HomeMy WebLinkAbout10062003CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 6, 2003
The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this sixth day of
October, 2003, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor
Kees Kolff presiding.
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Kees Kolff. Council members
present at roll call were Frieda Fenn, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Catharine Robinson,
Michelle Sandoval, and Alan Youse. Joe Finnie was excused.
Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, Public Works Director Ken
Clow, BCD Director Jeff Randall, Senior Planner Judy Surber, Water Asset Resource
Manager lan Jablonski and City Clerk Pam Kolacy.
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Mayor Kolff stated that an executive session would be held following regular business to
address two items, a real estate transaction and a personnel matter involving a complaint
against a public officer or employee.
There were no other changes or additions.
PRESIDING OFFICER'S REPORT
Mayor Kolff read a proclamation declaring October 5-11 as Fire Prevention Week.
The mayor introduced Carol Haase of Port Townsend Sails and noted that the company
has recently celebrated its 25th anniversary. Ms. Haase made comments.
Mayor Kolff said he has been informed there is a shortage of food at the local food bank
and everyone is encouraged to contribute.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Mr. Timmons stated that a group of citizens had spoken before the General Government
Committee in regard to traffic problems in the Fowler's Park neighborhood. He
suggested the matter be referred to the Citizen Traffic Calming Committee which is being
reorganized by the police department.
Consensus: refer to Council Transportation Committee and Traffic Calming Committee.
Mr. Timmons stated that State Parks has dug in its heels to say park fees must come from
day users; this will have an impact on local users. There is concern about other
City Council Business Meeting Page 1 October 6, 2003
neighborhoods being impacted by the parking as well. He noted that a funding shortfall
of $70,000 for Fort Worden's share of state money, is still under negotiation and the City
would be looking at that as a contingency item in the budget. He added that in order for
the City to consider funding assistance, Fort Worden would need to be recognized as part
of the city's park system.
Consensus: Community Development/Land Use Committee will discuss at their meeting
on October 15 and bring the issue to the full Council on October 20.
Mr. Timmons recognized the Public Works Department for their award from the
Department of Transportation for "F" Street.
A report on the status of the water system was distributed.
PUBLIC COMMENT (Consent or Non-agenda items)
David Johnson: spoke in support of the swimming pool, concerned that the Pool
Manager does not have access to the temperature regulator for the water.
Carol Plaster spoke in support of the swimming pool.
Annette Huenke talked about unfunded and underfunded mandates from state and federal
governments and the effect on cities.
Nora Porter urged citizens to help the food bank and reminded them that cash is accepted
as well as food items.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor Kolff opened the public hearing, nothing this is a quasi-judicial procedure. City
Attorney Watts administered an oath to all those planning to testify.
Mayor Kolff asked if any Council members had any property interest or stands to gain or
lose any financial benefit from the matters before them. There were none.
He then asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Councilor's participation in the
discussion and action. There were none.
Senior Planner Judy Surber provided the staff presentation. She noted that originally
four amendments had been proposed, but only two remained on the docket. One will
return next year (eagle's nest) and the proposed Carlson rezone was withdrawn by the
City.
Kah Tai Amendment - LUP 03-031
The amendment would redesignate/rezone approximately 75,000 square feet of
undeveloped land from current P-I (Public Infrastructure) designation to P/OS (Existing
City Council Business Meeting Page 2 October 6, 2003
Park or Open Space). The land is generally located west of Keamey Street and between
the Lawrence and Franklin Street rights-of-way, east of Kah Tai Lagoon.
The City purchased the entire block from the PUD in 1998. The latest City Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Plan identifies as a priority the acquisition and preservation
of land around Kah Tai for park use. City of Port Townsend Resolution 98-122 states
that purchase of the property was considered important as it provides a buffer to the
lagoon and cites the area adjacent to Kah Tai Lagoon Park as "one of the City's most
significant public open spaces."
The staff report concludes that approval of a PO/S designation on land that provides
recreational opportunities in the midst of an urban, shoreline setting and provides a buffer
to priority habitat is consistent with the GMA, the adopted countywide planning policy of
Jefferson County, and the City's Shoreline Master Program.
Richard Berg, Vice Chair of the Planning Commission stated that the Commission did
not have much trouble understanding that a park designation would be appropriate and
that the use which would allow more intensive uses, such as buildings, is not appropriate.
The greatest amount of discussion occurred regarding soils and risk to residents; in the
end it was decided the change in zoning has no bearing on that issue although it does
remain a concern. He noted that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend adoption of the amendment.
Public comment:
There was no public comment.
Mayor Kolff closed the public testimony portion of the proceedings.
Motion: Mr. Masci moved to approve the proposed amendment (Kah Tai LUP 03-031)
as recommended by the Planning Commission; adopt the Planning Commission's
findings and conclusions; and approve amendments to Table IV-2, "The Land Use Map-
Acreage Within Each Land Use Designation" in the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the
approved Kah Tai rezone. Ms. Fenn seconded The motion carried unanimously, 6-0,
by voice vote.
City-owned Lots on Block 52 Amendment - LUP 02-032
Ms. Surber stated that the City proposed to adjust the subdistrict boundaries contained in
the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Plan and the Shoreline Master Program thereby
removing the city's parking lot and temporary skateboard park site from the "Point
Hudson Marine" district and placing it within the "Civic" district. The purpose of the
request is first, intended to reflect the site's existing uses and its functional link to the
Civic District; there are no marine related activities on the site, but the parking lot does
support activities on adjacent lands within the Civic District. Second, the existing
temporary skateboard park as been identified as the site for a permanent facility which
City Council Business Meeting Page 3 October 6, 2003
has been awarded a construction grant from the Interagency Committee for Outdoor
Recreation. Staff's recommendation is to adjust the subdistrict boundaries contained in
the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Plan thereby removing Lots 5,6,7, and 8 Block 52
of the Port Townsend Original Townsite (the city's parking lot and temporary skateboard
park site) from the "Point Hudson Marine" district and placing them within the "Civic"
district. Lot 4 is to remain in the Point Hudson Marina district.
Richard Berg, Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, stated that the Planning
Commission agreed that the parking lot as currently used by the skateboard park and
parking lot, is more oriented toward the Civic District than Point Hudson. All the
businesses which use the parking lot are in the Civic District. The members who were at
the meeting felt it was appropriate to make a change in order to let the new skateboard
park proceed; the inclusion of Lot 4 was also discussed. The reason for including it
would be to make it a permanent buffer between Point Hudson and the skateboard park
but since the change of topography is really between lots 6 and 4, with lot 4 being on the
level of the adjacent lot in Point Hudson it was thought it made sense to leave that lot in
Point Hudson in case it could be used for water oriented use at some time in the future.
He corrected the staff report and stated the vote was unanimous, 4-0, with Mr. Arthur
recused (not 4-0-1, indicating abstention).
Public Comment:
There was no public comment in favor of or neutral to the amendment.
Opposed
Larry Crockett, Executive Director of the Port of Port Townsend, read a prepared
statement in opposition to the amendment.
Jana Allen stated that the district change is premature; she stated her property is zoned to
water related use and the adjoining property should be required to comply with the same
uses. She supports the Port of Port Townsend's need for parking space for all adjoining
marine businesses. She asked for further investigation before approval of the district
change.
Ms. Surber stated that the proposal for a district change is not tied to approval of the
skateboard park; but it does need to happen before the skateboard park project can
proceed.
Ms. Sandoval asked whether a parking lot is an allowable use in either district.
Ms. Surber stated that it can be a parking lot in either district; however if it changes to the
civic designation, use would be much more flexible.
City Council Business Meeting Page 4 October 6, 2003
Mr. Masci asked for confirmation that the city owns logs 4,5,6,7, and 8 and the street
right of way. Ms. Surber stated that is correct.
Ms. Sandoval asked where shoreline jurisdiction ends. Ms. Surber replied it appears to
go just shy of Monroe, approximately into the middle of the first large ramp in the
skateboard park.
Ms. Robinson asked if there is a conflict in designating this into the Civic District since it
is within 200 feet of the shoreline. Ms. Surber stated that designations come from the
Waterfront Plan so there is a Civic District within the Shoreline District.
There was no more comment and Mayor Kolff closed the public testimony portion of the
hearing.
Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to approve the proposed amendment (Block 52 LUP 03-032)
as recommended by the Planning Commission and to adopt the planning Commission's
Findings and Conclusions. Ms. Sandoval seconded
Ms. Sandoval stated this appears to allow the highest and best use of the property; besides
the possible siting of the skateboard park, the land can be used for purposes that fit within
the uses in either district.
Ms. Fenn stated because the land is city owned, it is logical that it be in the Civic District
and serves the businesses facing Monroe Street. She stated she is in favor of the
flexibility gained under the redesignation which allows various options for the land.
Mr. Youse stated that the City Hall annex project and lack of parking downtown have
impacted the decision on location of the skateboard park; Point Hudson is a small area
and the town is gravitating toward marine trades; he stated he would like the City
Manager to find another location for the skateboard park; he believes the current property
designation is correct and will not support the amendment.
Mr. Masci expressed concern about re-opening the question of the skateboard site. He
stated he cannot support the re-designation and feels citizens and the city are being held
to different standards.
Ms. Robinson stated she will support the amendment, saying it is a change of district, not
a change of zoning and the civic designation seems more appropriate for its uses as a
parking lot.
Mr. Kolff spoke in support, stated that the change in district designation would make this
more consistent with other properties the city owns and will give the city more flexibility.
Ms. Robinson stated that her concern with leaving the property designated as the Point
Hudson district with the mandate for marine-related uses could mean that the parking lot
City Council Business Meeting Page 5 October 6, 2003
would not be open to the general public using that end of town, but only available for
those using marine trades.
Vote: Motion carried 4-2, with Youse and Masci opposed
Ms. Surber stated that an ordinance reflecting these council actions would be brought
before the council as soon as possible.
Mr. Timmons noted that the Northwest Maritime Center is a catalyst for the need for
more parking; he added that multiple alternative sites for the skateboard park are not
being pursued, there has been discussion about one alternative site that relates to
Memorial Field. He added that the grant is site specific and a change would require
permission to relocate; it has been indicated that the granting agency would be more
likely to approve a change, which keeps the park in its current vicinity.
CONSENTAGENDA
Motion: Ms. Robinson moved for approval of the following items on the Consent
Agenda. Ms. Sandoval seconded The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote.
Approval of the following Bills, Claims and Warrants
Vouchers 87367 through 87590 in the amount of $413,755.20
Vouchers 922031 through 922033 in the amount of $12.12
Vouchers 1003031 through 1003037 in the amount of $70,063.76
Approval of Minutes for September 22, 2003
RECESS
The meeting was recessed at 8:05 p.m. for the purpose of a break.
RECONVENE
The meeting was reconvened at 8:12 p.m.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
ORDINANCE 2838
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND REPEALING
ORDINANCE 2684 AND SETTING SALARY COMPENSATION FOR CITY
COUNCILMEMBERS AND MAYOR
City Attorney Watts stated this is follow-up action to the vote taken by Council on
September 22.
City Council Business Meeting Page 6 October 6, 2003
Public Comment
None
Motion: Mr. Youse moved to waive Council rules and adopt Ordinance 2838. Mr.
Masci seconded
Mr. Watts noted that any changes must go into effect prior to the election to comply with
state law.
Ms. Robinson stated she stands by the objections she made during the discussion on
September 22.
Ms. Sandoval stated she would abstain because she was not present for the discussion and
was not convinced by the materials that a need exists for increasing salaries for elected
officials.
Vote: motion carried, 4-1 by roll call vote. Ms. Robinson was opposed Ms. Sandoval
abstained.
WATER RESOURCES INVENTORY AREA
Public Works Director Ken Clow stated the final draft of the WRIA 17 Watershed Plan
has been published and is out for final review. He said the full report is available
electronically and will be made available to Councilors if they want it. He also asked that
all Councilors who are planning to attend the October 14 meeting state they will be
present for purposes of notification.
Ms. Fenn asked if the city has formally adopted the state's 2001 stormwater manual. Mr.
Clow replied we have not.
Ms. Fenn asked if the impact of global warming and changes expected in NW water
systems has been part of the discussion. Mr. Jablonski stated a SEPA chapter within the
plan addresses that issue.
Mr. Masci asked if consensus with this plan would adversely impact the city's water
right. Mr. Jablonski replied that it does not.
Mr. Clow added that this does not complete the planning unit process, and that there will
be more work afterwards setting in-stream flows.
Councilors planning to attend the WRIA workshop meeting are Sandoval, Robinson,
Masci and Fenn.
There was no public comment.
City Council Business Meeting Page 7 October 6, 2003
NEW BUSINESS
SPECIAL EVENTS/ASSEMBLY REGULATIONS
Mr. Timmons stated that Chief Anderson was unable to be present but has provided
excellent documentation on the issue. He added that Deputy Chief Daily and Sergeant
Green are available to answer questions. He said the issue has been on several General
Government Committee agendas but the committee has been unable to address the item.
He stated there are several issues the full council should be aware of and read the memo
into the record.
Sergeant Green made remarks, noting he is the department's special event coordinator.
There was discussion relating to the suggested fee schedule, how the value assigned to
volunteers works, how reciprocal arrangements with other departments work, and
whether the changes as proposed would create a more equitable situation.
Mr. Timmons noted it is time to start attempting to shift some burden onto the applicants,
but that the change needs to come in phases as most events are non-profit and sponsors
will need time to adjust.
Ms. Fenn expressed concern about the thirty-day filing period and asked if that could be a
deterrent to rights of free speech and assembly. She also suggested that notice should be
given to the various non-profits so they can attend the meeting.
Public comment
Terri McQuillen recounted her experience in applying for a permit for the Canoe
Journey; stated she would support making the guidelines specific. She also asked if an
option would be to enforce the regulations currently on the books rather than establishing
new regulations.
Consensus: schedule further discussion on October 17.
ALLOWED DENSITIES AND NEED TO ASSIGN TASK TO WORK PLAN
Mr. Timmons stated this is a follow-up issue to the Laurel Heights hearing and a
neighborhood meeting about another project. There is concern about allowed densities
in the current code. He noted the Council saw that it was surprising to residents that
fourplexes were allowed in residential zones and by the densities that result from a
cottage housing project. The result is an infill approach in currently low-density areas.
He said that in many cases, the code is liberal regarding densities in the less matured
areas of the city but that the infill has actually been productive; with that success the
outlying areas are being sporadically picked out and developed, with the current low
density in those areas enticing because of current conditions. He stated he would
encourage the Council to task CD/LU committee to look into the matter and bring back
City Council Business Meeting Page 8 October 6, 2003
any recommendation they think appropriate, particularly as we look at docketing for the
Comp Plan next year and possible interim regulations this year.
Ms. Sandoval stated that her understanding of the hierarchy of things is that a review of
the Comp Plan would come first, and lead to development standards, and zoning code
revision.
Mr. Randall stated it does depend on the nature of the issue. If it is a broader density
issue, like fourplexes, that is a Comp Plan issue and would come out at the end of the
Comp Plan update, which will be completed next year. He stated that other issues like
cottage housing were an outgrowth of the implementation of the Comp Plan. The Plan is
broad so allowed locations for cottage housing could be modified.
Mr. Timmons noted because of the heated economy and real estate activity, the Council
might choose to take an interim measure prior to the Comp Plan update.
Public comment:
Mike Dawson stated a development is proposed in his neighborhood which is zoned R-I,
where normally four single family homes would exist on a block, and the development
will have 13 units and a parking facility. He stated there is a hole in the zoning code
where developers can maximize profit on a piece of property and stated that cottage
housing is not in character for R-I zoning and that the infrastructure needs of such a
development are greater than single family housing. He added he believes cottage
housing is a great idea but would like to see some overall consideration of development
in the City and whatever can be done at 51 st and Sheridan.
Richard Berg, Planning Commission member, stated he was involved in drafting the
cottage housing ordinance and believes the issue was dealt with at that time by saying
that the density in the underlying zoning would still apply even if it was a cottage
development, meaning that cottage housing in R-II would be allowed to be somewhat
more dense than a cottage development in R-I so if what we're getting is 13 homes in a
space that would accommodate four units, maybe that wasn't good enough. He urged the
Council not to "throw the baby out with the bath water" and adjust rather than dump the
ordinance, perhaps adjusting the density in R-I. He added that he was surprised that
fourplexes were allowed in the R-II zone and they seem a bit much for R-I.
Ms. Fenn stated she has heard many comments about allowing fourplexes in the R-II
zone. She stated it would be a good idea to work with Planning Commission and the
Affordable Housing Task Force to weigh pros and cons, not throw out innovative ideas,
but look at a range of alternatives so some single family housing areas are preserved in
the city.
Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to refer the issue of densities to the Community
Development/Land Use Committee. Ms. Sandoval seconded.
City Council Business Meeting Page 9 October 6, 2003
Mr. Masci stated he can appreciate the dilemma and noted he is a North Beach resident
and new houses are being constructed within 150 feet of his home. He said that in regard
to the 51 st Street development, if 13 units are replacing the 8 that would be built on single
lots, that is in the spirit of the cottage ordinance. He stated he watched the struggle in
1994, when the arguments were for affordable housing and GMA. The city was
recognized as the urban growth area and not a rural growth area and the intent was that
Port Townsend would eventually be built out. He stated he would hate to see us mess
with the densities right now that have been in effect for 6-8 years, especially to dilute
certain densities based on a distaste for the profit motive as that is the driver for
development. A legal mandate to try to intensify development on lots and encourage
build out happened with the passage of GMA in 1991.
He noted that whenever a development comes in, neighbors immediately become upset
and it has happened numerous times in the last five years. The Council finally made the
commitment to go to the Hearing Examiner system in 1999 and he suggested that the city
should go to the next level, which the County has done, and go to an appeal hearings
examiner and take the Council out of the quasi-judicial hot seat. He stated that the
problem is the law is specific and we are not and the City would benefit from a process
that is arm's length so decisions are not made with any political or aesthetic bias or
prejudice and that this would insulate the City from future liability. He said the next stop
is Court in either case and it would be a more benevolent procedure for applicants and
appellants to not go through the process before the City Council.
Ms. Sandoval stated that she disagrees, and believes many developments are not
controversial at all; she listed examples such as Seven Bridges, Treehouse, Umatilla Hill
and Lylmsfield. She stated that in those areas where there is already density and the
density has continued, this sort of controversy does not exist. She stated that controversy
exists when there is a surprise that an expectation that the existing zoning and feel of the
neighborhood will not change. She said that when you are in a neighborhood and
suddenly there is a 51-unit development of fourplexes, that feels big and not like a single-
family neighborhood and that's what was happening with Laurel Heights. She said she
believes that strays from what happened when the Comp Plan and development
regulations were passed because the intent was to support infrastructure tiering
incentives; when the city does not support these tiering incentives, the concentrated infill
contained in the Comp Plan can't happen. She stated she has no problem with the
cottage housing ordinance as a way of infill. She thinks it is just a surprise that people in
an essentially rural neighborhood, with single-family lot size of 10,000 sf to all of a
sudden have 13 houses built on a single block. She stated that when people buy property
and know they are in the R-1 zone and the explanation is that density is one to 10,000 sf,
but stated that if you said to people in R-II zoning that a fourplex with an ADU could go
in right next door to them, they would be very surprised.
She added we need to look at the worst case scenario and see what the shape and future
will be and what the density will look like; it is about aesthetics as well as the law. She
added that legislation is not only for regulating things but also for what makes living here
wonderful, and that is aesthetics. She stated she does not want to trash cottage housing or
City Council Business Meeting Page 10 October 6, 2003
anything underway, but think it needs tweaking and another look at the kind of densities
that could go in. In R-IV you can't have a single family house - you have to build multi-
family, yet in R-II you can put whatever you want and in R-I, as Mr. Dawson said, you
can put 13 houses. R-IV and R-III property on the market isn't being bought for those
kinds of larger developments - they are building them in R-II. She believes this
discourages people from buying R-III and R-IV property for large developments. She
said these are the sorts of issues that need to be addressed.
Vote: motion carried, 5-1, by voice vote, Masci opposed.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The mayor announced at 9:35 that the council would go into executive session to discuss
two matters, a real estate transaction and a complaint against personnel. He said that no
action would be taken after the executive session and stated the session would last
approximately 30 minutes.
RECONVENE
The meeting was reconvened at 9:55 p.m.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Attest:
Pamela Kolacy, CMC
City Clerk
City Council Business Meeting Page 11 October 6, 2003