Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10172005 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE REGU~R SESSION OF OCTOBER 17, 2005 I CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE I The City Council of the City of Port ~ownsend met in regular session this seventeenth day of October, 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. I . ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call1ere Frank Benskin, Frieda Fenn, Kees Kolff, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. Geoff Masci was excused. I Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Finance Director Michael Legarsky, Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall, and City Clerk Pam KOlacY'1 CHANGES TO THE AGENDA I Mr. Benskin requested that Item C on the consent agenda (Resolution 05-042) be removed. The item was placed und~r New Business. Mr. Benskin also requested that a discussion of changing the time of the CD/LU Committee meeting be discussed under standing committee' reports. I COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC I James Fritz: commented on the Department of Ecology's assertion that all water belongs to the state, noting that if farmers must have commercial water rights to raise crops for sale, this will destroy organic farming and the Farmers Market. He stated the County Commissioners would be issuing a policy statement regarding the issue. He provided copies of the October 1999 Quilcene/Snow Watershed Plan Operating Procedures Manual and the draft Jefferson County Policy Statement for the record. Doug Milholland: commented on the expansion of the Naval Magazine at Indian Island and the lack of local public input. He suggested the Council should co- convene a public hearing with the Cdunty Commissioners and the Port of Port Townsend to address the continuing lexpansion of the facility. A copy of his comments was provided for the recotd. City Council Business Meeting Page 1 October 17, 2005 Mr. Kolff asked if there has been any discussion among staff about this. Ms. Robinson said it was her understanding there had not been discussion. The item was added to the agenda u1nder "Suggestions for Future Meetings." I CONSENT AGENDA I Ms. Robinson asked for a correction to the minutes of September 19, page 17, change "L TAC dollars" to "lodging tax dollars." I Motion: Ms. Fenn moved for approval of the following items on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Kol" seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. I Approval of Bills, Claims and Warrants Vouchers 95485 through 95494 in the amount of $3,017.85 Vouchers 95610 through 95624 in the amount of $29,633.63 Vouchers 95638 through 95765 in the amount of $443,051.28 Voucher 927051 in the amount of $41.97 Vouchers 1005051 through 1005059 in the amount of $98,544.45 I Approval of Minutes September 19, 2005 (as corrected) October 3', 2005 October 10, 2005 I UNFINISHED BUSINESS I ORDINANCE 2908 I AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITYI 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 SUCH BONDS; AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS City Manager David Timmons review~d the packet material, noting that the City has once again received an "A" rating from the rating analyst and that the bonds are being issued with a AAA rating at 4.2~ percent. He added that it does not cost the City any additional funds to go through the rating process and it does bring down costs. He noted the bond ordinance: has been previously approved but must be confirmed containing the final interest rates. I He introduced Jim Nelson of Martin Nelson & Company, the City's bond underwriter. Mr. Nelson complimented the City on1their excellent financial ratings. In answer to City Council Business Meeting Page 2 October 17, 2005 ;;-' ~< . Ms. Fenn's question, Mr. Nelson stated the bonds are selling rapidly and were advertised in the local paper. Public comment: None Motion: Mr. Kol" moved for approval of Ordinance 2908. Ms. Fenn seconded. I Councilors Kolff, Fenn, Sandoval and Robinson thanked the staff for their work in keeping the City's finances is good order. I Vote: the motion carried, 5-1, by roll call vote, Benskin opposed. I ORDINANCE 2913 I AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITX OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, AMENDING A SUBSECTION OF 171.08.040 I THROUGH M, DEFINITION OF "LOT AREA," AND AMENDING SECTION 17.16.030 BULK, DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS, OF TITLE 17 ZONING, OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO SETBACKS AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF LOTS AFFECTED BY STATUTORY VACATION I RESOLUTION 05-040 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, REGARDS STATUTORY STREET VACATION I City Attorney John Watts reviewed the packet material, noting that two separate but related matters are before the Council, both of which have been discussed previously. Ordinance 2913 is a zoning ordinance on what setback and density regulations apply if statutory vacation occurs and Resolution 05-040 provides policy direction on how to process requests'for statutory street vacations. I He noted the basis of the ordinance is to preserve the character of neighborhoods. In response to an issue that arose last week, the current draft does not allow fences in the right of way unless there is full 'release of all public as well as private interest. I Mr. Watts stated that it is not urgent that the policy decision (Resolution) be made at this time; however the interim zoning :ordinance is set to expire so there is timeliness to adopting the ordinance. He added that whether Council takes action tonight or not, anyone still has the right to file a'lawsuit and have their claim to statutory street vacation adjudicated by the Court. Mr. Watts stated that last week an attorney offered to assist in additional research on the issue of street vacation and to assist in any litigation if the City is determined to , contest a quiet title action. The memo is included in the Council packet. City Council Business Meeting Page 3 October 17, 2005 Public comment: Jennifer Foster commented on the problems some have faced with public trails abutting their property such as robbery, noise and trash. She stated there are issues of privacy for those owners; they were not told during their technical conference that a trail would be built behind their house and they don't believe they should be forced to file suit for land that should be theirs. Peter Lauritzen said he is the Chair Jf the Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board but is speaking as a citizen. He said he has lived beside trails in different locations for 40 years. He said that in many regions where statutory street vacations apply, there are no sidewalks and narrow streets with little room for pedestrians - these areas need to be preserved so people can walk and not depend on automobiles. He asked the CounCil to do everything possible to preserve the integrity of the system and preserve space for future trails. He suggested additional language to assure that public rights to planned or proposed improvements can be preserved where statutory street vacations apply and that the public should reserve the right to build trails already approved in the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, , . and that fences should not be allowed across land reserved for trails. He added that the Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board has not had time to meet and formulate a Board response. He supplied a copy of his remarks for the record. I Owen Fairbank stated he is a membt;lr of the Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board and does not own property adjacent to an unopened right of way. He is speaking as a citizen. He stated the non-motorized trail system is a product of the acts of City Councils. Regarding theiissues of trail users, he said you can't legislate respect and common sense and some people's actions can be challenging. He supports Mr. Lauritzen's comments in terms of longer range planning and hopes with . . ' emerging eVidence the Road Law of 11890 may be overturned and made irrelevant; he asked the Council to direct staff to pursue further legal assistance. Chelsie Liu spoke on behalf of the nJn-motorized trail system. He was apprehensive about having an adjacent trail but has found the experience to be quite positive and feels it results in a sort cif neighborhood watch. . I Joanna Loehr suggested that Ordinance 2913 have a statement added that talks about existing streets, utilities and tr~ils and defines how much the City thinks are reasonable proscriptive easements for existing streets and trails. She stated she would also like to see the City challenge the road law in Court; but if the Resolution is passed now, would like to have paragraph (b) included which has minimum terms regarding setbacks and density protection - she would also include reference to future trails and access as part of the minimum terms. Mr. Watts replied to Ms. Loehr's com~ents. He noted that the City will never give up existing streets or trails - these are not at risk if they have been there long enough to come under a proscriptive easement. The issue is what additional area City Council Business Meeting Page 4 October 17, 2005 outside areas of improvement might e needed for future improvements like trails and sidewalks and to what extent can cities bargain for that. This is part of the resolution and not the zoning ordinance. He would not advise changing the zoning , rules to make any declarations regarding proscriptive easement. I Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved for adoption of Ordinance 2913. Ms. Fenn seconded. I Ms. Robinson asked whether, under this ordinance, it is necessary for a person to go through quiet title in order to put a fence in a statutorily vacated right of way. Mr. Watts confirmed that either a quiet title action or a title report showing fee ownership of the right of way would be necessary. Ms. Fenn asked for clarification that boncerns relating to the City's commitment to the trail system belong in a resolution or would come back to Council after a period of research. Mr. Watts confirmed, stating that there can be problems in enacting , zoning resolutions with an eye to future public improvements. The proper method would be through a declaration of policy through resolution. I Ms. Robinson asked about the documented conversation with a local attorney suggesting that any zoning trying to preserve platted density could run up against an equal protection issue. Mr. Watts stated he does not believe this is an accurate statement of law. Any right of way in the City could be vacated by the Council but that process is a legislative determination and the right to legislative determination goes away if the 1890 law applies. I Mrs. Medlicott asked if Council's action could be to extend the interim ordinance. Mr. Watts replied that the Council coUld extend the interim ordinance if they chose to. In answer to Mrs. Medlicott's question about whether these properties were being treated differently from other properties, Mr. Timmons noted that different circumstances in the Code result in different setback and density requirements, sometimes depending on what properties they are abutting (could be different zones, for example.) This is analogous to the different rules applied to the specific parcels which come under the 1890 road law. I Ms. Sandoval stated because the purpose for the zoning proposed in the ordinance is to maintain the look and feel of thel town's existing zoning, she feels this is a , direction toward consistency, not change. She then asked if a person could erect a fence pending a quiet title action with'the understanding they would remove it if the action did not go through. I Mr. Watts stated that would not be allowed as written; however there is a process for temporary street use agreements and it is possible this process could be used for such a purpose. Ms. Sandoval asked if a street use agreement were used, then would there be a proscriptive right if the right of way were used on that basis. City Council Business Meeting Page 5 October 17, 2005 Mr. Watts stated that if the City allowed a fence in the right of way, the fence, if existing for ten years, could defeat the future use. If a street use agreement were in place this would not happen. I Vote: motion to adopt Ordinance 2913 carried, 4-2, by roll call vote, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to direct sta" to accept the o"er of the Seattle attorney who volunteered to do research on the Road Law of 1890 and that Council receive that additional information in order to' consider what its policy is going to be regarding statutory street vacations. Mr. Kol" seconded. In answer to Mrs. Medlicott's question, Mr. Watts stated there would be no cost to the City for this research. I Vote: motion carried, 4-2, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. RECESS Mayor Robinson declared a recess at 7:50 for the purpose of a break. I RECONVENE I The meeting was reconvened at 7:51 p.m. ORDINANCE 2912 I AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING TITLE 17, ZONING, OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING CHAPTER 17.50, DEFINING AND REGULATING FORMULA RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS I Mr. Randall noted corrections of two typographical errors in the text which have been corrected in the latest version. I He reviewed the packet materials and noted that all the possible amendments raised by Council members at the last meeting have been compiled by staff and listed in an attachment for Council's convenience. He reviewed those potential amendments. Public comment David Goldman stated he is disturbed by the process of putting the discussed amendments in print and offered up for discussion. The public has had no notice that such a procedure was adopted. IHe believes some represent a major revision of the whole thrust and intent. City Council Business Meeting Page 6 October 17, 2005 ~. r',- ~'.. Discussion ensued about process. Mr. Watts stated there is nothing in state law that would require another public hearing and in fact, Council is not required to have a public hearing at all in light of the pbblic hearing held at the Planning Commission; the Council hearings are a standard City procedure. He said that the staff is simply helping to facilitate the Council, which is free to discuss any or none of the amendments. I Ms. Fenn noted that everyone will have their own opinion as to whether or not proposed changes are sweeping suggestions but democracy allows everyone to express their opinions; sometimes it is surprising how things can change but that is the legislative and democratic process. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved for adOPti~n of Ordinance 2912. Ms. Sandoval seconded. I Motion to amend: Ms. Fenn moved to amend the ordinance by striking the line that beings "Quoting a N. Y. Times editorial" (potential amendment #1). This motion was accepted by all as a friendly amendment. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to amknd the ordinance by deleting the reference to full service restaurants in two places 1(17.50.050 and 17.50.040) (potential amendment #3). Ms. Fenn seconded. Vote: motion carried, 4-2, Benskin Jnd Medlicott opposed. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to amJnd the ordinance by changing line 5, page 26 (2.) to "A formula retail or restaurant establishment may not exceed 3,500 square fee of net total floor area." (potential amendment #4). Mr. Kol" seconded. Ms. Sandoval noted she would like tJ see consistency with the amount of square footage allowed in the Point Hudson restaurant zoning change. Vote: motion failed on a 3-3 tie, Be~skin, Fenn and Medlicott opposed. I Motion: Mr. Kol" moved to amend the ordinance by modifying language in page 5, lines 30-45 and page 6, lines 2-7, regarding number of formula retail stores which can locate within a single building (potential amendment #5 - section 4(b). Ms. Sandoval seconded. I Ms. Robinson stated that she asked for clarification regarding parcels, tracts and lots and with this information she is still not clear. Mr. Randall noted that "tract" and "parcel" are not defined by the zoning code so "lot" is the only term we have. Ms. Sandoval stated she was trying th suggest creation of some sort of parity for people with larger lots but is not sure:this is what she had in mind; she also wanted some understanding of the relationship between lots, ownership and number of City Council Business Meeting Page 7 October 17, 2005 formula stores. She stated she wouldn't be able to support this particular amendment. I There was further discussion about various definitions of different types of property. Ms. Robinson and Ms. Sandoval sug'gested a further review of this issue by the Planning Commission. I Mr. Watts stated the interim ordinance could be carried forward for another six months while final regulations are further reviewed or adopt a final set of rules tonight but send back to Planning Commission and request they address certain issues for further refinement. I Vote: 4(b) under 5 with underlines and strikeouts carried, 4-2, by voice vote, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. Mr. Benskin clarified his vote on potential amendment #4 (maximum size), stating he , would have supported a larger cap on square footage. I Ms. Sandoval said that Planning Commission will be reviewing C-II Design Standards and perhaps the lot size section of amendment #5 (per 20,000 square feet of lot area) could be looked at inl that context. Ms. Fenn stated she would be comfortable adding the amendment and reviewing through Planning Commission but not with extending the interim ordinance. I Motion to amend: Ms. Fenn moved to amend the ordinance by adding the table regarding lot size and maximum density ((6) of proposed amendment #5). Mr. Benskin seconded. I Discussion ensued about scenarios that might result from this amendment. Ms. Fenn stated that this would result in not addressing lot size at all. Mr. Randall said there could be a section added that Stipulates no more than one formula retail store per lot (old section B) Vote: motion failed, 2-4, Benskin and Fenn in favor. Motion to amend: Mr. Kol" moved that the number of formula retail establishments per lot be limited to one. Ms. Sandoval seconded. Motion carried, 4-2, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. I Motion: Mr. Kol" moved to amend the motion by prohibiting formula retail establishments in the C-II Zoning District within the Historic Overlay District adjacent to Point Hudson (potential amendment #7). Ms. Fenn seconded. The motion carried, 4-2, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. City Council Business Meeting Page 8 October 17, 2005 Motion to amend: Mr. Kol" moved to add "of net total floor area" in amendment #4 on page 5, line 26 at the end of first ~entence under 2. Ms. Fenn seconded. Vote: motion carried, 4-2, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. I Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to strike "hotels, motels" from 17.50.030 C, Exemptions. Ms. Fenn seconded. Mrs. Medlicott spoke against the amendment, noting that current "formula" lodging places produce the bulk of lodging tax revenues for the city. I Vote: motion to amend carried, 4-2, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. I Motion: Mr. Kol" moved to add "hotel and motel" to definition of formula retail establishments in 17.50.030. Ms. Ffmn seconded. Vote: motion carried, 4-2, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. I Motion: Mr. Kol" moved to amend the new "Whereas" adopted in potential amendment #2 to strike "hotels and motels." Ms. Fenn seconded. Motion carried, 4-2, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. Motion: Ms. Robinson moved to amend "Whereas" adopted in potential amendment , #2 to replace professional "offices" with professional "services" and strike "service establishments." Ms. Fenn seconded. Motion carried, 4-2, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. I Mrs. Medlicott spoke against the ordinance, stating she believes the legislation will be indefensible and the liability to the City will be significant. I Ms. Fenn spoke in favor, stating this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kolff spoke in support. Mr. Benskin spoke in opposition. Vote on adoption of Ordinance 2912 as amended: motion carried, 4-2, by roll call vote, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved that tJe issue of lot size and maximum density for formula retail establishments be referred to Planning Commission in conjunction with their review of C-II Design Standards: Ms. Fenn seconded. Vote: motion carried, 4-2, by voice vote, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. I . RESOLUTION 05-038 City Council Business Meeting Page 9 October 17, 2005 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 AT ALL WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND FUND PARKS AND PARK MAINTENANCE THROUGH REGULAR LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS I . Motion: Ms. Fenn moved for approval of Resolution 05-038. Mr. Kol" seconded. Motion to amend: Mr. Benskin movld to add a clause stating that the City of Port Townsend requests a refund equal to the amount spent to date on the parking buyo" for Fort Worden. Motion died for lack of a second. I Mr. Kolff clarified that Nora Porter did not propose this on behalf of the Fort Worden Advisory Committee, as this would be outside their purview; this should be considered as a citizen initiative. I Ms. Sandoval noted that the CD/LU Committee suggested bringing this up at the AWC meeting in Port Townsend next week. I Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. Mayor Robinson stated she will be o~t of town and asked that Deputy Mayor Sandoval carry the item forward to th'e AWC meeting. I NEW BUSINESS I SETTLEMENT OF STANTON MANUFACTURED HOME/PARK MODEL Mr. Timmons reviewed the packet m1terials, noting that staff is recommending a Council-approved agreement to resolve an issue over the siting of a "park model," as an accessory dwelling unit. The unit 'does not meet the City zoning code, which I requires that any manufactured home be HUD certified. Mr. Kozelisky, contractor for the Stantons who own the home and'seek to locate it in Towne Point, spoke before , the Council on October 3 on the issue and council requested that staff provide background information. Information is before Council; staff has outlined the chain of events and information determined by staff. Mr. Timmons noted that internal procedures in the DSD Department have been tightened and staff has received more training. I Mr. Watts stated that the information in the department and to the public clearly states that the "park model" is not permitted under our Code so revised forms, better-educated staff and internal controls will catch anyone else who applies. He also noted that the fact pattern is verY unusual and it is unlikely to happen again. He stated he does not consider that approval of the agreement would set a precedent for future application. City Council Business Meeting Page 10 October 17, 2005 Mr. Watts stated that safety issues have been addressed and the owner and contractor have agreed to the few outstanding issues. Public comment: Warren Stanton: stated he is the owner of the unit and has worked very hard since June to make sure everything is legal and all changes required to the unit have been made. He expressed appreciation for what the City has done and understands the need to be legal; he stated they are not trying to circumvent the law and would like a conclusion to the matter. I Mr. Kozelisky: contactor for the project, stated he has consistently tried to do what the City has asked and has already Jerbally agreed to take care of remaining smoke detector, hot water heater, and safety glass issues. He also hopes for resolution. I Mr. Benskin spoke against settlement, noting several reasons why the park model does not meet the Code; however he stated he does not have a good solution to the problem. I In answer to a question from Ms. Sandoval, Mr. Watts stated that the recent ordinance specifying manufactured h'omes as ADUs must be less than three years old did not become effective before the permit application was submitted. Ms. Sandoval asked about the City's I liability if there is a fire or accident if we permit the unit with knowledge this was not a permitted HUD standard home. Mr. Watts stated we have the repres~ntation of the manufacturer that it is built as the "virtually identical to those in the HUD code." The City does not have evidence that it is unsafe to occupancy. The first line of defense for the City is that although we would be permitting something that doesn't meet our code, we are not creating a safety issue. If the City wanted to go' one step further it could require some sort of notice to title that this is not a HUD stickered home and there may be safety issue; the City could go another level and require a hold harmless indemnification agreement from the owners that in th'e event of any liability arising from the unit, the City is held harmless by the owners. IThe City could also ask that the owner provide homeowners insurance naming the City as additional insured. He added that this would create monitoring issues for the City. Mrs. Medlicott asked about the Town~ Point Architectural Committee's role. Mr. Watts stated staff has had several conversations with the Committee; they have not had a problem with siting the unit. They received a letter last week with a copy of Council packet material advising them of the meeting tonight and what the possible outcome might be and they will accept the Council's decision. He added that another condition that could be placed upon the unit is that it be acceptable to the Towne Point Architectural Committee. City Council Business Meeting Page 11 October 17, 2005 Mr. Benskin stated that the City does not have jurisdiction over recreational trailers, but they are inspected by the state Labor & Industries inspector. Ms. Robinson stated although she d~es not want to punish the Stantons, she is concerned about safety and about m'aking a special exception to the Code. She added that the contractor also made 'mistakes and needs to be accountable for that. She stated she does not feel she can support allowing the permit to be issued. I Ms. Sandoval agrees, but is sorry that the issue wasn't resolved immediately. She is willing to work with this agreement if,lin addition to the hard wired smoke detector conditions, also adding requiring agreement from Towne Point, a hold harmless agreement and a notice to title. I Ms. Robinson stated there was a building inspection report that denied the permit and she doesn't understand why that did not end the issue. Mr. Timmons stated that when it wasl determined the permit had been issued in error, a request came back to reconsider. Staff was trying to be non-bureaucratic and see if there was a way to resolve the issues. There is also a note in the file that the Stantons had relied on the permit being issued to contract for a payment that could not be undone. I Mr. Watts stated the owner and contractor wanted to find a way to get this matter before the City Council, either through some sort of variance or other process and staff thought the only way to approach this would be in the nature of the resolution of the problem. Staff wanted to get as much information as possible to see how close to complying with HUD regulations th'e particular unit was and be able to present that information to the Council. Staff could not say yes and go against the Council's , adopted code. This is not so much staff trying to say yes, as staff trying to put the Council in a position to make a decision. Ms. Fenn stated there have been oth1er instances where Council was asked to bend rules and has not done so because of health and safety issues. She does not feel it is good to set the precedent of Council becoming the arbiter; Council's responsibility is to uphold the Code and not provide a means to go around it. Mrs. Medlicott asked if the Council WLld be willing to hear from the owner and contractor for clarification. There was no objection. I Jaime Kozilesky: stated the reason the application listed the unit as a manufactured home was that there was no place tol designate that it was a park model. He differentiated between stick built and Imanufactured and submitted a foundation and skirting plan. Regarding insulation, the modern HUD approved manufactured homes can be ordered with 2 X4 construction. The unit is not a travel trailer, and has different towing requirements. It has 9-foot ceilings, 2x4 construction and wood siding. It was a primary residence in the County for twelve years. He added his City Council Business Meeting [' October 17, 2005 intent was not to misinform the City nd had never run up against this stiff a regulation before. Mr. Stanton clarified that the unit is insured as it sits now. I Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement allowing the siting of a P~rk Model as an ADU with the additional requirement of hard wired smoke defectors, a letter of approval from the Towne Point Owners Association, a hold hafmless agreement and Notice to Title in regard to the lack of HUD approval non-compliance with zoning codes. Mr. Kol" seconded. Vote: motion failed, 2-4, Kol" and Sandoval in favor. RESOLUTION 05-042 I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZINGITHE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF , ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLG) GRANT FOR' PRODUCTION OF A VIDEO DOCUMENTARY OF THE HISTORIC CITY HALL RESTORATION PROJECT I Mr. Benskin stated he believes that the work specified in the resolution should be done in-house rather than contracted out. Motion: Mr. Benskin moved for app~val of Resolution 05-042 with the change that a post-production specialist will not b'e hired and that the project be done by PTTV staff. Mrs. Medlicott seconded. I Mr. Timmons noted that there is no City staff at PTTV, but a contractual station manager. He added that the City co'uldn't direct the contractor to do anything not provided for under the contract. Ms. Fenn stated she believes it is important that the postproduction should be done in a professional manner and that there are several local capable professionals who could be tapped for the work. I Mr. Kolff stated the Council should not be spending time trying to micromanage how the staff expedites expenditure of these funds; staff should have the prerogative to manage funds in the best way. I Motion to amend: Ms. Fenn moved to approve the resolution as originally presented. Mr. Kol" seconded. Vote: motion failed on a 3-3 tie, Benskin, Medlicott and Sandoval in favor. City Council Business Meeting Page 13 October 17, 2005 Vote on original motion failed 2-4, Benskin and Medlicott in favor. Motion: Mr. Kol" moved for approvll of Resolution 05-042 as presented. Ms. Sandoval seconded. Motion carried, 4-2, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. I PRESIDING OFFICER'S REPORT Mayor Robinson asked that Council ~embers communicate with the Mayor or staff when they are unable to attend all or, part of a meeting; if there is no notice, the absences will be considered unexcused. She expressed her disappointment that two Council members left last week's Budget Workshop early without notifying anyone they were leaving. She asked that Council members have respect for their peers, the public and staff. I CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Timmons reported on the fOIlOWi~9' I Chamber Board of Directors tour of the new Administrative Annex. Meeting with Port Townsend Paper, ~eviewed the capital investment they are making to improve environmental systems. I New DSD Director will begin in mid-November. Event Coordinator has begun work. Council Committees will be working on budget and staff will facilitate recording of committee budget recommendationslmade to date. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS I Mr. Benskin objected to scheduling the next CD/LU Committee meeting at 3:30 , rather than 5:00, as he will be precluded from attending. He stated he is not allowed to take time off from his job at Jefferson County. I Ms. Fenn stated that the agreement was made at the beginning of the year to hold meetings at 5:00 pm, which is a difficult time for other members and staff, to accommodate Mr. Benskin. She stated that the regular meeting time has not been changed, but the City Manager asked for a special meeting to discuss long range planning and, with Mr. Benskin not present and not heard from, the rest of the Committee proceeded to schedule the special meeting for 3:30. I Ms. Robinson asked that the Committee take up the issue at their regular meeting November 8 at 5 p.m. to resolve the i'ssue. City Council Business Meeting r'" October 17, 2005 ,-,,,..,,,-..., ~ '? COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL Mr. Kolff brought up the issue raised IdUring public comment about the changes at Indian Island and the possibility of having a public hearing or forum in collaboration with other elected bodies. I Mrs. Medlicott noted that the Council has a very strenuous schedule from now until the first of the year and suggested trYing to deal with this after the first of the year. Discussion about forming a Council JUbCommittee and possible attendees ensued. Motion: Mr. Kol" moved for approvJI of a task force or subcommittee consisting of Kolff, Sandoval, and Benskin, to work with sta" and bring back to full Council a recommendation as to how to proceed with a possible forum and/or hearing regarding the happenings at Indian Island. Ms. Sandoval seconded. Vote: the motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. I ADJOURN There being no further business, the Imeeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Attest: Oan. ~~ Pam Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Business Meeting Page 15 October 17, 2005