Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07052005 . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 5, 2005 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this fifth day of July, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend temporary Council Chambers In the Cedar Room of the Waterman & Katz Building, Mayor Catharine Robinson presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were Frank Benskin, Kees Kolff, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. Freida Fenn and Geoff Masci were excused. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy CHANGES TO THE AGENDA . There were no changes proposed to the agenda. PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Robinson read the following proclamations: Acknowledging the contributions of the Shoreline Advisory Group. Acknowledging City Clerk Pam Kolacy for ten years of service in that position. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Kolff moved for approval of the following items on the Consent Agenda. Ms. Sandoval seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. Approval of the following Bills, Claims and Warrants . Vouchers 94446 through 94473 in the amount of $26,738.67 City Council Business Meeting Page 1 July 5, 20051 . Voucher 94489 in the amount of $7,654.76 Vouchers 622051 through 622053 in the amount of $120.47 Approval of Minutes June 13, 2005 Workshop; June 13, 2005 Special Business; June 20, 2005 Approval of Action: Approve agreement by and between Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend for Public Infrastructure Project Funding for Sims Way project. UNFINISHED BUSINESS . ORDINANCE 2899 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON ADOPTING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE NARRATIVE TEXT AND TABLES OF CHAPTER 19.05 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE (PTMC), "ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS," IN ORDER TO INCLUDE THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE AS REQUIRED UNDER RCW 36.70a.172, AND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH, AND IMPLEMENT THE GOAL AND POLICY DIRECTION CONTAINED IN THE PORT TOWNSEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; ALL IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 20.04 PTMC AND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED (CHAPTER 36.70A RCW) Eric Toews of Cascadia Planning reviewed the packet material; he noted that first reading of the ordinance occurred on June 20. He added that since then questions have been raised regarding references to or adoption of the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (DOE SWM) as the standard for critical area project approvals. He stated that at the last meeting it was recommended the code be adopted as it is currently before Council, including a generic reference within the document to the Engineering Design Standards Manual. Additional material has been submitted by Nancy Dorgan relating to this topic and urging that the City adopt the DOE SWM sooner rather than later and concurrent with or as part of the ordinance. Mr. Toews provided a list of three possible approaches: (A) adopting Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) as per agenda bill recommendation (A-1); adopting CAO with a Council Resolution directing implementation of 2005 DOE SWM by 12/05; and (B) adopting CAO and immediate adoption of 2005 DOW SWM with delayed effective date. . City Council Business Meeting Page 2 July 5, 20051 . Mr. Toews stated that the 2005 DOW SWM Manual has literally been received by City staff today; it is still very new to all and there has been no opportunity to fully digest the document. Mr. Benskin asked why the dates of potential final action are inconsistent; Mr. Toews replied that doing the Stormwater Plan first and Engineering Design Standards second would mean that much of the thinking and review necessary would occur during the update to the Stormwater Plan; with reversed priorities, there would still be public process and the need particularly to make sure the public was on board with particular capital improvement programs. Although some time savings could be achieved in the overall effort by adopting Stormwater Plan first and updated EDS second, there is not a significant difference. Public Works Director Ken Clow confirmed that the entire process will take a year if a realistic scheduled is followed; he stated this again depends on the amount of public process provided and the amount of public comment received. In response to Ms. Sandoval, Mr. Clow noted that when the decision is made to implement a new Stormwater Manual, it will give an indication of what the implications are to public and private development; the current consultant contract scope of work is to give us a clear idea of what the costs are and what the effort will be. . Mr. Kolff asked what the disadvantage would be to choosing (B). Mr. Clow stated he is not sure; he stated that since he has not been able to look at the 2005 SWM yet; staff is unable to make a fair and honest assessment of all the implications and make an informed decision. This may be difficult by adopting something we haven't even seen yet. Mr. Timmons stated that the City may wish to adopt higher standards in some instances, particularly as regards street design; adopting the standards as is may force us into a design not appropriate to an historic neighborhood. Mr. Watts stated that the standard is not mandated for adoption; it is recommended with respect to stormwater management that at least one theory satisfies state requirements for best available science - a theory that if you adopt the DOE SWM you have met all the best available science; however, as long as deviations can be justified based on local conditions and a record is established of the process you have used to tailor the plan to your local conditions, that would probably meet the requirement for best available science. . One of the downsides we have discussed in immediate adoption of the manual is that if we adopt it as part of the Critical Areas Ordinance but don't adopt is as a citywide standards, then there would be inconsistent standards, one applicable to critical areas and one to non-critical areas. If you adopt in (B) the state standard for critical and non-critical areas, then you have adopted a manual without going through any kind of process. For critical areas, review has been done by City Council Business Meeting Page 3 July 5, 20051 . Planning Commission and through public hearings. If the state manual were adopted now, we would have adopted a non-critical areas standard without any review or public process. Mr. Benskin asked what the cost of the contract for review of stormwater manual is. Mr. Timmons noted the first stage is $7,500; part of that is to outline the process and amount of time it will take and the amount of consultant hours and then come up with a budget which will be subject to Council approval. Mrs. Medlicott asked why these options are before the Council when no one has even looked at the manual and when we don't know the cost of implementation. Mr. Toews said the recommendation is not to adopt the DOT SWM tonight but to move on the course we have previously charted, which is to adopt the CAO which makes generic reference to the DES as a technical source for the approach to stormwater; in other words, the SWM would not be adopted as part of the CAO. The City would continue to plan and in 2006 would adopt either the 2005 manual or its functional equivalent. Mr. Timmons noted that the CAO needs to be updated to bring it up to compliance and also it is currently problematic to administer. . Mrs. Medlicott asked what is mandated. Mr. Timmons stated we have to do the critical areas ordinance; we will have to adopt a stormwater plan at some point. In answer to Ms. Sandoval's question, Mr. Toews stated the current standard in the County is the 2001 stormwater manual and that this is a mandate of state, not federal, law. Mr. Benskin asked for clarification regarding upland buffers. Mr. Toews noted that the code establishes a management zone within which the experts are called in and asked to ascertain appropriate buffer for special area through geotechnical studies. Ms. Robinson asked Mr. Toews to address the additional two findings recommended in his memo dated June 30, 2005. Mr. Toews stated that these are suggested as additions if Council chooses option A, adoption of the ordinance as currently written. The findings address the concerns about adopting current stormwater standards. Ms. Robinson stated she is in favor of adopting the ordinance as quickly as possible, rather than delaying until a stormwater update is completed. . Mr. Toews stated that staff believes implementation of the updated critical areas standards now would be more advantageous than delaying to wait for the stormwater updates. City Council Business Meeting Page 4 JUly 5, 20051 . Public comment: Jim Hagen: (Cape George) asked what an equivalent function would be if it is unknown what the new standards are; who bears the cost for geotechnical studies if needed for critical areas; is equal treatment given to all concerns raised by citizens - what level of expertise enables a citizen this kind of standing in public decisions (referring to Ms. Dorgan's letters). Mr. Toews stated that the state requires that the City adopt either the 2005 Stormwater Manual or something that is a functional equivalent; he stated he is not aware of a hard and fast timeline for that adoption; the issue of stormwater management has been important in regard to the critical areas ordinance; until a new manual is adopted, the City would continue to implement the adopted Engineering Design Standards referred to in the ordinance, based on the 1992 ecology manual. Mr. Timmons noted this might come up if there were an appeal or finding regarding best available science under a particular analysis or an appeal of the development regulations themselves. . Mr. Toews stated that the burden of providing the geotechnical analysis is on the development applicant although there may be certain circumstances where special reports might be waived if the DSD Director feels they would not be relevant. In regard to the issue of stormwater management raised by Ms. Dorgan, he noted that this was a topic of lengthy deliberation by Planning Commission and staff so did not come just from a citizen comment. Ms. Robinson asked if the findings having to do with setting deadlines and direction to staff are sufficient to cover concerns or whether the Council should pass a separate resolution. Mr. Toews noted that option A with inclusion of the two additional findings is a sensible approach; the findings are somewhat less definitive than a resolution; the effect of adopting A(1) would reverse the priority, making the Engineering Design Standards the first priority and the stormwater plan second. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved for adoption of Ordinance 2899 with the addition of the non-substantive clarifications to Chapter 19.05 recommended by DSD staff and the addition of suggested findings 33 and 34 as presented in the Cascadia Memorandum dated June 30, 2005. Ms. Robinson seconded. . Mr. Benskin suggested an amendment to run the stormwater plan update and the update of the Engineering Design Standards concurrently and set a completion date of December 2005. There was no support expressed for the amendment and it was not seconded. City Council Business Meeting Page 5 July 5, 20051 . The motion carried, 4-1, by roll call vote, with Medlicott opposed. ORDINANCE 2898 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF TITLE 17 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ZONING, DEFINING DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES, FOURPLOEXES, TOWNHOUSES, AND ATTACHED SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLINGS; AND ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING INTENDED TO COMPLY WITH SENATE BILL 6593; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND THE NEED TO AMEND THE PORT TOWNSEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OUTSIDE OF THE ANNUAL AMENDMENT CYCLE TO MODIFY POLICY 7.3 OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO PERMIT MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT PORT TOWNSEND SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE STANDARDS Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall reviewed the packet materials, including a list of answers to the questions posed by the Council. . Public comment: None Ms. Sandoval voiced her reluctance to support the ordinance as it is presented because of the lack of minimum size restriction. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved for adoption of Ordinance 2898. Mr. Kolff seconded. Motion to Amend: Mr. Benskin moved to amend the ordinance by eliminating the requirement for a minimum roof pitch of 3:12 (Section 1, paragraph 2). Mrs. Medlicott seconded. In answer to questions from Mrs. Medlicott, Mr. Randall clarified that site built homes do not have roof pitch requirements, except as related to certain materials. He added that a traditional difficulty regarding manufactured housing is that with a flat roof, they do not look comparable to site built homes in a neighborhood, particularly if they have no architectural features to relieve the box-like look. . Mr. Timmons noted there are other provisions in the regulations that practically eliminate the need for the restriction; for example, most of the homes produced now do have pitched roofs; the requirement that manufactured homes must be newer models, and the fact that there may be restrictive covenants and other City Council Business Meeting Page 6 July 5, 20051 . residential zoning criteria applied. He added there is no intent on the part of the staff to be discriminatory; he suggested that eliminating the roof pitch requirement would probably not materially impact the type of housing that would be introduced and it is more likely that manufactured home industry standards would rule. Vote on amendment: amendment carried, 3-2, by voice vote, Robinson and Sandoval opposed. Motion to amend: Ms. Sandoval moved to amend the ordinance by putting back the requirement for a minimum dimension of 24 x 36. Ms. Robinson seconded. Ms. Sandoval stated that this would make the ordinance more consistent and that eliminating these criteria on the basis that it would affect affordable housing is not logical because there is no financing available on smaller (single wide) units. Mr. Benskin stated that because manufactured housing requires HUD approval that would be the deciding factor for size of the unit as well. Vote: amendment failed 0-5, by voice vote. Vote on motion as amended: motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by roll call vote. . RECESS Mayor Robinson declared a recess at 8:25 p.m. for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:34 p.m. ORDINANCE 2902 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND REVISING AND RESTABLISHING FEES FOR THE SWIMMING PROGRAMS AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2730 . Public Works Director Ken Clow noted that the issue before the Council is reinstatement of the 25% differential for non-city resident pool users. He stated revenues from the pool average about $70,000 per year, which includes swim team and YMCA use. About 30% of pool users are non-residents and if we assumed no change in participation, the estimated revenue from the fee adjustment would be $4,500. He added that staff suggests the new fees would go into effect about three months after adoption so that staff could have plenty of time to notify users. City Council Business Meeting Page 7 July 5, 20051 . He added that there are individuals who reside outside the City but own property within the City who therefore pay City taxes; he asked for clarification from the Council as to whether residency would be the test of whether a user pays the City or non-resident rate. In response to Mrs. Medlicott's question, Mr. Clow stated the pool costs about $200,000 per year to run. Mr. Clow stated he does not have information with him regarding the breakdown of passholders vs. single use clients; he can provide that information later. Mr. Benskin stated that there may be non-tax paying City residents using the pool. Mr. Clow stated that those people (renters, for example) are paying indirectly as the landlord passes the taxes on to renters. Ms. Sandoval asked how it would be determined whether users were city or non- city residents. Mr. Clow stated that it would primarily be the honor system for single uses; passholders residency would probably be confirmed if there were a question. . Mr. Benskin asked about the cost of implementation in terms of staffing, bookkeeping, etc. Mr. Clow stated there may be a few extra minutes involved for checking residency for passholders, but he does not believe there will be significant additional staff time. He believes initially the staff will be taking comments from those who now have to pay more and explaining the new system. Public comment None Motion: Mrs. Medlicott moved for first reading of Ordinance 2901. Mr. Kolff seconded. Amendments: three "friendly" amendments were accepted by the Council: 1) make the effective date October 1, 2005; 2) round the fees to the nearest dollar: single use Youth $3.00, Adult $4.00, Senior $3.00, Kiddie $2.00; 3) in third Whereas, change "County" to "non-City." Ms. Robinson stated she has heard from may pool users and staff who are wiling to pay more to keep the pool going and help defray the costs. Mr. Benskin stated that his preference would be a 20% across the board raise since there are those in the City who use the pool but do not pay taxes. . City Council Business Meeting Page 8 July 5, 20051 . Vote on first reading as amended: motion carried, 4-1, by voice vote, Benskin opposed. NEW BUSINESS Resolution 05-027 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN CHANGE ORDERS TO THE CITY HALL IMPROVEMENTS AND ANNEX ADDITION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET TO PROVIDE A FIRE SUPPRESSION SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO THE SECOND FLOOR OF HISTORIC CITY HALL . Mr. Timmons stated that the City has an opportunity to install a fire suppression system for the second floor of historic City Hall; the roof replacement will begin next week and a supplemental budget of $31,250 would enable the City to install the system now in order to avoid costly demolition and rehabilitation of the second floor ceilings at a later date after roof work is completed. The Historical Society has already paid for suppression on the first floor and basement. The amount stated would be added to the proposed $750,000 capital bond. The issue is brought before the Council separately due to the short timeline for accomplishment. Mrs. Medlicott asked how much is left in the contingency fund. Mr. Clow stated there is about $15,000 left but most of this will be taken up by smaller projects in historic City Hall. Mr. Benskin asked about the heating system for the second floor; Mr. Timmons stated that we are working on the mechanical and electrical interior infrastructure as part of the completion of the total project. In answer to Mr. Kolff's question, Mr. Timmons stated that there is considerable savings associated with doing this now rather than coming in later and removing sections of the new roof or the ceiling and plaster. An alternative might be exposed piping which would not contribute to the best historical look and feel. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to approve Resolution 05-027. Ms. Sandoval seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. PRESIDING OFFICER'S REPORT . City Council Business Meeting Page 9 July 5, 20051 . Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to accept the Mayor's recommendation and confirm the following appointments. Ms. Sandoval seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. Arts Commission: Joey Pipia (position 8, term expires May 1,2007) Historic Preservation Committee: Marsha Moratti (position 6, term expires May 1, 2007) Jefferson County Substance Abuse Advisory Board: Catharine Robinson CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Timmons made some clarifications about the Upper Sims Way project. He noted there are no foregone conclusions regarding the actual project (i.e., roundabout, or traffic light) and emphasized that Sims Way is a state highway and nothing can be done which doesn't meet with approval from the DOT. The cap for funding from the Infrastructure fund is $300,000. . Mr. Clow clarified that the workshop presentation to the Council regarding upper Sims Way was simply feedback from the design charrette; it was not a proposed plan. Public infrastructure fund. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:19 p.m. Attest: Q~~~ Pam Kolacy, CMC City Clerk . City Council Business Meeting Page 10 July 5, 20051