Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08152005 . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF AUGUST 15, 2005 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this fifteenth day of August, 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, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. Freida Fenn was excused. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall, Fire Chief Mike Mingee, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA . Mrs. Medlicott requested the addition of an item concerning the overall budget under "Unfinished Business." After discussion, consensus was to bring up the item under "Comments from Council." COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (consent and non-agenda items) Karen Nelson: update on PTTV Channel 48 programming CONSENT AGENDA Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to adopt the following items on the Consent Agenda (with corrections to August 8 minutes as noted.) Mr. Masci seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. Approval of Bills. Claims and Warrants: Vouchers 94950 through 94971 in the amount of $54,047.84 Vouchers 94989 through 95130 in the amount of $989,422.72 Vouchers 805051 through 805058 in the amount of $79,530.08 . Approval of Minutes: August 1, 2005 August 8, 2005 (corrected to reflect 5-0 vote on page 6 motion rather than 6-0 vote) City Council Meeting Page 1 August 15, 2005 UNFINISHED BUSINESS . COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS AND PERMIT PROCEDURES Mr. Randall reviewed the packet materials and went over the recommendations of the Community DevelopmenULand Use Committee. He noted that the Council tasked CDILU to address concerns raised about the commercial design review process on April 25. The Committee met three times with members of the City's Design Review Advisory Board and at the end of the process, unanimously approved the recommendations before the Council. He stated that after review by the Planning Commission, the matter would probably come back before Council in November for final action. Mr. Masci asked for elaboration on the Seattle "departure" process. Mr. Randall replied that the process provides for a variation for an applicant who requests a deviation from proscriptive standards if the applicant shows that a departure would be better for the site or would better meet the intent of the design guidelines. The request is reviewed by the design committee. . Mr. Randall also explained that no change is recommended in the appeal process, which is available from the applicant to the hearings examiner. Changes have been recommended to the noticing process so that the public could have more opportunity for input; however, a member of the public other than the applicant still may not appeal a decision. In answer to Mr. Masci's question, Mr. Watts stated that the Design Review Committee does not have final, quasi-judicial authority, but only makes recommendations on design review. Ms. Sandoval noted that although the public can't appeal to the hearings board, there is more notice so that the public is aware of what is going on. Regarding the recommended departure process, which would allow commercial signs to exceed the 17 -foot height limit with unanimous recommendation by the Design Review Advisory Committee, Mrs. Medlicott asked if this would apply to already existing signs such as the Harborside Inn. Mr. Randall and Mr. Timmons noted that the process would apply if the entity were to do a project subject to design review and that the Harborside issue involves not only height, but square footage. If incorporated into a broader project, review may be requested, but if the issue is just a request to change an existing sign, it would not come under this change. . Mr. Masci requested all the information which was provided to the CD/LU Committee. Mr. Randall will provide to the entire Council. City Council Meeting Page 2 August 15, 2005 Public comment . David Goldman stated this is an adaptive re-use issue and said there should be bright lines for which rules must be followed and when an applicant may propose a departure. He noted that the standard of "in the public interest" is very subjective and there is no telling how that decision would be made. He is concerned that in the final review there will be no objective standards and encouraged the Council to work toward putting in some bright lines. Mr. Masci requested a copy of Mr. Goldman's memo to the CDILU, the information from the Seattle guide on the departure process and Mr. Sepler's memo to the Committee. Mr. Randall will provide to entire Council. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to direct the Planning Commission to review the work list and recommendations of the DC/LU Committee, work with staff and the Design Review Advisory Committee to develop code amendments to the commercial design review chapters of the municipal code, and forward a recommendation to the City Council by November 2005. Ms. Sandoval seconded. . Ms. Sandoval stated that the Committee could have gone into much greater depth on the issues, but wanted to package the main concerns and bring them to Planning Commission and then back to Council. She added the intent of the group was to show where the focus was needed so that the Planning Commission could go into a more lengthy process. The Committee's work was not meant to be a finished product. She said that one of the concerns was balancing the needs of the public to know about proposed projects but also make the process efficient for the applicant. Mr. Randall noted that the Planning Commission will be taking longer to review the Shoreline Plan than planned and they will not be able to take up formula store or commercial design standards until the shorelines action is completed. Mrs. Medlicott stated that the Council should defer any action until they receive all the information from the Committee process. It was suggested that the Council plan a workshop session to review the recommendations. Ms. Robinson spoke in favor of getting it onto the Planning Commission's calendar so they can schedule recommendations that will come back to the Council. . Mr. Kolff stated that the Council's relationship to the Planning Commission is a worthwhile discussion; in particular, how much time does the Council wish to spend on an issue prior to referring it to the Planning Commission. He said he City Council Meeting Page 3 August 15, 2005 . would prefer to schedule a workshop after the Planning Commission has made a recommendation so that the Council has the benefit of their input. He added that he believes the process works better if the advisory groups are allowed to do their work before Council gets into an issue. Ms. Sandoval stated that the Council always makes the final decision, but often another a public hearing is assigned to another body, such as the Planning Commission. She said is seems premature for the Council to jump in now; while it is true there is much information to digest, the council is able to do that without stopping the process. She said this issue has much bearing on the permitting process as well as the formula store ordinance; in fact the design standards will probably have a greater bearing on how the town develops than the formula store ordinance itself. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to postpone action until the August 22, 2005, meeting. Mrs. Medlicott seconded. Vote: motion carried, 4-2, by voice vote, Robinson and Sandoval opposed. Staff requested that Council keep the packet material presented for this meeting so it does not have to be reproduced. . RESOLUTION 05-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, DECLARING ITS INTENT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ESTABLISHING AN OPERATIONAL CONSOLIDATION OF FIRE DISTRICTS NO.1 AND NO.6 AND THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND FIRE DEPARTMENT, WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JOINT OPERATING FUND AND JOINT BUDGET OVERSIGHT BOARD Chief Mike Mingee noted that Council had directed staff at the August 1 Council meeting, to draft a resolution of intent which is reflected in proposed Resolution 05-031. Ms. Sandoval stated she was not present at that meeting and asked several follow-up questions about the consolidation funding and joint budgeting proposal. Chief Mingee stated that it is correct that the increase projected in the City's General Fund support would be tied to the assessor's growth forecast (3.4% is current estimate). . Ms. Sandoval said that it is important that we provide information showing how the funding from the different districts combined will produce a separate district which will function well and why it is in the best interests from the taxpayers point of view. City Council Meeting Page 4 August 15, 2005 . Chief Mingee stated that in 2006 the combined district would be able to maintain an additional level of service; although the revenue for the coming year can't be guaranteed and expenditures vary, he believes that the benefits of pooling resources will mean that funding may not necessarily be saved, but will be re- directed with the end result a higher level of service for the same amount of money. Ms. Sandoval asked about future levies. Chief Mingee stated that whether funding comes through levies or general fund supplements, the costs won't increase, but he would like that level to keep from rising too rapidly. If annexation is done, then the City will pay a levy to the new district; currently the city funding for the entity comes from the general fund. Public comment None Motion: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of Resolution 05-031. Mr. Benskin seconded. Mr. Kolff noted that the resolution shows an intent, but details must be worked out. . Ms. Robinson stated she does have reservation about blending the finances and the oversight of that financing so will be looking forward to getting more clarity on that. Although she is not comfortable with that now, she supports the letter of intent. Mrs. Medlicott said she has some level of discomfort about the funding mechanism although she is in total support of the intent and would like to make sure the community's questions will be answered. Ms. Sandoval said there are many questions and it is important to have a public meeting of some sort, in a venue large enough for the community as a whole. Council consensus: public forum should be held to provide information and opporlunity for community discussion. Chief Mingee will begin working on details. Joint Oversight board will discuss at meeting on August 23. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. NEW BUSINESS PARTICIPATION IN AWC "WALK ACROSS WASHINGTON" . City Manager David Timmons reviewed the packet material. Marion Huxtable of the Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board briefed the Council on plans; City Council Meeting Page 5 August 15, 2005 she noted that the NMTAB would like to have City employees participate and a . representative from the Council to kick off the event. Public comment None Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to approve that the Non-Motorized Transporiation Advisory Board sponsor and organize a Pori Townsend segment of the Walk Across Washington. Mrs. Medlicott seconded. Motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. Mrs. Medlicott offered to represent the Council at the "kick-off" of the event. FUNDING FOR PUBLIC OPINION POLL REGARDING PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES Mayor Robinson noted that this item is a follow-up from the joint meeting held with County Commissioners on August 3. Mr. Timmons reviewed the packet material and noted that the County Commissioners approved to fund up to $10,000 for the joint survey at their August 8 meeting. . Public comment Councilors received copies of an e-mail from Allen Frank, opposing funding the survey. Mr. Benskin asked about the particulars of the funding. Mr. Timmons stated that the estimate is a total of approximately $15,000 for research by the sub- contractor; there is no charge other than out of pocket expenses, for Trust for Public Lands staff. That cost was estimated to be no more than $5,000 total. Mr. Benskin stated that since there are more residents in the County than in the City, proportional contributions should be considered. Kees repeats that there are questions formulated with the governing bodies and stakeholders. Hard to tell what the equity will be and how many people are called really and whether that's the most important thing Ms. Sandoval stated she is happy to finally be working together with the county to provide services for all County residents; she is pleased to be building that partnership and is happy with the 50/50 split right now; her main concern is to help provide services which will bring lifelong health and enjoyment benefits that will benefit all community residents. . City Council Meeting Page 6 August 15, 2005 Ms. Robinson said that the stakeholders would be able to work with the . consultants to formulate the information and questions which will be posed. Mr. Kolff said that the MPD Task Force specifically recommended that a survey and poll be done so by initiating the poll the Council is following this recommendation. Mr. Masci stated that an advisory ballot would be an alternative method of gathering the same information and might be less costly. In answer to Ms. Sandoval's question, Mr. Masci stated that the BIRFUS study was allocated to cost $200,000 over a two-year period, although it did come in under budget. Ms. Sandoval noted a vote is simply a yes or no answer to a question; in a survey you talk to people and get feedback; there is the ability to engage citizens in a conversation. She said it seems the task force did advise us and we need to take the next step. Ms. Robinson stated the City can only poll city residents so it would be a matter of two ballot measures, which may end up with a total cost comparable to the cost of the survey. . Mr. Kolff stated that we could have TPL do a brief presentation for the Council to hear about the experiences they have had in other communities across the country. If the decision is not made to approve the action tonight, he would recommend that a presentation by TPL be placed on an upcoming agenda soon. Mrs. Medlicott asked who picked the Trust for Public Land and where did they come from. Mr. Timmons stated that they were recommended by Lee Springgate, chair of the MPD task force, who has had experience working with them; they are a national non-profit organization in this area. The scope of work was also written by Mr. Springgate as an MPD task force member; he stated that not knowing the opinion of the mainstream community was the thing that held the task force back. Ms. Sandoval expressed surprise at the discussion as the agreement at the joint meeting indicated that this was the direction we were going to go. She stated there is much process in government and at this point she is tired of delaying this. She added we have a community that wants this issue resolved and feels that it directly impacts their quality of life and it would be a mistake to backpedal now. . Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to fund up to $10,000 toward feasibility research and a public opinion poll, pending final approval and presentation by the Trust for City Council Meeting Page 7 August 15, 2005 . Public Land, to help determine what capital projects are a priority for the voting public, how the park system should be managed and governed and if and how much the electorate is willing to pay. Mr. Masci seconded Mrs. Medlicott stated she is not opposed to the city and county working together or to the parks system, but she is opposed to spending money on another study. Mr. Masci stated that surveys in the past didn't answer the fundamental questions that this survey is going to ask; he stated he realizes it all adds up, but sometimes you have to spend a little money to get somewhere. He also said he is more comfortable knowing the spending can be done in increments. Vote: the motion carried, 5-1, by voice vote, Medlicott opposed. PRESIDING OFFICER'S REPORT None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Timmons reported on the following: A report on use of the Consent Agenda is in Council mailboxes. . Fire station - official opening has been moved to Fire Prevention Week, October 8. Economic Development Council is asking representatives to pay dues equivalent to previous contract amounts, which would be $25,000 for the City. He will need to craft a response. Staff is working with the Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee to request technical assistance from the National Parks Service in Seattle for the update to the Parks & Recreation Functional Plan. Staff is working with the Port on possible funding from the Transportation Funding Bill for non-traditional projects in regard to the Quincy Street dock as a possible passenger ferry access. In answer to Mr. Benskin, he stated that he does not believe there will be opposition from the private option holder. Skate park process is underway with contractor Dreamland. The traffic model for the Howard and Sims intersection shows that the problem may be more complicated than first thought - it now looks as though no matter what kind of traffic device is placed there, Sims Way will become grid locked . City Council Meeting Page 8 August 15, 2005 unless it is turned into a five-lane street. Council will be updated with options . soon. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Masci reported that the General Government Committee has discussed bicycle cops and public works projects. FUTURE AGENDAS Mr. Timmons stated that a first touch on City Hall financing would take place on August 22. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL Mrs. Medlicott asked to discuss the property tax levy rate for 2006. Mr. Timmons noted that a public hearing is scheduled for August 22, at which time Council will act on the percentage and dollar amount of any levy increase. Mr. Benskin stated he received a letter from a citizen who is opposed to people using cell phone while operating vehicles. . Motion: Mr. Benskin moved to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to ban the use of cell phones while operating any kind of vehicle in Pori Townsend. Mr. Masci seconded. Mrs. Medlicott suggested that the staff be directed to present the Council with more information before deciding whether to craft legislation or not. Ms. Robinson stated she is inclined to hear from the Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board in regard to the work the Council asked them to do on bicycle regulations. Mr. Kolff stated he does share the concern about using cell phones but has no idea whether other communities have such laws; he also would like to get some information and stated we need to limit the amount of extra work we assign to staff in light of the full plate of pressing issues currently underway. Mr. Timmons noted that uniformed personnel regularly use cell phones in their vehicles and would need to be exempt. Vote: motion failed on a 3-3 tie, by voice vote, with Kolff, Robinson and Sandoval opposed. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to refer the issue of cell phone use while operating vehicles to the General Government Committee to work with staff and make a . City Council Meeting Page 9 August 15, 2005 . recommendation back to City Council. Mr. Masci seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Attest: 2~~~d- City Clerk . . City Council Meeting Page 10 August 15, 2005