Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09222003CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in special session this twenty-second day of September, 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, and Catharine Robinson. Mr. Finnie and Ms. Sandoval were excused. Mr. Youse arrived later in the meeting. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, Public Works Director Ken Clow, BCD Director Jeff Randall, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. TELECONFERENCE PARTICIPATION Mayor Kolff stated that Ms. Sandoval is home ill but has requested that she participate by telephone. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved that Ms. Sandoval be allowed to participate by telephone during the tree ordinance agenda item. Ms. Fenn seconded. Motion carried, 3-1, with Mr. Masci opposed. CONSENT AGENDA Ms. Robinson moved for approval of the following items on the consent agenda. Mr. Masci seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0, by voice vote. Approval of the following Bills, Claims and Warrants Voucher 87052 in the amount of $5.75 Vouchers 87184 through 87366 in the amount of 631,171.84 Vouchers 905031 through 905037 in the amount of $70,312.13 Vouchers 919031 through 919037 in the amount of $70,352.06 Approval of Minutes September 2, 2003 September 8, 2003 ORDINANCE 2837 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND RELATING TO TREE CONSERVATION; ESTABLISHING A NEW PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 19.06 TREE CONSERVATION; AND AMENDING SECTIONS OF TITLE 18 - LAND DIVISION, TITLE 17 - ZONING, City Council Special Business Meeting Page 1 September 22, 2003 TITLE 20 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES REGARDING CROSS REFERENCES AND ADMINISTRATOIN OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REUGLATIONS RELATING TO CHAPTER 19.06; AND AMENDING CHAPTER 12.24 STREET AND PARK TREES TO ESTABLISH A LANDMARK TREE PROGRAM AND URBAN FORESTRY ACCOUNT; AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 2.71 CREATING A CITY TREE COMMITTEE TO ALLOW THE CITY TO OBTAIN TREE CITY USA STATUS BCD Director Jeff Randall reviewed the packet materials and noted that Exhibit "D" contained the staff's recommended amendments to the Ordinance exhibits. He asked if any Council members had questions. Ms. Sandoval asked for clarification of the use of 40,000 square feet vs. one acre. She stated that she believes the 40,000 sf designation is consistent with the zoning code. Mr. Randall confirmed that 40,000 sf is the common usage in the code and is used, as one example, for density calculations. Ms. Sandoval asked if any consideration has been given to fire safety issues, as citizens are concerned in this dry season about dead trees that may be fire hazards. Mr. Randall responded that dead trees would be exempt from removal; at 40,000 sf or less clearing the trees would be exempt and if over 40,000 sf, clearing consistent with public safety could be approved. Ms. Sandoval asked if management policies, which came out of the new shoreline regulations, could result in amendment to this section of the code. Mr. Randall replied in the affirmative. Mr. Masci questioned the establishment of the numbers for exempt trees, saying that first it was 12 inches, and now it is 8 inches breast high. He also stated the code is not species consistent. He also asked about the definition of "abutting" and whether it is the correct term. Mr. Randall replied that abutting is a definition also found in Title 17 of the PTMC. Regarding the tree diameter question, he stated that the 8-inch tree standard only comes into play for the owner of more than 40,000 sf of land and that staff attempted to create as easy a process as possible. He added that "8 inches at breast height" is a subjective standard and was recommended by a number of committee members at the Planning Commission. The original 12 inches came from another city's ordinance and was not thought to be appropriate in Port Townsend. In regard to species, Mr. Randall stated the committee didn't feel comfortable with that and basically wanted to leave it up to the property owner. They felt there is enough flexibility in the ordinance to allow the owner to manage the thinning. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 2 September 22, 2003 Mr. Masci stated he does not favor the proscriptive list in line 39 on page 4 and suggested adding "etc." to indicate there are other situations, which may require alternative tree conservation plans. Mr. Masci also suggested lowering all fees for permit applications. Mr. Randall stated this issue was raised at the public hearing; he noted that in general these fees are lower than those that would be charged by the DNR for similar permits. He also stated the fees were not set with the idea they would create revenue enhancement. Mr. Masci also expressed concern about the restoration criteria, particularly the basis of comparable value and caliper. Mr. Randall stated that there have been incidents where trees have been removed illegally for view improvement. If there are no restoration criteria, large trees could be replaced by seedlings. Ms. Robinson asked whether program development costs were considered in regard to the Tree City USA program. Mr. Randall answered that the program could begin without additional cost, just minimal staff time to go to a couple of tree committee meetings per year. He stated the Tree City program does want the city to be more proactive in dealing with street trees. Grants are available for projects such as a tree inventory. Ms. Robinson asked if this ordinance is comparable to others in different jurisdictions. Mr. Randall replied that it is complex, partly due to the fact Port Townsend would be the first city in the state to take over jurisdiction from DNR. Ms. Robinson asked if one owns a 5,000 square foot lot and it is undeveloped and has trees on it, would one be exempt from a tree conservation permit and would that trigger what is now the state forest practices - or could one just clear it because it is under 40,000 square feet. Mr. Randall noted that consideration of how state rules would apply now was one of the driving forces of taking on the process. Current DNR rules only kick in when talking about cuts on over two acres and even if the permit did kick in it may not require any trees to be kept at all. DNR rules would allow clear cutting unless a wetland were present. He stated the new ordinance considers what the land use will be instead of depending on thresholds. If you have nothing on a vacant lot you are limited until you are ready to build; at that point you are exempt. Prior to that time you would be limited to thinning; however it would prevent you from clear cutting at that time, because you may never use the land. The ordinance performs the valuable function of keeping as many trees on the site as it is healthy to do until it is ultimately built on. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 3 September 22, 2003 He confirmed that it would in no way preclude anyone from clearing and building on a 5,000 square foot lot. Public comment Bob Schrameck: discussed the difference between a natural forest and individual trees in an urban setting, which do not contribute, to stormwater and infiltration, due to the absence of litter layers, which accumulate in a forest. He noted that the loss of an individual tree in a housing development does little to stop stormwater rtmoff. Ed Stegall: stated he owns six acres in a forest classification which are mostly exempt from the ordinance. He has a small house on a large parcel which was affected by 150 feet of wetland. He urged the council not to use subjective standards but retain clear enough standards so property owners don't have to have outside consultants to interpret the regulations. He stated the DNR manual is very technical but it is specific. Rather than a subjective tree size like 11", standards should include what species, what kind of slope, and how healthy the tree is. He also noted that trees on his land are his trees, not public trees and although they help the public, in the end they are his resource and the city should not have the ability to deprive a homeowner of a resource. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved for adoption of Ordinance 2837, without amendments. Ms. Robinson seconded& Amendment: Ms. Fenn moved to strike all references to 40, 000 square feet and replace them with 20, 000 square feet. The motion died for lack of a second& Amendment: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of staff's suggested amendment #1, Change "should" to "shall" in purpose statement regarding exemption for landscaping existing developed residential lots. Ms. Fenn seconded& The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. Amendment: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of staff's suggested amendment #Z Add definition to section 19. 06. 040. Ms. Robinson seconded. Mr. Masci expressed concern that using the term "abutting" does not make sense as abutting properties could have a 60-foot public right of way separating them. Motion carried 4-1, by voice vote, with Masci opposed& Amendment: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of staff's suggested amendment #3, substitute one acre (43, 560 sq. fi.) for references to 40, 000 s.f Motion died for lack ora second& Amendment: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of staff's suggested amendment #4, Section 19. 06. 060 and. 070 Exemptions, multiple amendments proposed. Ms. Fenn seconded The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 4 September 22, 2003 Amendment: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of staff's suggested amendment #5, Clarify Hazard Tree exemption. Ms. Robinson seconded Motion carried, 4-1, by voice vote, with Masci opposed Amendment: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of staff's suggested amendment #6, Clarify tree removal activities that may occur in designated open space or tree buffer areas. Ms. Robinson seconded Motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. Amendment: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of staff's suggested amendment #7, clarify title of Section 19. 06. 080 to add "Pre-development Tree Removal." Ms. Robinson seconded Motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. Amendment: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of staff's suggested amendment #8, changes to Section 19. 06.100, correcting a typographical error and to clarify the applicability to multiple lot situations. Ms. Fenn seconded Motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. Amendment: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of staff's suggested amendment #9 changes to Section 19. 06.11 O, Tree Conservation Plans - Contents. Ms. Fenn seconded Motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. Amendment: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of staff's suggested amendment glO changes to Section 19. 06.120, Tree Conservation Standards with the addition of "etc." after "recreational play fields " on line 3 and changing "acre" in section G. to "40, 000 square feet." Ms. Robinson seconded Motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. Amendment: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of staff's suggested amendment gl1, changes to 19. 06.160 -. 170 Tree Conservation Affidavits; 19. 06. 230 Fees; 19. 06. 240 Enforcement with the changes to the fee schedule as followed: in 1. change $50 to $5; in 2 change $50 to $25 and in 3 change $100 to $50, $250 to $100 and $500 to $250 and also strike "replacement of trees may be based on comparable value..." in 19. 06. 240. Motion died for lack o fa second Amendment: Ms. Fenn moved for adoption of staff's suggested amendment #11 as written. Ms. Sandoval seconded Ms. Robinson stated concerns about the enforcement section and stated she would be more comfortable taking out the phrase "replacement of trees may be based on comparable value or caliper of trees unlawfully removed." There was discussion of the current methods of enforcement used by BCD from voluntary compliance to fines. Mr. Randall noted there is an alternative which provides for either replanting or paying into a fund. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 5 September 22, 2003 Mr. Kolff asked which standards would be used to determine comparable replacement trees. Mr. Randall stated there are arborist manuals on establishing such valuations. He added that there probably are different ways of assessing value but the International Arborist Society Association is typical. Mr. Masci stated the section could be removed and the ordinance amended in the future when staff can craft appropriate language. Ms. Fenn stated that enforcement must be provided in order to make the law effective. She added she would support naming the most current version of the manual so the source is clear. Ms. Robinson stated that lumping public and private ownership into one bucket does not make her comfortable; she would be more inclined to stricter enforcement for trees in public ownership. Mr. Masci stated that there is no demonstrated urgency and that staff could return in 20- 30 days with an amendment regarding enforcement. Mr. Watts recommended adopting Section 11, with the deletion of Section B on page 6. That would provide for enforcement but not restoration. Mayor Kolff asked if there were any objections to removing all motions currently on the floor. There were none. Amendment: Ms. Robinson moved for adoption of staff's suggested amendment #11, changes to 19. 06.160 -. 170 Tree Conservation Affidavits; 19. 06. 230 Fees; 19. 06. 240 Enforcement, striking section B under 19. 06.240. Mr. Masci seconded The motion carried, 3-2, with Masci and Fenn opposed Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved that staff return with specific language in regard to the enforcement remedies. Ms. Fenn seconded The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. Amendment: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of staff's suggested Amendment #12, Exhibit C, Section 2. 71.040, Authority and functions of the tree committee. Ms. Robinson seconded The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. Mr. Randall stated that in amendment #2, the definition of "abutting" should be changed to the correct term which is "contiguous" - meaning lands having a common border. Amendment: Mr. Masci moved that amendment #2 be reconsidered and the word and definition for "abutting" be replaced the word and definition for "contiguous" as reflected in 17. 08. 020 and changed consistently throughout the ordinance. Ms. Robinson seconded The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 6 September 22, 2003 Mr. Masci stated that what could have been a simple ordinance became complicated because of the forest practice issue. He estimated, based on Mr. Randall's memo regarding staff, that the ordinance probably cost at least $50,000 to prepare; he stated he has never been satisfied that urgency or need have been demonstrated; he added that enforcement of this type of ordinance gives police authority to city staff members and puts government in the backyards of citizens. He has no problem regulating trees on public land but believes there is legal precedent against being able to enforce on private lands. Ms. Sandoval spoke in support of the ordinance and referred to many policies of the Comprehensive Plan which encourage the council to look into the future kind of community we want to live in, including protecting neighborhood character and native vegetation. She stated this ordinance would help us carry our Comprehensive Plan vision farther and help citizens to be more thoughtful. Ms. Fenn expressed disappointment that there was not more discussion of the 40,000 square foot exemption limit. She stated that a property as large as 8 city lots could be exempted. She added that the CD/LU committee had discussed exemption levels of 10 and 20,000 square feet and somewhere that rose to 40,000. She stated there has not been a good and full public debate about that issue. Ms. Sandoval stated she agrees personally that most residential holdings are between 5 and 10,000 square feet and that 40,000 square feet seems like a large area for exemption; however she added that considering the 20 months of work by committee and Planning Commission, with very full discussion about a variety of sizes, and citizens may now be assured that the city is not policing in their backyard. Mayor Kolff stated he would like to honor the work and compromises that have come from the public process although he would personally like a smaller number. He noted that the ordinance had to be crafted to be supported by the broader community and that it is a strong commitment to future generations and the way the city develops. Vote: motion carried 4-1, by roll call vote, Masci opposed RECESS Mayor Kolff declared a recess at 8:30 for the purpose of a break. Ms. Sandoval's participation in the meeting ended. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:40 p.m. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 7 September 22, 2003 RESOLUTION NO. 03-028 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD AND EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE THOMAS OIL DOCK ON BEHALF OF THE NORTHWEST MARITIME CENTER City Manager Timmons noted that passage of the resolution would facilitate the demolition and reconstruction of the Thomas Oil dock. He suggested that the final paragraph be amended to change "contract" to "necessary contracts." There was no public comment. Motion: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of Resolution 03-028, amended to change "contract" to "necessary contracts" Ms. Robinson seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0, by voice vote. RECOMMENDATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & LAND USE COMMITTEE REGARDING POTENTIAL POCKET PARK IN THE AREA OF 22~r~ STREET City Attorney Watts explained the proposal in detail and explained that certain legal issues regarding property ownership and public right of way would be addressed by the administration as part of the planning process if the recommendation were approved. He added that an adjacent neighbor owning developed property and vacant lots submitted material to the CD/LU and Park and Recreation Committee in opposition to the proposal, citing issues about whether the proposal is consistent with the Parks Plan, whether there are standards about where pocket parks should be located, and whether 22nd and Wilson Street rights of way can be legally incorporated into a park. He noted that the right of way issue would be deferred until after council action; if the recommendation goes forward, then the right of way issue would need to be addressed and the administration and planning level to determine how much land is actually available for a park. Mr. Kolff stated the Committee felt the park compatible with the Park Plan which describes pocket parks as small as one tenth of an acre and areas within a quarter mile radius. He added that not much use of the rights of way would be required to make it a functional pocket park. In answer to a question from Ms. Robinson, Mr. Watts sated that under any configuration for the park, no private parcels would be land locked with termination of access. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 8 September 22, 2003 Public comment: Matthew Dillon: stated the location has an exceptional view which is unusual in that part of town and that would make it a good location for a park. He added in regard to the concerns of the cemetery administrator, there are already foot pathways into the cemetery so this would not add to that risk. Jim Todd: stated he strongly supports the recommendation. Randy Welle: also spoke in support of the recommendation. Dana Roberts: stated he endorses the concept of the park, and asked the council to think about the trail potential; he stated he does not want a negative precedent set which would preclude parks from containing trails. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to adopt the recommendation of the CD/LU Committee and endorse the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board with the focus being on the City-owned lot and however much of the rights of way can be reasonably incorporated, and task staff to implement the park consistent with the Park and Recreation Advisory Board recommendation. Ms. Robinson seconded. [Park & Recreation Advisory Board Recommendation: to recommend that the proposed area, including areas consisting of the "triangle" (approximately 1725 SF), the parcel of nd Wilson and 22 street rights of way around the triangle (approximately 1/3 acres total including the 1,725 SF triangle), the parcel within 22na street right of way to the West (approximately 1/10 acre), and the "tail" (property within 22na street right of way nd extending to the east, and north of developed 22 ) is a desirable pocket park consistent with the Parks Functional Plan; that the park be implemented through the adopt-a-park program without significant City funding; if no one accepts the adopt-a-park responsibilities, then the proposal goes to the bottom of the list of parks in terms of funding and priority; that any implementation take into account protection of the Laurel Grove cemetery]. Mr. Youse arrived at the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Masci commented that he does appreciate the concern of the Masons regarding access to the cemetery and perhaps a fence would mitigate their concerns. He also stated that it is gratifying to see something, which began, as an acrimonious neighborhood debate turn into a positive outcome. Mr. Masci suggested that Ms. Fenn recuse herself from the voting on the matter because the property in question is partly owned by A1 Frank. Ms. Fenn noted that if she recused herself from vote because of disagreements with citizens, all council members would be recusing themselves all the time. She then stated she supports the motion because of the public benefit to the neighborhood. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 9 September 22, 2003 Ms. Robinson stated this would be a good use of the small piece of city-owned property. Mr. Youse asked Mr. Timmons what the cost to the city would be for maintenance of the park. Mr. Timmons replied he does not have any numbers at this time, but could make a rough calculation based on the maintenance schedule. Mr. Kolff noted that the Park and Recreation Advisory Board was also concerned about the financial impact; recommendation was to make this a priority only if a group adopts the park and works with the City. Vote: motion carried 4-1, by voice vote, Youse opposed RECOMMENDATION OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE REGARDING COUNCIL COMPENSATION Mr. Masci recounted the discussion and recommendation of the committee, to 1) raise council salaries from $250 to $500 per month and establish the Mayor's salary at $250 above the compensation he/she receives as a Councilor and 2) City provide medical benefits for Councilors with Councilors paying the premium cost to the City. There was no public comment. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to raise City Council salaries for Councilors who are eligible after January 1, 2004 and in 2004 there will be an increase of$100 a month, in 2005 another increase bringing salaries up to $450 per month for those eligible, and an increase to $500 in 2006 and that the Mayor's salary be set at a flat $750 per month beginning after the election in January 2004. Mr. Kolff seconded. Mr. Masci asked for the rationale behind the motion. Ms. Fenn stated it is not such an abrupt shift. Mr. Youse stated that he doesn't disagree with providing medical insurance but that it is unworkable since four Councilors have to buy in to the program. He stated it is not predictable and could change as Council members change. Mr. Kolff stated the gradual raises would have less impact on the city budget. Ms. Robinson stated concems; she said she is glad to see the gap between the Mayor and other Councilors decrease; the salary comparison provided showing our ranking compared to other city councils under the manager/council form of government shows we are just where we should be; she stated she can see no justification from this comparison to raise compensation. She added that in talking with citizens, the primary reason people City Council Special Business Meeting Page 10 September 22, 2003 are not interested in running for office is not "because you don't pay enough" but has more to do with the atmosphere and tone of the meetings. Mr. Youse stated better compensation would open the offices up to a broader spectrum in the City. He stated that perhaps Port Townsend should lead the way in raising compensation for elected officials and noted there may be other differences among the comparable cities, including number of meetings. Mr. Masci stated that the Mayor's salary should include a base Council salary in case the Mayor is recalled - as written, that official might not be eligible for any salary. Mr. Kolff supported rewording so the mayor's salary would be the Councilor's base salary plus whatever amount it takes to get it to $750 per month. Amendment: Mr. Kolff moved that the mayor's salary would be the council member base salary plus additional compensation to equal a total of $750/month. Mr. Masci seconded The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. Vote on main motion: motion failed, with three in favor and Robinson and Youse opposed Motion affecting the budget required four votes (majority of full Council) to pass. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to adopt the recommendation of the General Government Committee that prior to the elections, the Council act to raise all council salaries from $250 to $500 per month and that the Mayor's salary be established at $250 above the compensation rate received by the Councilor elected to the position and that the raise go into effect January 1, 2004, for those Councilors who are eligible; and the City provide medical benefits for Councilors on a paid basis (Councilors to pay actual cost to the City) if the A WC trust allows). Mr. Youse seconded Vote: motion failed, 2-3 with Robinson, Fenn and Kolff opposed Motion: Mr. Youse moved to increase eligible Council members'salaries by $125 per month in 2004 and $125 per month in 2005 and to establish salaries at $500 per month in 2006 with the Mayor's salary to be base salary plus whatever additional funding is necessary to total $750. O0 Mr. Masci seconded Ms. Fenn stated she is uncomfortable with the vote because due to mostly unopposed races, it is known who will be taking office. Mr. Masci noted this was under discussion prior to the time candidates filed for office. Mr. Youse spoke in favor of the motion, stating he believes we lose representation from a large portion of the city by having salaries so low. He believes the proposal is fair. Vote: motion carried, 4-1, with Robinson opposed City Council Special Business Meeting Page 11 September 22, 2003 STREET FUNDING ISSUES Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to postpone the presentation until the next business meeting on October 6. Ms. Robinson seconded Mr. Youse stated he would like to continue with the presentation and discussion. Mr. Kolff suggested a short staff presentation without Council discussion. Mr. Kolff proposed a friendly amendment to hear the staff presentation this evening and postpone discussion or action. There was no objection Vote: motion as amended carried 4-1, with Mr. Youse opposed City Manager Timmons presented information about street funding which was discussed at the Transportation Committee. Mr. Fenn stated that at the August 18 meeting Council supported a resolution which itemized information requested; she would like to see that information on October 6, particularly cost to run a street levy next year and an opinion from Mr. Watts about whether streets are considered "essential" services. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Attest: City Clerk City Council Special Business Meeting Page 12 September 22, 2003