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