Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07182005 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 18, 2005 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this eighteenth 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, Freida Fenn, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, and Catharine Robinson. Michelle Sandoval was excused. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, Finance Director Michael Legarsky, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA . There were no changes to the agenda. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AWARD - DEPT. OF ECOLOGY Representatives from the Washington Department of Ecology were on hand to award the Wastewater Treatment Plant Award to the staff at the Wastewater and Compost Facilities. Facilities Manager John Merchant accepted the award, and introduced staff members Jim Freitas and Mike Bartkus who were present. Mr. Merchant also acknowledged Marel Harstad, Dave Rodia and Bliss Morris. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (Consent and non-agenda items) Mary Norwood: recommended quick resolution of golf course lease. Coila Sheard: concerned about tree overhanging the public bench in front of the Sand castle as the resident birds make a mess of the bench and sidewalk; asked if she could trim the tree at her own expense. Arlene lardella: resolution of golf course lease. . Nancy Stelow: thanked the City on behalf of Soroptimists for assistance with Adopt A Park project in Triangle Park. Specifically mentioned Ken Clow, John Merchant, and Steve Corrao City Council Business Meeting Page 1 July 18, 2005 Jack Caldwell: resolution of golf course lease. . Naomi Marcus: resolution of golf course lease. City Manager Timmons replied to concerns regarding the Golf Course lease: stated there has been discussion and a tentative agreement on general terms and the balance of the negotiations will be directed at clarifying capital item issues, which have been issues of contention in the past and which the committee recommended be carefully crafted within the lease agreement. The initial schedule was to start negotiations in June and so that schedule is being met. He stated the City is waiting for information from Mr. Early and that there is a need to free up some time from the many other projects so the City Attorney can review the lease. He also noted there are 18 months left on the current lease and there would be no problem authorizing particular projects under the current lease terms. He stated his reason for wanting to meet with the Task Force was that he has never met with them and wanted to hear first hand some of their ideas about capital improvements as they asked for a careful listing attached to the lease. He added that Council has accepted the Task Force Report but they have not acted on approval of a new lease agreement. He stated the City has been criticized for not investing in the Golf Course and he wants to make sure terms are very clear so the City can come forward with a proposal that will not be regretted or undeliverable in the future. CONSENT AGENDA . Motion: Mr. Kolff moved for approval of the foJ/owing items on the Consent Agenda. Ms. Fenn seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. (Mrs. Medlicott asked if Item D had anything to do with roundabouts and was told it does not.) Approval of Bills, Claims and Warrants Vouchers 94474 through 94488 in the amount of $48,064.25 Vouchers 94490 through 94589 in the amount of $72,323.10 Vouchers 705051 through 705058 in the amount of $72,916.10 Voucher 94762 in the amount of $3,550,000.00 Vouchers 94591 through 94761 in the amount of $801 ,358.71 Approval of Minutes: July 5, 2005 July 11, 2005 Adoption of Ordinance 2903, vacating Blocks 2 and 3 of Bornstein's Addition to the City of Port Townsend, including all street rights-of-way and alleys lying therein; reserving utility and non-motorized easements as conditions of the plat vacation; and establishing an effective date. . Approval of Resolution 05-029, amending the 2006-2011 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program to clarify funding of a project and authorizing the City Manager to submit this to the State. City Council Business Meeting Page 2 July 18, 2005 . Approval of Resolution 05-028, authorizing the City Manager to award and execute a construction contract for the completion of the sewer outfall replacement by pipe bursting project. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE 2904 AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF 16TH AND 17TH STREETS BETWEEN THOMAS AND MCPHERSON, AND A PORTION OF MCPHERSON BETWEEN DISCOVERY ROAD AND 17TH, IN THE EISENBEIS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS TO THE STREET VACATION; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Mayor Robinson reviewed the rules of procedure for public hearings. She asked if any Council members had any financial or property interests to disclose in connection with the matter. There were none. . City Attorney John Watts stated that consultant Rick Sepler, who processed the project application, was not able to attend the meeting. He reviewed the packet materials and noted that this street vacation is part of a replat and not a street vacation pursuant to the road law of 1890. He explained that because this is a short plat (8 lots or fewer) which requires administrative (not hearing examiner) approval, and because a street vacation requires a public hearing before the Council, a bifurcation of the project occurs, with the street vacation portion coming before the Council. Mr. Watts stated that many comment letters were received during the administrative plat process objecting to the road configuration; however, technically that question is not before the Council as the administrative decision on this configuration was not appealed and is therefore final. The issue before the Council is whether to approve the street vacation on condition of the rededication of a portion of the rights of way. A question was brought up as to whether the Towne Point access is a public road; Mr. Watts stated that city records and documents show the access off Discovery to Towne Point is a public right of way and that determination was not appealed. A comment letter was also received from Jefferson Transit; the City's consultant talked with a Transit representative and the final result is that they can live with the one-way street through the plat. If they go in with the Dial A Ride vehicle, they would not pull into a driveway but stop mid block for somewhere between 30 seconds and two minutes so may delay traffic briefly. This would remove the problem of having to back out of a driveway and into the road. . Mr. Watts stated that a typographical error on the published notice indicates proposed vacation of 18th Street rather than 1 ih Street and to avoid any possible legal problem, the Council is advised to take comment tonight and continue the City Council Business Meeting Page 3 July 18, 2005 public hearing so that further public comment may be taken on August 1 and action taken at that time. . Michael Anderson, agent for proponents: Mr. Anderson stated he concurs with the findings of the city and agrees that, although information was provided regarding the process, none of the items questioned were appealed and therefore discussion is not germane. He stated that the process began last September and was lengthy. He said the final conclusion was that the one-way street was the safest since McPherson and Discovery are both major arterials and exiting onto them could crate safety issues. He added that this is an infill project and there were rights of way not being used that could better be used as a residential lot and this is consistent with the existing zoning. He stated that Widmer is one of the partners in the project and Giles is the other. Public comment: Warren Stanton: Towne Point property owner stated that the boundary for 1th Street is common to the buffer zone between Towne Point and the vacated Street and expressed concerns about the easement. . Jim Dornan: Vice President of the Towne Point Owners Association wanted to make sure that the City is only approving the vacated lots belonging to the City and that final action will be taken August 1. He stated he has not yet seen the final plat survey and wants to verify the property lines as far as the Towne Point buffer goes. Hector Munn: resident of Towne Point - stated that residents thought there was an understanding that the sidewalk would be extended along Towne Point Avenue; he heard that the sidewalk is only being built along Lot 1. He said this is important because children use the street a lot and it would be confusing to have only a partial sidewalk with a gap between sections. Staff response Mr. Watts requested that the applicant be allowed to respond to the question about the buffer and also the sidewalk. He stated that the plat survey is a legal requirement. Michael Anderson stated the sidewalk along Lot 8 was never shown on any of the applicant's drawings and was not discussed to his recollection. He believes it was assumed at the general meeting that it was going to go all the way to the perimeter, but never formally discussed; he added that if Towne Point is proposing to construct a sidewalk for the rest of their project, the developer would be happy to work out an amicable solution with them. He estimated this would require another 500 square feet of sidewalk. . City Council Business Meeting Page 4 July 18, 2005 . Regarding the final survey, he stated the applicants would honor the buffer created as part of the plat, and have even accepted the condition for temporary easement for the encroachment of the fence. A survey will be done on completion of the improvements to show all the information required by law. Mr. Timmons stated that the City's rights of way in the existing plats are easements only and the city does not own the underlying land. The plat is a rededication in fee simple which the city will actually own. Ms. Robinson stated her understanding that the Council's purview in this matter is strictly the street vacation and does not have to do with the plat. Mr. Watts replied that is true except if the street vacation were denied, it would require the proponent to go back to the drawing board. Mr. Kolff asked if the Council could attach a condition to the street vacation if they feel it would be appropriate to have the sidewalk extended along 18th Street. Mr. Watts replied that it could be conditioned if the Council felt it would serve the public interest. Mr. Benskin asked if the Fire Department has reviewed the proposal. Mr. Watts replied that the Fire Department is always part of the design review process. . Mr. Masci asked if the body of McPherson is outside this boundary. Mr. Watts stated that is correct, the area proposed for vacation is the east half of McPherson which would be incorporated into the sidewalk and Lot 5. It mayor may not be appropriate to vacate north of that; it doesn't appear to be necessary for the plat although it is proposed for vacation on Map 3. The access road would be on the west half of McPherson and the east half would be vacated to the applicant. Mrs. Medlicott asked how wide an ordinary street is in Towne Point. Mr. Timmons noted the typical right of way is 60 feet and typical curb to curb in a modern subdivision is 30 feet. Mr. Anderson noted that a minimum city street is 16 feet of pavement in two directions and typical minimum right of way is 50 feet. He stated the typical width in Towne Point is 40 feet and pavements vary from 26 feet to 28 or 30 in the new right of way. Streets with 26-foot width have parking on both sides; however the proposed narrower one-way street was chosen for safety reasons and would not require an opening in the median of the Town Pointe Road. Mrs. Medlicott asked if there is an increase in density caused by the street vacation (seven lots to eight lots.) Mr. Timmons noted that the increase in density is subject to the mitigations the applicants have agreed upon. . Michael Anderson responded to the density issue, noting that the property could have been developed as it stands by building 1 ih Street and acquiring in and out access along that road which would have necessitated access on Discovery, City Council Business Meeting Page 5 July 18, 2005 . McPherson, or Towne Point for each lot. He noted the City is required to provide access one-way or the other; those improvements would have cost more and there would have been more roads. He said the initial plat did not anticipate Discovery Road coming in at an angle. He said he does not see this as an increase in density, but the best utilization of land available now; through this process the City is gaining access of ten feet which they wouldn't have had before. This will allow Discovery to be improved in the future to its planned width. The City is gaining a ten-foot dedication for an arterial road that it would not achieve except for the subdivision. He stated that the 32-foot width is a compromise, but makes for a satisfactory road, with 26 feet for pavement, a five-foot sidewalk and 5 foot public utility easement. He added this is the best utilization of the property and achieves eight standard size 5,000 square foot lots, gives 10 feet to the City and provides a satisfactory road with safe access. Mr. Kolff asked if there has been any discussion as to which side will have parking allowed and which won't in terms of which side would be the safest. Mr. Clow answered that staff has looked at the south side but the comment by Jefferson Transit brings up a different consideration and will make sure it works with all factors taken into consideration. . Ms. Robinson asked about the ten-foot dedication - since Discovery Road has a right of way including a sidewalk that has not been made use of for the most part, how would this ten-foot dedication interact with that. Mr. Clow stated the right of way of Discovery from Sheridan to outside of town is 60 feet, which is pretty narrow for a major corridor, so the extra ten feet does give extra area to help deal with adding sidewalks and utilities and in that way is a benefit to the City. In addition, he confirmed that it is not necessary to have that same ten feet all along the road in order to make use of it in this area. He stated it may enable the City to do some things here that could not be done in other places. Motion: Mr. Benskin moved to continue the public hearing to August 1. Mr. Kolff seconded. The motion carried, 5-1, Masci opposed. RECESS Mayor Robinson declared a recess at 8:05 for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:15 p.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ORDINANCE 2902 . City Council Business Meeting Page 6 July 18, 2005 . AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND REVISING AND ESTABLISHING FEES FOR THE SWIMMING PROGRAMS AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2730 Public Works Director Ken Clow reviewed the packet materials, noting that first reading of the ordinance had taken place on July 5. At that meeting Councilors requested alternative fee schedules which are attached for consideration. He added that information had been requested on the percentage of single fee vs. pass purchases and said that about one third of users are single pass users and two thirds operate on some kind of pass. He added that the issue of how to determine residence must also be determined, specifically, does a person who owns property in the City but does not reside within the City qualify as a City resident. Public comment None Motion: Mrs. Medlicott moved for approval of Ordinance 2902. Mr. Kolff seconded. . Mr. Masci spoke against the motion, citing additional bookkeeping for the pool staff, the potential to penalize the Port Townsend school district children who live outside the city limits; that it is the only pool in Jefferson County; and that all citizens should have access for health reasons and increased fees could be a significant deterrent towards cardio-pulmonary exercise. Motion to amend: Mr. Benskin moved to amend the ordinance by proposing an across the board fee increase of 20% and creating another category of 12 and 6 months passes, for seniors, which would be discounted by 20%. Mr. Masci seconded. Ms. Fenn and Ms. Robinson pointed out that the amendment would change the intent of the ordinance which was to impose a differential in the fee structure between city and non-city residents. Mr. Kolff stated he favors the reduced fees for seniors; he also noted that there is always the option to review fees again once a more equitable package with the County has been negotiated. Ms. Robinson noted it is not uncommon for services to be provided with differentiated rates based on geographic factors. Vote on amendment: failed, 2-4, Benskin and Masci in favor. . Motion to amend: Mr. Benskin moved to amend the motion by providing a delineation between six month and twelve month passes for adults and seniors, with the senior categories discounted by 20%. Mr. Kolff seconded. City Council Business Meeting Page 7 July 18, 2005 . Ms. Fenn commented that she feels the discount is too large and also that there are many affluent seniors who can easily pay these fees. If a category were established for discounts, she would rather see it targeting low-income seniors specifically. Mrs. Medlicott stated she believes a 20% increase is too much and could possibly support 10%. She added that costs are incurred to operate the pool and the City is coming nowhere near close to paying what it costs through user fees; in that sense the City is already doing a discount for service since we are not charging fees based on what it costs to operate the pool. Mr. Kolff noted that this would also create an additional layer of inquiry for the staff as to whether or not a person qualifies as a senior. Ms. Robinson notes that since city resident fees have not been increased, she would oppose adding a discount to those fees Mr. Benskin expressed dismay that we would resort to this sort of discrimination when such a small amount of money ($4-5,000) would be gained. Vote on amendment: failed, 2-4, Benskin and Masci in favor. Vote on main motion: carried, 4-2, Benskin and Masci opposed. . It was noted that the administration would work out the method for determining residency or property ownership within the City. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Timmons stated that the only bidder who responded to the third call for bids for the skate park had to be rejected due to an incomplete bid packet. He noted that the amount of the bid was also very high. He stated that the lack of bidders frees the city to negotiate a contract since no qualified bids were received. Staff will be talking to four firms. A condition of awarding the project will be to start within six weeks. Mr. Timmons noted that the city is on track for the date of possession of the new Fire Hall on July 27. The City Hall Annex windows are going in, electrical is approved and roof replacement on historic City Hall is well underway; he stated a time would be scheduled for the Council to do a walk through. Other updates concerned; . 1 ih Street project. Wastewater outfall Public Works meeting with North Beach neighborhood City Council Business Meeting Page 8 July 18, 2005 . General Government bargaining unit negotiations Event Coordinator applications New lodging tourism website to be launched Meeting with County Commissioners will be scheduled so Council and BOCC can discuss recreation funding. Staff met with Economic Development Council and requested the RFP process be modified with separate proposals for the county only and the county including the city. City Hall parking survey will be distributed. Purchase of three new servers is ongoing. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL Mr. Kolff expressed appreciation for the work staff is doing on updating the Council and keeping long-term projects on track. Ms. Fenn noted that she will be returning from being out of the state on August 15 and would like permission from the Council in advance to participate in that Council meeting by phone. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to aI/ow Ms. Fenn to participate in the August 15, 2005 business meeting by phone. Mr. Masci seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. . ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Attest: ~t2:la~~ City Clerk . City Council Business Meeting Page 9 July 18, 2005