Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12122005 . I CITY 0) PORT TOWNSEND CI~ COUNCIL I MINUTES OF THE REGU~R SESSION OF DECEMBER 12, 2005 CALL TO ORDER A~D PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port ~ownsend met in special session this twelfth day of December 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in t e Port Townsend temporary Council Chambers in the Cedar Room of the Waterman & Katz Building, Mayor Catharine Robinson presiding. .l '!tOLL CALL I Council members present at roll call ~ere Frank Benskin, Freida Fenn, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. I Staff members present were City Malnager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall, Long Range Planner Judy Surber, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. I , CONTINU~D PUBLIC HEARING I RESCPLUTION 05-046 ! . Senior Planner Judy Surber reviewe the packet material and provided additional handouts addressing issues raised a the last meeting. She provided new language for Chapter 5 intended to assist with he concern that we are precluding the future of water related uses. She also prese ted written communications produced during the week including an e-mail from M yor Robinson and response by Port Executive Director Larry Crockett, and a memo from Jeffree Steward of the Department of Ecology. I I Public comment: Jeffree Stewart oflDOE noted that there are many opportunities for restoration of the point and is sURPortive of the City's inclusion of this area in Chapter II, Table 14, regarding reloc~tion of RV parking away from the shoreline. Larry Crockett: provided written co~ments, directing Council to the Port's e-mail response to Ms. Robinson's suggestions. Eric Toews, on behalf of the Port of ~ort Townsend, expressed the Port's dissatisfaction with these amendme~ts offered at this late stage of the process, particularly the new language conceri1ning RVs and planning for Point Hudson. He noted that months of painstaking but collaborative discussion were spent on the draft and the Port has tried to be a team player throughout. He stated that, at best, the I proposed amendments are unneces~ary - the suggested additional planning would be undertaken in a code that narrowl~ defines activities at Point Hudson which ! I I City Council Special Meeting Ipage 1 December 12, 2005 I I I . . preclude redevelopment. Inclusion J such language is likely to discourage the Port from doing anything but relying on inpome from RVs. There is also an implication that if only the Port would get its act jogether, the income would be magically transformed; however the Port has s~bmitted considerable financial information into the record. He stated the Port resp~ctfully requests that the modification not be approved. I I , Ms. Robinson stated she brought forWard language (distributed in an e-mail to Council) that she thought elaboratedl a bit more than what was in the policy of 5.13.2 regarding encouraging removal of RVs. She noted the specific language is a suggestion, not a mandate, and just putlines some options for process. She also stated she disagrees with Mr. Crock~tt's e-mail in that it is not the process of the Shoreline Master Program to masterlplan for Point Hudson. I Mr. Masci disagreed, stating this is alzoning issue, not a business plan and that the Port is subject to public review of iss~es; we should not put up another hoop for the Port to jump through in trying to do arything with their property. I , Ms. Sandoval asked for an eXPlanatipn of "adaptive re-use" in Policy 5.13.2. Ms. Surber noted re-use would be p~rmitted but if an addition or modification were about 10%, it would kick into a conditional use. , . , . Ms. Sandoval asked how and where Inew compatible development would be allowed. I I I Ms. Surber stated any water oriente~ use of adaptive re-use or any unlisted water- oriented use would be allowed with ~ CUP. Water dependent and water related uses and non-commercial water enjqyment uses are allowed anywhere and commercial water enjoyment use is 1"owed in existing structures. Ms. Sandoval asked what the proceds would be if the Port wanted to build a new building. Ms. Surber replied that it iOUld require a substantial development permit and would go before the Hearings E aminer. Currently mixed use, or transient- mixed use would not be allowed. , ! Ms. Sandoval stated that the currentlconcern is whether there is a need to get any more information from the Port regar~ing new development that may occur. She stated she is wholeheartedly in favor of removing RVs from the spit and would like to see the ability to have the spit restor d; if the Port could remove the RVs and put up a new building within the allowed pa meters, they would not need to show it is financially feasible. She said the bu iness plan was suggested in the first place in connection with the mixed-use facilit. An economic analysis should be done for something over and above what is al owed. She said she suggested a statement in the prologue regarding ecological re~toration of the Eastern point; this could be a statement that this is the highest g011 of this area as opposed to leaving it unstated. I City Council Special Meeting Ipage 2 December 12,2005 I ! . . Ms. Fenn stated she understands w y this suggestion might feel overboard to the Port. She said she thinks there is a middle ground, perhaps a possibility of a process by which at some future poi t if the Port wants to go through a process of suggesting uses beyond this docum nt, we are effectively saying that in exchange for restoration at the point we would e willing to engage in a sub-area planning process. She likes the idea of addin language that anything outside this document could be pursued with a sub-area pi nning process with the City - not committing to it, but outlining a process of how tha could be pursued if the Port is in the future interested in that dialogue. Consid ring the comments of the DOE, is seems to be a good idea to indicate our intentionl:j about ecological restoration in the goals in page 2 of the Point Hudson Marine ~istrict draft (after line 12). She would like to beef up our intention as to removal ~nd restoring ecological functions. ! Mr. Kolff concurred that it is not nec~ssary or beneficial to include language about business plans or economic analysisl. He asked what role and what weight would a stated encouragement of the Port to Ido a sub area plan have. Ms. Surber noted that policy language could be carrie~ out through development regulations. I Mr. Watts stated this is introductory t~pe language and would logically be placed in the first section, prologue, possibly irrmediately prior to the purpose paragraph. , , . Mr. Benskin stated it might also be irlserted on page 55, 5.13.3 as there is specific language there about restoration op~ortunities that could be beefed up at that point. He also stated that he believes addi~g SMP language that would include some sort of sub-area plan is unnecessary at t1iS point. Mrs. Medlicott asked if the Council isl going to make a statement subject to interpretation or if we really propose 'hat nothing can go on the shoreline because it would not enhance opportunities for restoration. She asked how people are supposed to enjoy the shoreline if th$y can't go there. ! Mr. Masci stated he believes the co~ment from the Department of Ecology is a telegram from the future and should rot be ignored. Ms. Fenn stated that restoration of epological function is the whole basis of the shoreline act. She noted that Washi gton did not have a long-term view of saving shorelines for public use like Oregon She stated we need to look at what's happening in the future as our shore ine has been much more heavily impacted. She believes the comment from DO is a heads up and by incorporating this, will prevent them handing back the docu ent for changes. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to include ,1m addition to the language on page 54, Policy 5.13.2, to include the phrase "encoutage the removal of RVs from Point Hudson, especially at the point." Ms. Fenn s'fconded. The motion carried, 7-0, by voice vote. . City Council Special Meeting IPage 3 December 12, 2005 MoUon, M,. KoUf mo,ed to In,/ude 1 th, prologu, (b~om" Un, 13 on page 52) "the City recognizes that real improv~ment to habitat value and ecological function could result from portions of dune a,-, as near the sandspit being restored to more natural conditions, with native speci s buffer areas to the sandspit established and protected from trampling." Ms. Fenn seconded. ! Ms. Sandoval stated she wanted to jee something very basic such as "the goal is to achieve ecological restoration of the point." This was not agreed upon by the entire council. I I Mr. Benskin suggested adding that t~ 5.13.3 and then in the policy language use the general intention language suggeste~ by Ms. Sandoval. Motion to amend: Ms. Sandoval moted to add language after the revised paragraph stating, "The goal is to achieve the r~storation of the Eastern point." (before "purpose" in prologue). Mr. Kolff se'fonded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. ~ ! Vote on motion as amended secondlparagraPh second page with extra sentence inserted as part of the prologue at thr end - line 13 above "purpose" on page 52 or page 2 or Marine District, carried, 6- , Medlicott opposed. , Motion: add "Revision of pedestrian11 domestic animals and automotive intrusions from the area nearest the sandspit ould facilitate enhancement of ecological functions of that dynamic feature of t e land and sea, and promote protection of avian species like Black Brant. Ms. Sandoval seconded. Carried, 6-1, Medlicott opposed. , , I I Ms. Robinson stated she would with~raw her proposal from the table so Council can move on. ! , I I Ms. Sandoval asked if aside from th4 mixed use development at the Landfall, is there any other provision for a mixed~use development in this master program. I Paul Inghram stated he believes the bpecial provisions are the ones under discussion either at Point Hudson orlurban designations. Regarding the different uses in Point Hudson buildings, thesr different types of regulatory mechanisms allow different combinations. ! Mr. Kolff asked if Larry Crocket WOUI~ like to express any concerns of the Port with what has been recommended. I Mr. Crockett said he had not seen th~ DOE letter earlier and there are a couple of items that are not factually correct. e stated we all support long term restoration wherever possible but the SMP is qu te clear you take those areas of Washington I I , I I IPage 4 I ! I I . . . City Council Special Meeting December 12, 2005 . shorelines that are developed and cjncentrate development in those areas so you don't impact areas that are not developed. He stated he could live with the changes made tonight. I Ms. Robinson suggested the Counci!look at the suggested changes to Chapter 5, page 30 provided by staff. I I , , Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to accept t~e additional language in lines 26-29 ('Regardless of use, the ground floo~ of all buildings shall have a minimum clear ceiling height of ten feet in order to Bflow flexibility of use." Mr. Masci seconded. Ms. Surber noted the language was laken directly from the Commercial Use section. Normally commercial uses have hig~er ceilings than residential as this affords larger storefronts. I Vote: motion carried unanimously, ~-o, by voice vote. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to add und~rlined language, addition of "iii" starting on line 36, page 31. Mr. Masci seconded. I ! I Mr. Masci characterized the languag~ as contributing to "administrative blackmail" on developers. It doesn't say anythi~g about how you pick the restoration site, which could be crucial. ! ! 1 Ms. Surber noted that there is a balarce, that if the developer gets his end of the bargain, the City needs to get their erd as well. Ms. Sandoval noted that she is alrea~y feeling the whole restoration situation is fairly vague. She believes the very least vfe can say is that it remains in perpetuity; we still haven't seen a hierarchy of restolration projects in the list. She asked if the restoration has to be within the City. I 1 I Paul Inghram stated that language c~n be added that the restoration choices in Chapter 14 must occur within the City. Ms. Sandoval proposed as a friend/~ amendment the second sentence (line 37) be followed by "that occurs within the qty." Amendment was accepted by the Council. I . Ms. Fenn stated there is more work tP be done, especially in creating the way of weighting and evaluating what a dev~loper can gain by doing restoration above and beyond requirements. ' Motion: Mr. Benskin moved to rem~ve language "or approved non-profit entity" Mr. Masci seconded. Motion failed, 3-4,' Benskin, Masci and Medlicott in favor. . City Council Special Meeting IPage 5 I I December 12, 2005 . Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to add the of easement purposes and reversio easement." Ms. Fenn seconded. hrase (after "entity" - "with perpetual protection to the City if the non-profit cannot maintain the otion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. . , Vote on motion to add language on ~age 31 as amended carried, 6-1, Masci opposed. I I I RECESS I Mayor Robinson declared a recess ~t 8:25 p.m. for the purpose of a break. i ~ECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:3' p.m. ! Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to chang~ the agenda per the presiding officer's suggestion, e.g., table the SMP to larer in the evening, conduct the public hearing on C-II Design Standards and return to It next week, then deal with the supplemental budget, advisory board appointmentf' fire service contract and surcharge funds; then meet Thursday to deal with agepda items that are not finished this evening. Mr. Kolff seconded. Motion failed, 3,4, Benskin, Masci, Medlicott, Sandoval opposed. I , I Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved that i~m VIII (A) be moved up to follow the public hearing and that the portion of the agenda that is not addressed tonight be moved to another meeting. Ms. Robinson sed,onded. Motion carried, 4-3, Benskin, Masci and Medlicott opposed. ~' Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to table t e Shoreline Master Program until later in the meeting. Mr. Kolff seconded. The otion carried, 5-2, by voice vote, Benskin and Medlicoft opposed. I I ORflNANCE 2920 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY C UNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING CERTAIN SECTION OF TITLE 17 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ZONING, COM ERCIAL AND MIXED USE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS AND PROCESS . Mayor Robinson reviewed the rules If procedure for public hearings. She asked if any Council members had any finan ial or property interest in the outcome of the hearing. There were none. , ! I Long Range Planning Director Jeff Rlandall reviewed the packet materials. He stated the Council may choose to golthrough the ordinance section by section after public comment or continue the disc~ssion to December 19. He provided two I , I City Council Special Meeting Page 6 December 12, 2005 handouts, one titled "Staff Clarificati ns/Amendments" and one titled "Commercial . and Mixed Use Design Guidelines R view Process." Public comment ! Richard Berg: member of original Def.ign Standards Committee that worked for years drafting guidelines in the first Alace and is also a member of the Design Review Advisory Committee. He staled that, based on his experience, he feels the proposed changes are good for the qommunity and will help make the Design Review Advisory Committee's job ea~ier and will make for a better process. He commended Planning Commission ~nd recommended approval of the ordinance. I David Goldman: stated that the Cha~geS in the notice provisions to the public are much more useful to the public. He ~tated he hopes there will be signboards on his property showing elevation and delin~ation. He supports requiring a higher consensus of experts and professio~als of the committee in order for the proponent to obtain a "departure." He added h~ supports the minority regarding the sign code change, that a departure from the Sit' n code height should be unanimous. He supports the changes proposed as r asonable and believes they will provide some equity for developers who own large, pieces and that it will not hurt the formula store ordinance. I . Ian Hinkle spoke in favor of the chanbes proposed, stated the Planning Commission and sub-committee did a good job. lHe stated that the issue dealing with whether a unanimous vote should be required tp allow a sign to exceed the height limit; this is not just a Commercial C-II issue but ~Iso commercial residential and asking that the committee have unanimous consent Iwould be appropriate. The argument is that good design would require greater h+ight and if that were the case then they should be able to come to consensus. There was no further public commen~; Mayor Robinson stated that public comment would remain open until the next me~ting. , ! Mr. Randall stated that if Council wishes to delay the section-by-section examination of the ordinance until the next meeti~g, he would propose to incorporate the additional edits from the handout int1 the ordinance for the next meeting. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved for first re~ding of Ordinance 2920. Mr. Kolff seconded. The motion carried, 6-1, by voice vot~, Medlicott opposed. I Ms. Sandoval asked that the CD/LU minutes reflecting discussion on this subject be added to the packet for next week. i I I Motion: Mr. Masci moved to continu~ the public hearing to December 19. seconded. The motion carried una1imously, 7-0, by voice vote. Ms. Fenn . City Council Special Meeting Page 7 December 12, 2005 GENERAL GOVERNMEN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION . . Joint Operation An Management Of Fire Services ! Fire Chief Mike Mingee reviewed thel packet material and noted that the General Government Committee has approv1d the agreement unanimously. I , Public comment: none I I Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to approve II the amended Interlocal Agreement for Joint Operations and Management of Fire Services Between the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Fire District 1. I Mrs. Medlicott seconded. Ms. Robinson referred to section 9, tevenues for Joint Operating Fund and noted that raising the tax levy 1 % has not een a unanimous vote of the Council. She asked what would happen in this ca e if the revenue increase was not approved and the interlocal assumed the increase. ! Mr. Kolff offered a friendly amendme~t that the agreement should include a statement that says the transfe"ed a,mount from the General Fund will be made contingent upon the City and Districtlboth increasing their property taxes by 1%. The amendment was accepted by thf Council. , I Vote on motion as amended carried pnanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. I OR~INANCE 2918 I AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING THE SUM OF $69,509 TO THE GENERAL FUND; $3,000 TO THE STR~ET FUND; $70,000 TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND; $55,000 T THE 2003 BOND FUND; $442,759 TO THE EMERGENCY SERVICES FUND; $ ,000 TO THE LODGING TAX FUND; $12,500 TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICE FUND; $3,000 TO THE G.O. DEBT SEVICE FUND; $12,500 TO THE COMMU ITY SERVICES FUND; $3,000 TO THE G.O. DEBT SERVICE FUND; $10,016 0 THE 2002 PUBLIC WORKS TRUST FUND LOAN FUND; $10,016 TO THE UTI ITY CONSTRUCTION FUND; $31,250 TO THE CITY HALL ANNEX/RENOVATIO CONSTRUCTION FUND; $30,330 TO THE FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND; $1, 00 TO THE MEMORIAL FUND AND MAKING FINDINGS AND D CLARING AN EMERGENCY . Mr. Timmons reviewed the packet mrterial, noting that Council conducted a public hearing and approved first reading o~ the ordinance on November 21. I Mr. Benskin stated that he does not ~elieve the unanticipated costs for the Fire Station have been explained very w~lI. He distributed a "punch list" from the project. : I I I ! City Council Special Meeting Ipage 8 December 12, 2005 I Mr. Timmons noted that there are tw issues, the project budget and the calendar year budget. He stated Mr. Benskin's issue has more to do with the project budget. Staff is currently preparing the final roject reconciliation; the project will also undergo a federal audit. Some disp ted claims and issues have been turned over to the City Attorney. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved for a~OPtion of Ordinance 2918. Ms. Fenn seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-q by voice vote. CITIZEN ADVISORY BOAdD AND COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE APpOINTMENTS Mayor Robinson presented her reco~mendations for appointments to the Planning Commission and the Affordable Hou~ing Task Force. She remarked that the current Housing Needs Assessment AdvisorY Committee will begin meeting soon; when they finish they may create a joint ta~k force between the City and County to address affordable housing and at thlat point the City task force may become part of that group. She recommended thatlthe new appointee to Affordable Housing become part of the Housing Needs 1ssessment Advisory Committee as well. ! Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to approve I the Mayor's recommendation and confirm the following appointments. Ms. SandoVal seconded. The motion carried, 6-1, by voice vote, Masci opposed. ' . . Planning Commission: Alice King (Position 1, term expires ~2/31/09) Harriet Capron (Position 2, term exp' s 12/31/09) George Randels (Position 7, term ex ires 12/31/09) George Unterseher (Position 5, termlexpires 12/31/08) ! Affordable Housing Task Force: I David Rymph (ad hoc, no expiration ~ate) ! , Motion: Mr. Masci moved to approv~ the Mayor's recommendation and appoint Michelle Sandoval to the Housing N~eds Assessment Advisory Group. Mr. Kolff seconded. The motion carried unarlimously, 7-0, by voice vote. I INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FaiR ADMINISTERING SURCHARGE FUNDS GENER1TED BY SHB 2163 , Mr. Timmons reviewed the packet m~terial. He noted the agreement is patterned on our existing agreement providing fun s for low income housing programs through recording fees; this program provide funds dedicated to reducing homelessness. I i I , I , I I i IPage 9 I There was no public comment . City Council Special Meeting December 12, 2005 . Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to authoriz the City Manager to sign an Interlocal Agreement between Jefferson Coun ,the City of Port Townsend and Olympic Community Action Programs for the urpose of administering surcharge funds generated as a result of ESSHB 216 . Mr. Masci seconded. Ms. Robinson proposed a friendly a~endment to add "and the City of Port Townsend" to paragraph (E), so that the City will also receive a written summary of funds expended under this agreeme t. Amendment was accepted by the Council. , Vote: motion as amended carried upanimOUSIY, 7-0, by voice vote. SHORELlNf MASTER PROGRAM I Motion: Mr. Masci moved that the runcil continue the public hearing on the Shoreline Master Program to a futul1 date and adjourn. Mrs. Medlicott seconded. The motion failed, 3-4, Benskin, Ma i and Medlicott in favor. I Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to coAtinue the meeting until 11 :00 p.m. Mr. Kolff seconded. The motion carried, 6-1, ]by voice vote, Mrs. Medlicott opposed. , i Mayor Robinson pointed out that thelCouncil has also scheduled an executive session for the evening that will last ~t least one hour. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to adjdurn the meeting into executive session and continue the other items on the agen~a to the meeting on December 19. Mr. Kolff seconded. The motion carried, 6-1, Iby voice vote, Fenn opposed. , Consensus: meeting on December 19 will begin at 6:00 p.rn. , EXEC~TIVE SESSION Mayor Robinson stated that the COU~Cil would enter executive session to discuss a personnel matter at 9:50 p.m. She ~rid the session would last approximately one hour and that no action was anticipafd following the meeting. , . R CONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 11: 5 p.m. DJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. . ~cP< . Pam Kolacy, CM~ City Clerk City Council Special Meeting ~age 10 I I December 12, 2005