Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09192005 . CITY OF !PORT TOWNSEND CI'TY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this sixth day of September, 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, Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, and Catharine Robinson. Frieda Fenn arrived at 6:35 p.m. and Michelle Sandoval arrived at 6:45. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, City Engineer Dave Peterson, Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall, Fire Chief Mike Mingee, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA . Mr. Benskin asked to remove item "0" from the Consent Agenda (scheduling motion). The item was placed as "G" under Unfinished Business. Freida Fenn arrived at 6:35 pm PRESENTATION Mayor Robinson introduced Dale Fezer of the VFW who presented the Patriots Pen Award to high school student Emily Kunz. Ms. Kunz read her winning essay on patriotism to the Council. Public Comment Frank Durbin: stated he has written a computer program to analyze the cities books and he will instruct staff or Council members who wish to use it. He provided handouts and discs. Michelle Sandoval arrived at 6:45 Judith Alexander stated that a group! is looking at whether Port Townsend can provide long-term recovery assistance to a particular town in the aftermath of . City Council Meeting Page 1 September 19, 2005 . Hurricane Katrina and would like an introduction to that town on behalf of the city government. Carla Main spoke on the same subject, saying the group wants to have a direct relationship with another community. They requested a letter of introduction from the Mayor, saying that our community wants to help. Consensus: discuss possible action under New Business. CONSENT AGENDA Motion: Mr. Masci moved for approval of the following items on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Koltt seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. Approval of the followinq Bills. Claims and Warrants Vouchers 95285 through 95468 in the amount of $763,302.49 Approval of Minute: September 6, 2005; August 22, 2005 Approval of Resolution . Resolution 05-037, endorsing the 2005 Port Townsend Film Festival and waiving . rental fee for use of the Pope Marine Park Building CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE 2909 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TABLE 17.22.020 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE INCREASING THE MAXIMUM SIZE ALLOWED FOR RESTAURANTS IN THE M-II(B) ZONING DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHING A MARITME CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT Mayor Robinson noted that the public hearing is now in session, continued from the September 6 meeting. . Staff referred Council to a memo from John McDonagh, documenting the written public comments resulting from a meeting of three HPC members. Concerns included infill development (Mr. Watts noted this is a Shoreline Master Plan issue); need for additional studies to compare the new building with other buildings along Jackson Street (could be part of the Conditional Use Permit which the ordinance calls for per Mr. Watts); concerns regarding the mixed-use development provisions of the proposed ordinances (also an SMP issue per Mr. Watts). The HPC members City Council Meeting Page 2 September 19, 2005 . I I were in agreement that 3,500 squard feet would be a reasonable size and preferable to an unlimited number of 1,500 square foot restaurants. The entire memo was distributed to the Council. Nancy Dorgan: referred to her previo,usly submitted written comments and read a portion for the council. She prefers limiting new Point Hudson restaurants to 2,000 square feet with no provision for a new hotel restaurant in the aggregate square footage cap. . Eric Toews, Cascadia Planning, on behalf of Tony and Betty Harriman, noted in regard to the staff report on HPC comments, that he understood the concern was an unlimited number of 1500 square foot restaurants under the existing code. He respectfully disagreed with Ms. Dorgan, pointing to the 3500 square foot limit as a product of careful deliberation by the Planning Commission and Shoreline Advisory Group. He stated that most of the HPC concerns seem relevant to the draft Shoreline Master Program review and mitigation of a specific development application. He stated that the proposal before the Council is narrow in scope and would make a restaurant theoretically possible, although no application is currently pending and any application would need a demolition permit, a shoreline permit, and HPC review. These factors will assure an attractive, well-defined building that adds to the Point Hudson district. He said his clients are committed to a quality development that the community will be proud of. He added that building scale is not the issue, only restaurant size is, that the Landfall site is redevelopment, not infill, and during the future Conditional Use Permit process, visuals will be provided about the look of the building. Larry Crockett: Director of Port of PT and member of SAG, stated that of all the public processes he has witnessed, this has been one of the most intense. He said that this code revision does reflect what the SAG has developed and that Ms. Dorgan's fears are not reflected in either the draft SMP or the code revision. He said that even the HPC concurs that the 3500 square foot restaurant cap is appropriate. The new square footage allowances will make the other restaurants at Point Hudson legal as they are currently far out of compliance; it also incorporates the Northwest Maritime Center. Mary Winters, Attorney for the Port of Port Townsend: stated it is hard to divide the issues, but to the extent the code applies to the Landfall, the definition is very precise and uses a great deal of review. There are many limitations on what can happen at Point Hudson and these will be seen shortly as part of the SMP process. Regarding restaurants, there is a total of 11,000 square feet allowed and currently over 5,500 square feet in use which leaves about 1,540 square feet and that would not allow another restaurant, but would allow an exiting restaurant to expand slightly. She said that is where the square footage limitation came from - to assure there would not be a proliferation of restaurants the town couldn't live with. There is considerable interest by the SAG and Planning Commission for Point Hudson to . City Council Meeting Page 3 September 19, 2005 . succeed as a whole and part of the effort was carving it into three districts with emphasis on the marine trades. Ms. Fenn asked if accommodations are currently allowed in Point Hudson. Mr. Watts stated they are not. Ms. Fenn asked what use class the restaurant would be. Ms. Sandoval (member of Shoreline Advisory Group) stated it would be under water enjoyment. Mrs. Medlicott asked how many members are on the Historic Preservation Committee. Answer is that there ar~ currently six members. Mrs. Medlicott noted that only three met to discuss the issue before Council. Mr. Kolff asked about the "square foot" definition. Mr. Toews noted that the total limit includes bathrooms, entries, pantries, etc. - everything within the building. Ms. Robinson asked if anyone in the audience wished to make a clarification on any issue brought up in the Council question period. . Larry Crocket added that the gross square footage numbers have been researched thoroughly and that everything within the restaurant is included including ADA restrooms and storage. Mr. Fenn noted that she voted in opposition to passage of the first reading of the ordinance as she wished to get more information, but she can imagine amending this draft so she could support it. She said that the 3500 square foot limit per restaurant is more than double the current legal limit and that it is a dramatic departure from a small-scale restaurant limit which results in an emphasis on marine trades. This replaces all other square footage use. She also stated she is trying not to encourage a spot rezone as uses exist longer than specific businesses. She urged Council to look at this in terms of holistic impact and how to converge into the SMP adoption later, continuing to think long term. Ms. Fenn said that Point Hudson has long been an incubator for small businesses and that every square foot that is put to tourist use is taken from the marine trades. She will propose a 2500 square foot limit as she has talked to experienced restaurant people and they agreed that would be sufficient. She does not want to see an exemption for a resort; currently accommodations are not an allowed use at Point Hudson and there are many other accommodations throughout the community that can be enjoyed by visitors. Land devoted to a conference center would replace land for maritime trades. Visitors should walk downtown and use the amenities there rather than expecting them all to be in Point Hudson, but the amenities are planted there in this consideration of restaurant size. . City Council Meeting Page 4 September 19, 2005 . Ms. Fenn urged retaining the provisiqn for a conditional use permit so that impacts may be mitigated for individual projeq;ts. She opposed sun setting of the ordinance when the SMP is adopted. She stated appropriate zoning should be adopted and ideas can shift if what we learn in the SMP process changes our mind. Ms. Sandoval reviewed her experience on the Shoreline Advisory Group. She noted that she felt there was never enough time but the group did work and came to agreements among many interests. She agrees there are contentious issues; we live in a town that is changing rapidly and the growth sometimes feels out of control. We are nervous with Point Hudson because we don't know what change will bring and there is a real desire to hold on to everything as it is today. She stated she doesn't think that is possible, it is extremely important for us to be well aware of the changes, try to stay ahead and work together to make sure we can manage the future in the best way possible. She wishes to keep point Hudson vital and exciting and cited a visit to Granville Island where uses are blended seamlessly. She stated that no one wants to eliminate marine trades, but additional activities can make an exciting mix. Regarding the proposed restaurant, the footprint of the current Landfall would remain the same but would have two floors; the SAG group wanted first floor uses to be marine trades. She agrees that the conditional use provision should remain. She stated she is not comfortable about no limit on decking area and believes that having a square footage limit would be good. . Mr. Kolff asked what process the Port would go through in bringing forward a resort application. Mr. Watts stated that ultimately with the adoption of a new SMP by Council, Council would determine the process. Mr. Crockett stated that a project would require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Conditional Use Permit would also be governed by the SMP, height limits, etc. Mr. Kolff stated he is leaning toward retaining the conditional use as part of this ordinance; he also believes it might be reasonable to ask how much deck space is ideal and whether it should be limited. Ms. Winters clarified that mixed-use development is defined with water enjoyment on the second floor which is where the restaurant would be. Ms. Robinson stated is it not clear in any of the materials what the first floor would be used for. . Staff noted by definition, mixed use has to be water-oriented, with water enjoyment on the second floor. Marine trades would be water dependent and water related; City Council Meeting Page 5 September 19, 2005 . there could be water enjoyment on the first floor with a small percentage for things such as public restrooms. Mixed use is not required there and the site could be used for one restaurant; the SMP allows for mixed-use development. Ms. Robinson asked that if looking tonight at restaurant size in the overlay district, the Council would consider mixed use under the SMP process. Mr. Watts stated that if this ordinance passes tonight and someone comes in tomorrow to redevelop the Landfall, they could develop to 3500 square feet and could develop two stories. This ordinance does not affect the existing bulk and scale requirements. He added that under the current SMP they could put up a 4,000 square foot building with a restaurant on the main floor and some portion of mixed use on the second floor. Currently there is no requirement to have a marine use on the main floor and restaurant on the second floor. Mr. Benskin stated that decks are handled on a case-by-case basis under the conditional use permit process. Trying to legislate deck size in this ordinance is a waste of time - concerning a hypothetical deck on a hypothetical building. Motion: Mr. Benskin moved for approval of Ordinance 2909. Mr. Masci seconded. . Ms. Fenn stated that comments regarding the loss of land devoted to marine trades were more specific in terms of the suggested use of the parade grounds. She said her understanding is that only the RVs would be removed, but part of the negotiations are that the cash cow of a conference center would replace the cash cow of the RVs. There is no conclusive agreement anywhere in the SMP draft that says all RVs would go away if the project conference center materializes. Mr. Watts stated that issue is still on the table at Planning Commission and there is no automatic trade off. Ms. Sandoval stated there was no agreement, but there was a goal written into the SMP that RVs will get off the spit; it was discussed. Ms. Medlicott asked whether the Council is debating the future of Point Hudson or simply passage of Ordinance 2909. She would prefer that Council focus on this issue of the ordinance at this time. Ms. Robinson stated it is difficult to pull this out of the context of the entire process. Motion to amend: Mr. Kolff moved to amend the motion to retain a conditional use permit as part of this process. Ms. Robinson seconded. . Mr. Watts stated that the current draft ordinance provides that during the time this ordinance is effective, until it sunsets, if it sunsets, that a restaurant would go through a conditional use permit process - so is already part of the ordinance. City Council Meeting Page 6 September 19, 2005 . Motion withdrawn: Mr. Kolff stated that this issue would be more appropriate for discussion during SMP adoption. Ms. Robinson stated that one rationale for proposing the larger restaurant size is to make the other two existing restaurants conforming. Since they already exist as legal uses, what is the downside of them not being conforming to existing code. Mr. Watts stated what the impact would be if the restaurant were destroyed beyond a certain extent, they might not be able to build unless they comply with the current code. They would also be limited in terms of expansion, as they cannot increase the degree of nonconformity. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to amend the motion by striking the last sentence of the seventh paragraph on page 3 (17.XX.040) ("until such time as a new SMP is adopted)." Ms. Robinson seconded. Mr. Masci stated he would not support the motion as he has full trust in the SMP process and believes it will provide protections. Not having the sunset clause would make many more layers of unnecessary ordinances. Mr. Benskin stated the work of the SAG is exhaustive and will take care of all fears expressed this evening. . Ms. Sandoval stated that when the SMP comes before us, the ordinance will be redundant and will go away; she urged support for building bridges and providing security for those who are not trusting. Vote on amendment: amendment carried, 4-3, to strike last underline, Benskin, Masci and Medlicott opposed. Amendment: Ms. Fenn moved to reduce the maximum restaurant square footage to 3,000 including decks. Ms. Robinson seconded. Ms. Robinson stated she would like to see a limit on deck space; she knows you can create long term seating with covers and heaters as a way to expand space. She stated she would be comfortable with 3500 square foot with decks. Mr. Kolff stated you could get the same effect by limiting the gross square footage on the ground level. Mr. Watts stated maximum gross square footage on the main floor is a new concept; an amendment to the amendment would be needed unless the intent is to require outdoor areas be other than on the main floor. . City Council Meeting Page 7 September 19, 2005 . Mr. Kolff stated he is trying to prevent restaurant sprawl that could be used for other and better land uses. Mr. Masci stated he has confidence in the 3500 square foot gross; he has some questions as to how we got there, but feels we should honor the process. Vote: Amendment failed, 2-5 with Fenn and Robinson in favor. Motion to amend: Ms. Sandoval moved to amend the motion by including outdoor seating within the 3,500 square foot maximum. Ms. Fenn seconded. Mr. Benskin noted that the Landfall and the Maritime Center are both in the marine corridor and reducing the number could affect outdoor seating for the Maritime Center. He also added that the Council is trying to micromanage the hard work of the people who developed the proposal. Ms. Fenn stated that part of the problem with process is it has been driven in the tone of a spot rezone; we should be looking at uses long term regardless of what proposals are envisioned. She said we need to look at the cumulative impact - businesses can change and cumulative impact can change. . Ms. Sandoval asked how the conditional use process works when looking at the design of a restaurant and what the process would be to have consideration for the size of a deck. Mr. Watts stated there would be consideration both through shoreline and conditional use, HPC, setback, traffic circulation and other design elements that may impact the site. He added this is a leased parcel so a boundary would be set and they would be confined by that. Ms. Sandoval asked about the mechanics of the CUP oversight - what would not allow 2000 square feet of deck in addition to 3500 square feet of restaurant area. Mr. Timmons noted there would be conditional use approvals, review by the Hearing Examiner. A deck is defined as seating capacity and seating space so might relate to too much impact on the site. There would be public comment and staff review. Ms. Sandoval noted there are no specific guidelines. Mr. Benskin said it wouldn't make any sense to have that proportion, as sidewalks and parking all have to be created; in reality, there wouldn't be that much room. Vote: motion failed, 3-4, Medlicott, Benskin, Masci and Kolff opposed. . Motion to amend: Ms. Fenn moved to remove the exemption of the restaurant limitation in the event there is a mixed use resort and deal with it later (remove City Council Meeting Page 8 September 19, 2005 . i I language in second paragraph in table 17.22.202 after "11,000 gross square feet. " (remove starting with "provided, how(:Jver" Mr. Masci seconded. Motion to amend carried, 5-2, Benskin and Sandoval opposed. Vote on main motion as amended: motion carried, 6-1, Fenn opposed. RECESS Mayor Robinson declared a recess at 8: 15 for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:28 p.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS . ORDINANCE 2908 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $1,545,000 TO COMPLETE THE RENOVATION OF THE CITY HALL IMPROVEMENTS AND VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING THE FORM AND TERMS OF THE BONDS; AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS City Manager David Timmons stateq that the Council approved first reading of Ordinance 2908, with funding in the amount of "at least $1,545,000" on September 6 and adopted Resolution 05-033 approving financing of $1,746,000 for certain remaining items for City Hall restoration. The Finance and Budget Committee met September 14 and recommended a bond in the amount of $1 ,545,000, with a 20- year bond schedule. Adoption of Ordinance 2908 as presented would supercede and impliedly modify Resolution 05-033. The Finance and Budget Committee recommends pursuing short-term funding options for additional budget items rather than adding these costs to the bond. Public comment . David Hero, chair of the Jefferson County Historical Society capital campaign, stated that the final phases of restoration could be expedited either through bonding or some other mechanism by the City to cover long-term pledges received by JCHS. He stated that the success of the capital campaign indicates that by the time the contractors can get to work, the cash will be in hand to finish all the public spaces in historic City Hall. He urged the Council to finish the project for all generations of citizens. City Council Meeting Page 9 September 19, 2005 . Motion: Mrs. Medlicott moved for adoption of Ordinance 2908. Mr. Kolff seconded. The motion carried, 5-2, Benskin and Masci opposed. RESOLUTION 05-034 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RELEASE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY City Attorney John Watts reviewed the packet materials. The resolution would delegate to the City Manager (ratherthan the City Council) authority to release land use covenants when the conditions necessitating the covenant have been met or no longer apply. This authority does not extend to private covenants between owners which did not arise as a condition of City permit approval or where the City Council (not the Building Dept.) placed the condition. Mr. Watts noted that for at least five years, the language indicated "release approved by City Council" has not been included on the Declaration form and therefore the resolution will affect a limited number of restrictive covenants whioh were instituted prior to that change. He noted that this results in the City Manager taking administrative action for administrative conditions. . Mr. Masci stated he would prefer to retain the power and action on each individual release for the Council. Mr. Masci stated this could trigger a rash of divesting Accessory Dwelling Units from properties. Mr. Watts stated this action could only be taken if the owner has the requisite number of lots. Mr. Masci stated this would only provide one level of oversight. Mr. Watts stated this is essentially a routine release of a covenant when all conditions have been met; he stated that the Council probably could not exercise discretion to refuse to release the covenants anyway as it would be considered arbitrary and capricious action. Mr. Kolff stated this does not give the administration any authority to approve an action that is not permitted by the zoning code or for which the requirements necessitating the covenant have not been met or still apply. He stated that this prevents unnecessary work coming before the Council. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved for adoption of Resolution 05-034. Mrs. Medlicott seconded. The motion carried, 6-1, by voice vote, Masci opposed. REQUESTS FOR STATUTORY STREET VACATIONS . City Council Meeting Page 10 September 19, 2005 . , Mrs. Medlicott explained that she wo~ld participate in the discussion and action on this matter even though she owns prpperty adjacent to a right of way that could be vacated under the 1890 law. She s~ated the right of way already contains a driveway so there would be no benefitto her from a street vacation; in addition the legislation is legislative and not quasi-judicial or site specific and there will be no benefit to her for participating in this legislative issue. Mr. Watts noted that the decision before Council is policy direction on how to process requests for statutory street vacations. He reviewed the three options included in the packet materials. The City has received about 30 requests for statutory vacations; courts have said that even in light of the 1890 law, an owner must still go through a process to clear the title to the property. He noted that Jefferson County had an administrative process up until 2000 which allowed release of the County's public interest; however private as well as public interests must be taken into consideration. Current County position both for title and land use is that unless there has been a quiet title action against the County which includes everyone who might ~ave an interest in the right of way, the County treats originally platted lines for lots Of record for building purposes. There is no approved increase in density or building area until a full quiet title action has been completed. There is no City preemption of a right to file a quiet title lawsuit. . The question has been raised about what happens if there is a vacation either through quiet title or administrative release - how does it affect the City's development standards for streets, roads, sewer, water, etc. City staff's view is that the development regulations currently on the books would still apply. There still must be standards governing fire access, what kinds of streets are allowed to serve multiple lots, etc. Mr. Timmons stated it would be good to have consistency with County procedures. Public comment Kate Jenks, speaking for herself and Nathan Gale - she stated she is willing to go to a quiet title process and supports the opinion of the City Attorney. She added that her statutory vacation request is very simple with no desire to develop, and said she wishes the City would adopt an administrative process for the simple vacation requests. She asked what other interests in the plat include - whether this means electrical, telephone, easement rights or whether it means all the neighbors have to be included (as with a regular street vacation.) . Mr. Watts stated that following the County process would require a quiet title action against everyone else in the plat - owner, lien holder, utility. If the plat were ten blocks, then it would cover all in that area. A regular street vacation allows vacation of one block. He said that in his view, the regular process no longer applies because of the question about whetper the City has authority over the right of way. City Council Meeting Page 11 September 19, 2005 . Chuck Chuljian stated his main interest is intrusion of privacy. He stated many people wander on the bluff and other houses right on the sidewalk line have no place to park except in the street. Jolly Wahlstrom: member of Non Motorized Transportation Advisory Board, speaking as private citizen, stated that trails and shortcuts using unopened rights of way are essential to the non-motorized transportation plan. He encouraged the council to see that existing trails remain undisturbed. Chuck Henry, attorney, has worked on some vacations and has a list of people who would like to retain him that exceeds his ability. He stated there have to be exceptions to these rules and would l\ike to see an ordinance of vacation for the simple ones, as it is cheaper to the client than litigation. Such vacation must recognize private status; there is no proscriptive right to a path or trail if it hasn't been there for ten years. He said he believes option 2 (establish administrative process protecting existing infrastructure) is a good start. Frank Vane stated he owns a city block on Cherry and doesn't want to develop but needs elbow room; he recommended the procedure used in Ocean Grove, where one applies to the County and has a Hearing Examiner evaluate the application. He stated there is no simple way and different processes are needed for different situations. . Joanna Loehr thanked the City and City Attorney for doing such a good job on the land use issues on Morgan Hill; she said it was incredibly time consuming but a good process and she is saddened to hear it might not be continued as it benefited the City the most and gave flexibility to set conditions. She supports a case-by-case approach and protection of trails and future trails and future development of property that no one thought was developable. She stated the City can't just give up all that land and it has more at stake than the County due to historic districts, etc. Jessica P (did not sign in) stated she would like the Council to consider an administrative process for simple cases. In her instance she would like to maintain yard space and it would be helpful to have an administrative process because of the cost of a lawsuit. . Mr. Watts stated the process employed in the Garrison/Flint situation referred to by Ms. Loehr was very time consuming and the City is simply not in a situation to repeat that process 35 times; perhaps a template could be developed with 2,3, or 4 conditions with minimal or no negotiation. He added that the Hearing Examiner process does not work here, as the Hearings Examiner does not have the authority in the state of Washington to quiet a title. He also stated that the street end on Van Buren and Washington (where Mr. Chuljian lives) is the old townsite and would not be subject to statutory street vacation; it would be possible to apply for a regular street vacation but that is not under discussion tonight. City Council Meeting Page 12 September 19, 2005 . Mr. Benskin asked whether, if an administrative process is established, the applicant could still come back and do a quiet title. Mr. Watts that that there is an exception of the person who accepted the administrative release now waiving the right as they have agreed to certain terms and conditions of the release. Mr. Timmons stated that any administrative process would only release the City's interests and there could still be more rights claimed from private interests. Mrs. Medlicott inquired about the cost of a quiet title lawsuit. Mr. Henry stated they range from about $1200 to $2000. Mrs. Medlicott asked about the effect of a vacated street on a person's property tax. Mr. Watts stated the effect on assessed value depends on the situation. If development potential is not affected, there is probably not much impact. There could be a market factor in that certain property owners, who are selling property and decided they now owned the right of way, might add thousands to their asking price and get it. Mr. Kolff asked if staff still recommended the lawsuit (#1) as the best option. Mr. Watts stated there could be a situation where a "simple administrative process" may work, if there were no negotiation involved, just accepted terms and conditions. . Mr. Timmons noted that it has often been the case that something "simple" ends up being much more complicated. Mr. Kolff asked if it is possible to settees for staff time and after that amount of time has been used, the work is contracted out. Mr. Watts stated there could be an administrative fee for the process. Mr. Timmons stated there has to be a cutoff point; even if reimbursed for time, we have only one City Attorney who is handling everything. Mr. Kolff stated possibly the work could be contracted out to save the applicant money and simplify the process. Mr. Benskin stated that he agrees the County's path requiring a quiet title action is the wisest to take initially. The City cannot condition their interest in a quiet title action. Ms. Sandoval asked if the City wentto requirement for a full quiet title, would it affect the City's ability to see, during review regarding release of its interest, if the action qualifies for a simple administrative process. . Mr. Watts stated we would still review every request to make sure any existing infrastructure was preserved. City Council Meeting Page 13 September 19, 2005 . Ms. Sandoval noted she has been involved in some real estate transactions that are very complicated because of claims by other private interests. She said she would not be in favor of the city releasing our interest and then letting everyone else figure out what they want to do, as this would be more cumbersome on the public. She is inclined to be safe and prefers the requirement for full quiet title. Mr. Masci stated he favors the County process with subsets" b" and "c" listed in the City Attorney's memo; he stated the City should not worry what the legal costs are to citizens as it is their own option to do this. He suggested keeping it simple and consistent with the County. If the money is spent, the citizen is getting value in terms of additional property. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved that staff bring forward a resolution which establishes that a process consistent with the County (requiring a lawsuit) be adopted. Ms. Fenn seconded Ms. Fenn stated that it makes sense to have one process that resolves the issue at the prerogative of the property owner and gives a clear path. . Motion to amend: Mr. Masci moved to amend the motion and add instruction that staff add language consistent with subparagraphs a, b, and c in the City Attorney's memo with draft language for each choice. Mrs. Medlicott seconded. Mr. Benskin stated that two opposing ideas are being discussed; this would not work because conditions can't be imposed. Mr. Watts said that conditions could ibe imposed if agreed to by both the plaintiff and the defendant (example: an existing sewer line remain in place.) Vote on amendment (to include three options): failed, 3-4, by voice vote, Masci, Medlicott & Robinson in favor. Vote on main motion: motion carried, 6-1, by voice vote, Masci opposed. RESOLUTION 05-036 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE FOR CITY RECEIPT OF PRIVATE DONATIONS DESIGNATED FOR CITY PURPOSES . Mr. Timmons reviewed the packet material, supporting a resolution which would provide Council approval for the City Manager to execute agreements with non-profit organizations that allows for City receipt of private donations designated for city purposes and provides a mechanism for private citizens and organizations to make City Council Meeting Page 14 September 19, 2005 . I tax-deductible donations through a nbn-profitorganization which turns them over to the City. He added that an example' of a model agreement with the Port Townsend Public Library Foundation is included. Public comment: None Motion: Mr. Benskin moved for adoption of Resolution 05-036. Mr. Masci seconded. Ms. Robinson questioned paragraph .11 of the model agreement which shows that the City commits to providing certain staff and services to the Foundation. Mr. Timmons stated that any such exchanges would have to be consistent with the City's approved budget so they would not be provided unless approved by the Council during adoption of the annual budget. Ms. Robinson stated she is uncomfortable that the City would offer such support to a private foundation. Mr. Watts said the assumption is that it would benefit City staff; for example the Library Director could assist the Foundation with fundraising - that would allow the Foundation to do its work and would in turn benefit the City. The provision is not a "blank check." In answer to Ms. Robinson's question, he affirmed that each . agreement would have its own particular terms as to what will be provided. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. RESOLUTION 05-039 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A GOLF COURSE LEASE AND DESIGNATING NET PROCEEDS FROM THE GOLF COURSE LEASE AND SALE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY TO GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Timmons reviewed the packet materials, noting that approval of the lease would be consistent with the Golf Course Task Force Report recommendation. He outlined the key terms of the lease. Public comment Kate Jenks asked why the City is providing water to the golf course for free. . Mr. Timmons stated the lease provides for continuation of current conditions where water is provided but also provides for ownership of the irrigation system. This is consistent with other municipal courses. He stated the City is looking at the payment in terms of protecting its own investment; some additional irrigation work City Council Meeting Page 15 September 19, 2005 . i will be done along San Juan to assist with adequate watering for the replacement trees. Ms. Sandoval asked why the rent is the same in 2005 as it was in 2002 and does not provide for increases. She also questioned why the management practices certification attaches to the individual, not the facility. Mr. Timmons stated that the lease is based on a percentage of sales, so when sales go up, income goes up; income will be placed in a dedicated fund for capital improvements. The terms are also better clarified as to tenant and leaseholder responsibilities. Regarding certification, it is awarded to the individual, not the facility. There is consideration of certifying a city employee as well. Ms. Sandoval asked if the City has better audit capabilities regarding the lease in place. Mr. Timmons affirmed. Motion: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of Resolution 05-039. Mr. Benskin seconded. Mr. Kolff stated he has a concern about the vagueness of the funding for certification in Paragraph 7. . Mr. Watts stated the concept is that the City and Mr. Early would develop the plan and program as to steps, who undertakes, and when undertaken. There may be some cost to the City; the sentence refers to the fact that whatever costs there are would come out of the City's net proceeds generated from the golf course, not from a general fund appropriation. Mr. Kolff stated it is very unclear what the City's level of assistance is. Mr. Watts stated the lease does require both parties to work together to determine time and cost impacts. Motion to amend: Mr. Kolff moved to amend the agreement terms to establish that substantial progress toward recognition under ACSP be completed by January 1, 2009 rather than January 1, 2011. Ms. Fenn seconded. Ms. Fenn stated this is the direction we want to move and she is interested in having this happen sooner rather than later. Mr. Kolff agreed, and stated there is revenue that is earmarked for this so if we needed to pay for coverage for a city position while a city employee works on certification it could come from that fund. . Mr. Masci stated that to put too tight a boundary on this might not be practical; also suggested that a younger city staffer be involved (who might be working longer.) City Council Meeting Page 16 September 19, 2005 . Vote: motion to amend failed, 2-5, by voice vote, Fenn and Kolff in favor. Ms. Fenn asked how many municipalities provide water to golf courses without charge. Mr. Timmons stated it is a mixed bag, some provide, some provide at retail rates, some bond for improvements. Ms. Fenn asked how many gallons of water a year are used for the golf course. Mayor Robinson recognized Kate Jenks from the audience. She stated the maximum amount in the summer is two million gallons a month. Mr. Timmons said he would provide information to the Council on number of gallons and cost. He noted that we do cut off the supply when we go into the reservoirs; he added that the older irrigation system is leaking badly and an upgrade will help save water. The city will take responsible for that as a public work consistent with state law. Ms. Sandoval asked if there is consideration of provisions for public access to the golf course. Mr. Timmons stated there isn't, and said the task force recommended a limited policy for public access. . Mr. Watts stated that the City controls subsidiary uses and we do need to deal with the issue of refunding lodging tax dollars depending on future uses. Another issue is that if restrictions are lifted and Mr. Early proposes a use, the City has authority to approve that use; however the City cannot impose a use unilaterally. Vote: motion carried, 4-3 by voice vote, Fenn, Robinson and Sandoval opposed. RESOLUTION NO. 05-038 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON TO PETITION THE STATE TO END THE FAILED EXPERIMENT IN PARKING FEES AND FUND PARKS AND PARK MAINTENANCE THROUGH REGULAR LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESSES Mrs. Medlicott asked about the origin' of the resolution. Ms. Robinson stated she believes this came from a private citizen who is a member of the Fort Worden Advisory Committee but not from the committee itself. Mr. Masci stated that adopting the resolution would be a blatant violation of Council rules and process; although he is in favor of the resolution, he stated it needs to go through the CD/LU committee. Public comment: . City Council Meeting Page 17 September 19, 2005 . I Kathryn Jenks asked the council to r~quest the State Parks Department and Governor to initiate a non-project SEPA on the effect of Fort Worden's parking fees on the adjoining neighborhood. Eff~cts include the need for increased police surveillance and environmental impacts. Port Townsend has the right to expect that Fort Worden will be a good neighbor. Mr. Kolff stated that he does not know if the resolution was adopted by the Fort Worden Advisory Committee. He stated in regard to the SEPA that the City did look at that issue, but began to realize it might cost a significant amount of legal time and effort with questionable results so went the alternate route to negotiate a buyout. He spoke in support of the resolution although it came forward in a slightly unusual way; sometimes issues are timely and need to move on quickly. Mr. Benskin stated he believes there should be a little more process to explore certain questions about the result of the buyout. He supports referring to CD/LU. He stated he would like the City to receive a refund of the money contributed to the parking buyout. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved for adoption of Resolution 05-038. Ms. Fenn seconded. Mrs. Medlicott stated she supports the concept but is concerned about process. Motion to amend: Mrs. Medlicott moved to refer the matter to the CD/LV Committee . and request input from the Fort Worden Advisory Committee. Mr. Masci seconded. Ms. Fenn stated she agrees this is unorthodox in terms of process, but the issue has been before Council for years and no one has ever expressed a desire that the parking fees remain in place. She said it would probably be dealt with very quickly by the CD/LU Committee and bringing the matter directly to Council seems practical in this case. Ms. Robinson stated the timeliness of the resolution is to try and get it into the hands of the governor from as many councils and commissions in the state as possible so there is time to consider this for the next state budget. She added that this did not come to her as a Ft. Worden Advisory Committee directive. Vote: motion (which would supersede original motion) carried, 4-3, by voice vote with Fenn, Kolff and Sandoval opposed. SCHEDULING AGENDAS Mr. Watts reviewed the proposed schedule. No public comment . City Council Meeting Page 18 September 19, 2005 . Mr. Benskin stated that the Council i$ in the middle of the budget process, which he believes should take precedence. He questioned the timing and asked why the schedule was so tight. Ms. Robinson noted that the timeline is critical because the interim ordinances are due to expire. She added that as to the budget, it is on track according to the schedule. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to approve the schedule for consideration of formula store and development regulations affecting statutorily vacated rights of way. Ms. Fenn seconded. Mr. Benskin stated that he is also comcerned because he would like to participate in the discussion, but will be out of town October 7-11. Mr. Watts noted that the video and audiotapes of the meeting would be available. Vote: Motion carried, 5-2, by voice vote, Benskin and Masci opposed. LETTER OF INTRODUCTION - HURRICANE SISTER CITY Mayor Robinson noted this issue was placed on the agenda as a result of the public comment earlier in the evening. . Motion: Ms. Fenn moved that the mayor draft a letter of introduction to the town designated by citizens who are spearheading the project and that the Council express their encouragement to the sister city relationship. Ms. Sandoval seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. PRESIDING OFFICER'S REPORT Mayor Robinson requested that CD/LV Committee review with the Affordable Housing Task Force their work plans and accomplishments and come up with a recommendation on the viability of the task force, given other efforts in the community, about how to go forward at the next possible business meeting. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :01 p.m. . Attest: Oa~ ~'{;~7 Pamela Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Meeting Page 19 September 19, 2005