Units Ms. Surber stated that the BCD Department proposal is to strike the 50% rules from the current code requirements that limits ADUs to "less than 50% of the total floor area of the main residence or 800 square feet whichever is less." The size of 800 square feet would remain. The PT Comprehensive Plan encourages accessory dwelling units but places size limits on ADUs located in detached structures. The 50% clause creates a problem when the primary house is less than 1,600 square feet in size, i.e. a homeowner with a 1600 square foot house may have an 800 sf ADU while the owner of a 900 sf house is limited to a 450 sfADU. If both properties can satisfy the maximum lot coverage of the zoning district, both property owners should be entitled to an equal sized ADU. As the code is currently written, it penalizes those who own small primary homes. City Council Special Meeting Page 8 November 1Z 2002 Mr. Finnie asked if the code provision requiring the primary residence owner to live on the site is still in place. Ms. Surber replied in the affirmative. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt amendments to PTMC 17 as shown in Exhibit 8-1. Mr. Youse seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. Mayor Kolff noticed that the public hearing will continue for LUP02-047, the Kelly/Transit rezone. The public hearing on all other comprehensive plan amendments is closed. ORDINANCE 2821 AN ORDINANCE FIXING AND ADOPTING 2003 PROPERTY TAX LEVIES Mr. Timmons addressed the council on the 2003 budget. He referred to a memo he had provided which gives the rationale for staff's recommendation of the adoption of a 1% property tax increase and an increase of 1% in the tax levy for EMS due to the 10% increase in demand for services. The additional property tax funds would help to meet the expected impacts of 1-790 for increases in LEOFF pension funding, street overlay projects and increased L&I contributions. He added that he also recommends the Council go to the voters in early 2003 to request voter approval to either (1) utilize the banked capacity, or (2) approve a special lid lift levy, with revenue to be strictly assigned to fund the annual pavement overlay program. He stated that an alternative option is to rescind Ordinance 2781 and utilize some or all of the banked capacity starting in 2003 with funds earmarked for the street fund overlay program. Ms. Fenn asked about the cost to the city for proposing a ballot measure. Mr. Timmons said the cost ranges upwards to $15,000, depending on whether the issue would be piggybacked onto other ballot measures. Ms. Fenn asked for a history of prior staff recommendations for levy rates (since 1999). Mr. Timmons stated he would have to research, but believes the recommendation has been as high as 6% one year. In answer to Ms. Fenn's question, he stated it is not unusual to recommend a raise in the levy rate. Mr. Finnie asked how the city would deal with the street fund shortage in 2003. Mr. Timmons answered that the overlay projects would be deferred; he cautioned against tapping into reserves, as there are other unresolved budget issues to address. City Council Special Meeting Page 9 November 12, 2002 Mr. Timmons confirmed that the banked capacity remains available to the city and is not a "use it or lose it" proposition. In response to another question, he stated that the ordinance requiring a vote on using banked capacity could be rescinded by passage of another ordinance. Mr. Watts confirmed that a simple majority would be required for passage. Ms. Sandoval noted that elected officials are supposed to take the hard votes; if the measure were turned down by taxpayers, the problem wouldn't go away. She supports the council exploring as many options as possible to solve the funding problems. Mr. Watts stated that the advisory vote requirement is unique to the city and that state law places the ability to utilize banked capacity with the council, not the electorate; the ordinance adopted last year indicated the council chose to seek voter approval although it is not legally required. In regard to the timing of the tax levy adoption, Mr. Watts stated the RCW does provide a city certify its property tax levy to the county assessor by Novembers 15; however, not every jurisdictions does that and there is no penalty provided in the law if the deadline is missed. Jefferson County Asssesor Jack Westerman has indicated that a deadline of the end of December is acceptable. Mr. Youse asked for information on the funds generated by the garbage fund. Mr. Legarsky will provide information. A lengthy discussion was held on the effect of the passage of 1-790 on the city budget. Mr. Legarsky noted that an exact figure has not yet been calculated. Ms. Fenn asked about the criteria of comparable cities, particularly whether or not they are full service cities like Port Townsend, providing fire service, library, and parks. This sort of analysis might reveal that Port Townsend's level of property taxation is even lower than it appears on initial comparison. Mr. Legarsky stated that the city did a study in 2000 and that he will distribute that information to council members. She noted that the city has been absorbing cost of living increases to labor and maintenance costs even though there has been some other growth in revenue. Mr. Masci noted that a first reading had been done on Ordinance 2821 at 0% increase at the last meeting. Ms. Sandoval noted she had objected to the first reading at a specific increase before hearing the full budget discussion. Mr. Finnie suggested getting closure on the motion; he stated he can endorse the 0% increase philosophically because he is a fiscal conservative but is still concerned about funding for streets but stated taping the general fund reserve and increasing austerity could be solutions. City Council Special Meeting Page 10 November 12, 2002 Mr. Kolff said that there is more time to continue the discussion and he believes this item has a number of solution options and is worth having a fuller debate. He would like time to digest all the implications and does not want to feel pressure to make an immediate decision. Motion: Mr. Masci moved for approval of Ordinance 2821 at a level of O% tax levy increase from 2002. Mr. Youse seconded Ms. Fenn stated she does not feel she has had a chance to hear what the budget consequences would be and needs more discussion, including the consequences of rescinding the ordinance requiring an advisory vote on using the banked capacity. Vote: the motion failed 3-4, by roll call vote, with Masci, Finnie and Youse in favor. No further action was taken on the issue. The discussion will continue at the next meeting. DRAFT COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE UPDATE Mayor Kolff asked council members to bring any comments about the upcoming agenda schedule to him or to Mr. Timmons as soon as possible. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Attest: ~ ~? ~ /~ ~ Pamela Kolacy, CMC U City Clerk City Council Special Meeting Page 11 November 12, 2002