Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout070306 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 3, 2006 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this third day of July, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend temporary Council Chambers in the Port Townsend Fire Station conference room, Mayor Mark Welch presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, Scott Walker and Mark Welch. Frank Benskin, Geoff Masci and Michelle Sandoval were excused. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mr. Walker requested that Item C (set public hearing for Rosecrans Terrace Appeal) be removed from the Consent Agenda. The item was placed as Item C under Unfinished Business PUBLIC COMMENT (Consent and non-agenda items) Public Comment Bob Middelburg: regarding proposed changes to transient accommodations regulations. Doug Milholland: Presented more signatures to petition for a public forum regarding Indian Island Naval base as well as compilation of news articles. Requested Mayor Welch and City Manager Timmons take concerns of the citizens group to their meeting tomorrow at the naval base. CONSENT AGENDA Motion: Ms. Robinson moved for approval of the fol/owing items on the Consent Agenda. Ms. Medlicott seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0, by voice vote. City Council Business Meeting Page 1 July 3, 2006 Approval of Bills, Claims and Warrants: Vouchers 98330 through 98455 in the amount of $241 ,051.75 Vouchers 98475 through 98486 in the amount of $29,796.78 Vouchers 620061 through 620069 in the amount of $99,822.18 Vouchers 628061 through 628062 in the amount of $39.34 Vouchers 705061 through 705069 in the amount of $97,984.53 Approval of Minutes: June 12, 2006 June 19, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE 2924 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TABLE 17.22.020 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE PERMITTING BOAT SALES, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE IN THE C-II AND C-1I1 ZONES OF BLOCKS 4 AND 9 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF PORT TOWNSEND City Attorney John Walts reviewed the public hearing procedures outlined in the Council Rules. He asked if any Councilor had any conflicts of interest or financial or property interest in the outcome of the proceedings. Mr. Walker noted that he wished to disclose that he does have an open-ended contract for semi-annual vessel haulout with Fleet Marine but he did not believe that would disqualify him from participating. Mr. Walts agreed that this would not constitute a conflict of interest. Staff Presentation Senior Planner Judy Surber reviewed the packet materials, including the unanimous recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission on June 22. Public comment Matt Elder, President of Shannon Elder Yachts asked for approval of the amendment, noting that as a business person, he does not believe it would be prudent to buy an operation already operating at capacity which could not be expanded and intensified without going through a series of approval processes in the future. In regard to the option of changing the zoning designation, he noted that this has been a long process for the current owners and their expectations for the property are based on the current zoning. Mary Winters: stated that when the property was rezoned, commercial redevelopment was the highest and best use; prospective purchasers want to make marine trades the highest and best use and this solution is the best try possible to keep marine trades within the community. She believes this text amendment will be City Council Business Meeting Page 2 July 3, 2006 needed in the future no matter who owns the property; and that boat building and repair should be a use that is allowed outright. Council Questions Ms. Robinson asked a series of questions: Is all of Block 93 owned by Fleet Marine at this point? Answer: yes. What portion of the subject property falls under the Shoreline Master Program? Answer: about one third and it does encumber a portion of one of the buildings. With the proposed addition of use clarification, could the property be used as it is now under straight C-II zoning or could it be expanded with the current use - is the point to make it a legally conforming use? Answer: yes, the point is to make boat repair a use that is allowed outright. Why is the "highest and best use" C-II as opposed to straight marine trades? Answer: the financials at this point do not pencil out with the current revenue; some intensification will be required to make it pay because it is based on commercial zoning. If a change in use were proposed for the site, would SEPA be triggered? Answer: If the change were beyond the threshold exemptions, then SEPA would be required. There are some modifications that could be activated without SEPA kicking in. Where would environmental concerns be addressed? Answer: noise level is addressed by the WAC; air quality by ORCAA. Last year the Council considered a change in use for an applicant and their situation subsequently changed, showing it is difficult to take zoning on a piece by piece basis. If the City's proposed Shoreline Master Program is accepted, would we be looking at this kind of change in the future anyway? Answer: For those within the shoreline jurisdiction, this would be consistent; when only part of the property is within shoreline jurisdiction it is harder to apply and determine what would be inconsistent; this revision would clarify the City's intent on how the property could be used. The applicant didn't want to go though a zoning code change but would that be more ideal than the use table change? Answer: this block is the only block zoned C-II east of the ferry dock. All other commercial property east of the ferry dock is zoned historic commercial. Staff wondered whether this request might trigger a request to look at zoning and whether or not the outcome might be a potential rezone of the property to the Point Hudson zoning which is marine industrial. The applicant indicated that the investment they are proposing to make (not closed yet) required that they maintain the option of commercial zoning and not just be limited to City Council Business Meeting Page 3 July 3, 2006 industrial zoning available through marine industrial zoning so staff did not pursue the larger issue of what was the appropriate zoning. City records do not provide a definitive history or explanation of the reason for the zoning designation. It has been in the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning code for over ten years and it did not seem to be appropriate to revisit it since the request seemed to make the existing use legal. "Highest and best use" is an appraisal term and does not drive land use; typically the more uses a property is allowed under the zoning code the higher the value. The City is seeking to retain existing zoning as well as adding a use. What was the zoning before C-II? Answer: staff believes it was an earlier version of a commercial zone; a lawsuit filed several years ago by the property owners objected to including the property either in marine industrial or historic commercial zone. In the SEPA, the proposed business was referred to as a "boutique development" - where does that term come from and what does it mean? Answer: this is a term that has been used quite a bit in New England and we refer to smaller high-end developers as "boutique boat builders." It describes a high level standard of building, typically a luxury market product built on a smaller production scale a combination of some repetitive tasks but allowing the owner some level of customization. Mary Winters added that she believes this zoning change occurred some time around the first Comprehensive Plan amendment. The zoning in 1993 was P-I and there was a legal action over that zoning designation. She stated that from talking with former employees it appears that the C-II zoning is the City's acknowledgement that this is a difficult site for the maintenance of marine trades, with no heavy haulout, etc. Ms. Robinson stated she would like to see the site continue as a marine trade operation and she supports the property changing hands to an enterprise that will continue that. She added she understands the practicalities of keeping the C-II designation. She stated the Council's job is land use and not necessarily appraisal of the "'highest and best" use. She stated she would support the ordinance even though she has some concerns about SEPA and few of the other issues. There were no further questions or discussion. Motion: Mr. Welch moved to approve first reading of Ordinance 2924. Mrs. Medlicott seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0, by voice vote. City Council Business Meeting Page 4 July 3, 2006 RESOLUTION 06-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE 2007-2012 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT THIS TO THE STATE Public Works Director Ken Clow reviewed packet materials. He noted the modification of the priority list based on the Council's initial discussion of the resolution on June 19, 2006. Public comment None Motion: Ms. Robinson moved to adopt Resolution 06-016. Mr. Walker seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0, by voice vote. In response to a question by Mrs. Medlicott, Mr. Timmons stated that the specifics of the Howard Street/Sims Way improvements would be before Council for discussion in the last quarter of the year. RESOLUTION 06-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH CARLSON ARCHITECTS TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A COMMUNITY ARTS FUNCTIONAL PLAN Mr. Timmons reviewed the packet material. He stated that the project had been halted while it was determined that the current major capital projects were being completed within budget. The next phase of the project will be to involve the Council to develop guidelines in conjunction with the Arts Commission and another phase of public process which will be established. He noted that the amount for the amendment has been budgeted but the expenditure had not been authorized. Motion: Mr. Welch moved to refer the matter to the Finance and Budget Committee to consider at their next meeting and for a recommendation to be brought back to the Council at the first meeting in August. Mr. Walker seconded. Motion carried, 3-1, by voice vote, Medlicott opposed. Rosecrans Terrace Appeal (removed from Consent Agenda) City Council Business Meeting Page 5 July 3, 2006 Mr. Walker stated that he questioned the need for Council to consider the alleged lack of timeliness of the appeal findings. Mr. Watts noted that this is an issue that must be heard at a time when both sides can give their evidence and arguments. He stated there could be two separate hearings - one on the procedural issue only and then another on the merits if the first hearing concludes the appeal was filed in a timely manner. He added it would not be appropriate to avoid setting a date for a hearing in order to conclude the matter. Public comment: Roy Walker: on behalf of Joey Pipia and Susan Langlois, stated they think the appeal was filed well past the deadline. Travis Moegling, representing Strider Development, stated that the appeal was indeed filed when it should have been filed. Motion: Ms. Robinson moved to set a hearing date for September 7, and require the process as set forth in agenda bill: (1) Initial brief submitted one week in advance of the hearing; and 2) any reply brief submitted 3 days before the hearing; and further set a timeframe for oral argument not to exceed one-half hour per party (plus 5 minute rebuttal). Mr. Welch seconded. Mrs. Medlicott stated she does not believe the various vacations that are scheduled should have a bearing on the timing of the hearing and that it should proceed as soon as possible. Vote: motion carried, 3-1, by voice vote, Medlicott opposed. Mr. Watts stated that staff would work on an alternate date for the procedural hearing. PRESIDING OFFICER'S REPORT Motion: Ms. Robinson moved to accept the Mayor's recommendation and confirm the appointment of Julian Ray to the Planning Commission (Position 8, term expires December 31, 2006.) Mr. Walker seconded. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0, by voice vote. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Timmons reported that a legal opinion has been received regarding the golf course property and indicates there is no encumbrance so long as the proceeds go to benefit the golf course. City Council Business Meeting Page 6 July 3, 2006 FUTURE AGENDAS Mr. Walker stated that letters have been received regarding the proposed development across from the Library and one letter suggested a design charrelte for the uptown district. Consensus: discuss during Inbox meeting on July 10. Mr. Walker asked if staff had determined a cost for replacement of the Haller fountain steps. Mr. Clow stated the preliminary estimate is $30-45,000 but this does not include potentially significant earth work. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Altest: ChYh cp{~ Pam Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Business Meeting Page 7 July 3, 2006