Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/03/2004 5151 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington February 3, 2004 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Headrick called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order SPECIAL MEETING: at 4:05 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Headrick, Councilmembers Braun, Erickson [arrived at 5:45 p.m.], Munro, Pittis, Rogers, and Williams. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Manager Quinn, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Upton, B. Collins, M. Connelly, G. Cutler, D. McKeen, T. Riepe, Y. Ziomkowski, G. Kenworthy, J. Hebner, S. Johns, T. Smith, T. Funston, W. Groff, J. Andrews, and S. Roberds. Public Present: R. Peterson, C. Brown, P. Lamoureux, M. Melly, R. Casey, Sr., D. Edmisten, C. Melly, M. Brown, P. Eyestone, S. Campbell, E. Kaetzel, R. Tulloch, B. Tulloch, B. Harden, D. Cummins, L. Darling, P. Blakeman, C. & J. Williams, and B. Brannan. All others present in the audience failed to sign the roster. Interview Candidates for Interview Candidates for Planning Commission: The City Council interviewed the Planning Commission following for vacant positions on the Planning Commission: Larry Hurd, Nason Beckett, Dylan Honnold, and Peter Ripley. Applicant Cherie Kidd was unable to participate in the interview process, so she submitted a letter for the Council's consideration. Following the interviews, the City Council discussed the four candidates' strengths and Councilmembers' impressions about the answers provided during the interviews and the process for selecting a candidate for the Planning Commission position. The Council also engaged in discussion about how they should formally address one another, as well as staff, during Council meetings. It was agreed by consensus that City Clerk Becky Upton would be asked to replace the nameplates with a Councilmember designation. Councilmembers would then publicly address each other as Councilmember and the last name and staff as Manager Quinn, Director and the last name, etc. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Headrick called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order REGULAR MEETING: at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Public Works & Utilities Director ALLEGIANCE: Cutler. PUBLIC CEREMONIES, 1. 2020 Vision Week in Port Angeles - February 9 - 12, 2004: PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Headrick read a proclamation declaring February 9 - 12, 2004, as 2020 Vision Week in Port Angeles. 2020 Vision Week -1- 5152 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 3, 2004 Proclamation Recognizing 2. Proclamation Recognizing Retirement of Wayne Groff: Retirement of Wayne Groff The presentation was deferred to later in the meeting, pending the arrival of Mr. Groff. WORK SESSION: None. FINANCE: 1. 2004 Annual Contract - Economic Development Council - for Economic Development: 2004 Annual Contract - Economic Development Economic Development Director Smith presented the annual contract with the Clallam Council County Economic Development Council in the amount of $35,000, which is the same contractual amount as in 2003. Mr. Smith indicated the EDC had performed well this past year, and he reviewed some of the accomplishments gained by virtue of the partnership. Attorney K_nutson directed attention to the modified agreement, copies of which had been distributed, and he explained a dispute resolution clause that had been incorporated. He indicated that no contractual dispute had arisen in the past, so it was determined that a minimal dispute resolution clause would be appropriate. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Rogers moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract as revised with the Ciallam County Economic Development Council for 2004. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Braun and carried unanimously. 2004 Annual Contract - 2. 2004 Annual Contract - Port Angeles Downtown Association - Main Street Port Angeles Downtown Program and Off-Street Parking: Association Director Smith reviewed the 2004 contract with the Port Angeles Downtown Association to financially support the Main Street activities. Mr. Smith summarized the various revitalization efforts that have taken place, and he indicated such endeavors are ongoing. The contract amount of $17,250 is the same as the prior year, and a dispute resolution clause has also been incorporated into this agreement. Councilmember Pittis inquired as to the status of the design guidelines, and he was informed they are ongoing. Councilmember Pittis moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract as revised with the Port Angeles Downtown Association for 2004. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Williams and carried unanimously. LATE ITEMS TO BE Paul Lamoureux, 602 Whidby, addressed the Council regarding desired recognition for PLACED ON THIS OR Bob Stepp, tree trimming in the vicinity of electric lines, the source of water for the FUTURE AGENDAS: Port wash down site, the source of water for freighters, the collection of the stormwater tax by the County, and errors in street vacation fmdings and conclusions. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilmember Braun moved to accept the Consent Agenda, to include: 1.) City Council Minutes of January 20, 2004 and Special City Council meeting of January 27, 2004; 2.) Expenditure Approval List - January 23, 2004 - $444,018.50; 3.) Sewer Repairs 2003, Project 02-23, Final Acceptance; and 4.) 8th Street Bridge Repair, Project 03-10, Final Acceptance. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Erickson and carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL Referencing the calendar, Councilmember Pittis noted the tentative meeting of the Real COMMITTEE Estate Committee set for February 9th. He indicated he had a schedule conflict, which REPORTS & was noted by staff. CALENDAR: Manager Quinn reminded the Council of the upcoming joint meeting with thc Sequim City Council, February 9, 2004, 7:00 p.m., at thc Scquim Community Center, 190 W. Cedar Street. An agenda will be forthcoming. Councilmembcr Erickson referenced thc special City Council meeting set for March 12th regarding the 8th Street Bridges. In that she would be out of town but had a desire -2- CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5153 February 3, 2004 CITY COUNCIL to participate in the meeting, she asked that consideration be given to changing the COMMITTEE date. It was agreed that the special meeting would either be held on Monday, March REPORTS & 15, or Tuesday, March 16, at 4:00 p.m. Public Works & Utilities Director Cutler CALENDAR: (Cont'd) indicated he would inform the Council via e-mail of the selected date once he was able to contact the consultant to determine availability. ORDINANCES NOT None. REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS: RESOLUTIONS: None. OTHER 1. Independent Bible Church (IBC) Conditional Use Permit Appeal - CUP 02- CONSIDERATIONS: 08: Independent Bible Church Councilmember Erickson recused herself from the appeal by virtue of working with (IBC) Conditional Use Mr. Melly, the appellant. If acceptable to both parties, she expressed the desire to Permit Appeal- CUP 02-08 remain in attendance. Councilmember Williams recuscd himself as well, because the owner of his business resides in the vicinity and because he had prior knowledge of thc situation. Councilmember Munro recused himself by virtue of being an attendee at Independent Bible Church. Both parties agreed it was acceptable for those Councilmembers to remain in the Council Chambers. Mayor Headrick summarized that this is an appeal of a Conditional Use Permit for the Independent Bible Church to construct a "Family Life Center" building, additional office space and a sport/athletic field, alleging that the City did not properly review the proposal with regard to the building location relative to neighboring homes and that the City did not adequately address the issue of the area labeled "future parking expansion and classroom if needed" nor condition the permit regarding that area. Community Development Director Collins advised the Council of the process to be followed in the appeal in that the appellant will first submit his arguments, the applicant will follow with his arguments, and City staff will follow-up with comments. There would then be an opportunity for the appellant and the applicant to comment a second time. He indicated the City received additional materials from the appellant after the completion of the Council's packet, so copies were provided to the Council on Monday. The applicant provided additional information earlier in the day, and copies were distributed to the Council at this time. Director Collins continued that the staff report analyzed the two appeal issues initially raised by Mr. Melly, but did not review a new issue regarding the drainage plan condition and associated City requirements due to the fact the staff report was completed prior to the time the additional information was received. He indicated that staffwould address those issues during its commentperiod. Director Collins stated that the appellant and the applicant have been working for nearly one year to resolve the appeal issues by redesigning the project, and this appeal hearing recognizes that a resolution has not been reached. He advised the Council that this is a closed record appeal that allows for legal arguments, but the presentation of new testimony or other evidence not in the public record of the Planning Commission is not allowed. Director Collins cited the Planning Commission records that date from August 28, 2002 to February 12, 2003. He referenced an error on Packet Page 96 wherein there is a statement that witnesses could be called by the three parties to the appeal, but only the City, the appellant, and the applicant will be presenting arguments. Attorney Knutson further elaborated on why the statement regarding witnesses was incorrect. This is a closed record appeal, and a public hearing on this matter has already been conducted before the Planning Commission. Under the new statutory system for land use planning matters adopted by the State Legislature, there can only -3- 5154 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 3, 2004 OTHER be one public hearing on matters such as this, which means that the Council is restricted CONSIDERATIONS: just to hearing arguments from the three parties which, Attorney Knutson indicated, (Cont'd) would be the Community Development Director representing the Planning Commission's decision, the applicant representing the project, and the appellant Independent Bible Church representing the viewpoint of opposing the project. Attorney Knutson indicated the (IBC) Conditional Use three parties could present arguments to the Council, but those arguments must be Permit Appeal - CUP 02-08 based on the record that was presented to the Planning Commission. It would be (Cont'd) inappropriate to introduce new evidence, and it would be the responsibility of the parties should they wish to object to any new evidence that they think another party is trying to introduce. He concurred with Director Collins that it would be inappropriate for any of the parties to be calling witnesses, as the witnesses were the individuals who testified before the Planning Commission. Attorney Knutson addressed another comment in the staff report that he felt worthy of clarification in that there was reference to a third issue that Mr. Melly raised in his brief submitted yesterday. The staffreport, in his view, incorrectly stated that the issue could not be considered because it wasn't highlighted by Mr. Melly when the appeal was initially filed. Attorney Knutson felt there was no legal basis for restricting the issues to whatever the appellant established when the appeal was filed. The only restriction is that the issues have to be limited to what is presented in the record. So, any issues ora factual nature must be limited to the testimony that was presented to the Planning Commission; legal issues that wouldn't necessarily have to be based on the record before the Planning Commission could be raised for the first time at this hearing. However, Attorney Knutson stated he was unaware of any new legal issues being raised. Brief discussion followed, with Attorney Knutson clarifying the issues to be considered, as well as the documents just distributed to the Council. Mayor Headrick suggested the possibility of hearing the arguments this evening, reading the materials, and then continuing the matter to the next meeting. Chuck Brown, 112 North Lincoln, representing Independent Bible Church, asked a procedural question having to do with stating objections if one party felt the other party was providing information not contained in the record. He inquired as to the timing of the objection, and Attorney Knutson felt it could be stated at the time of the objection or at the end of the presentation. Mr. Melly, appellant, stated a preference to have objections stated during the discussion as the point arises. Attorney Knutson suggested that, if a party wishes to raise an objection upon completion of the presentations, it should be allowed. Chris Melly, 3603 Galaxy Place, advised the Council that he and his wife are the appellants. He indicated that, during the course of his arguments, he would be alluding to a number of exhibits contained in the record that were presented to the Planning Commission. Those records are available on CD should the Council be inclined to review the documents in that fashion. He indicated he would be using some of those records this evening to assist the Council by placing the arguments in context. Mr. Melly addressed the standard of review, indicating there is no standard set forth in the Municipal Code. In his view, the entire proceeding is a de novo proceeding on the record, which means he would not be required to establish that the Planning Commission committed any error. He felt the City Council could substitute its judgment for that of the Planning Commission albeit on the record that was prepared, presented to, and adopted by the Planning Commission. He indicated the facts were set back in February, 2003; however, in terms of conclusions reached, the Council may reach any conclusion it wishes. Mr. Brown stated an objection on the basis there is a procedure in place to submit applications, seek staff review, and obtain review and approval from an authorized body, the Planning Commission. He indicated these steps have been clearly followed, and all opportunities both public and staffhave been exercised and, therefore, what the Planning Commissionhas done shouldbe considered and not dismissedby the Council. -4- CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5155 February 3, 2004 OTHER Attorney Knutson clarified the matter of making objections in that the purpose of an CONSIDERATIONS: objection is to clarify what was or was not in the record before the Planning (Cont'd) Commission. It is not appropriate for the other party to be objecting to every statement with which he might not agree. Attorney Knutson also provided clarification as to de Independent Bible Church novo, which means starting anew, so the Council is not required to give any particular (IBC) Conditional Use deference to the Planning Commission's decision. Permit Appeal- CUP 02-08 (Cont'd) Mr. Melly continued by describing the project area as an RS-9 Zone, which is a low density residential zone primarily designed for single-family residences and intended to preserve residential neighborhoods. He indicated there are only two permitted uses in an RS-9 Zone: single-family residences and adult family homes. As in most zones, in addition to permitted uses, there are conditional uses which are or can be appropriate such as, in this instance, churches and schools. Mr. Melly stated that the Comprehensive Plan recognizes that residential neighborhoods are to be preserved and are the primary focus, but there are other uses, accessories, and activities that can occur in the residential area that are subordinate to the residences. He felt that the Comprehensive Plan recognizes that churches and schools are, in fact, appropriate under certain circumstances in a residential zone. Further, the Comprehensive Plan alludes to the other uses as subordinate, something that is undefined in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Zoning Code defines the term, subordinate, as less important than and secondary to the primary purpose, which is residential purposes. Mr. Melly felt that a conditional use, by definition, requires a special degree of control, and is appropriate when made consistent and compatible with the primary use. He noted that consistent and compatible are undefined terms in the Code and, when a regulation uses a term that is not defined, the courts routinely construe that term in its common interpretation. He indicated that Webster's Dictionary defines consistent and compatible as being harmonious and, in that context, a conditional use in the RS-9 Zone must be made to be harmonious and must reach a maximum degree of compatibility. In order to achieve this harmony, Mr. Melly indicated the Planning Commission and the City Council have the ability to impose any conditions that are deemed appropriate to protect the public health, welfare, safety, and the property values, since the Code specifically addresses the matter of property values. Mr. Melly referenced the preliminary sections of the Zoning Code, noting the number of purposes for which the Zoning Code was adopted, such as to protect the character of residential areas, to regulate spaces around buildings, to provide adequate light, to prevent undue concentration of structures, to avoid the adverse impact of such things as large buildings, and to prohibit buildings which are incompatible with the character of the permitted use. The Comprehensive Plan in residential areas also encourages scenic views and solar efficiencies. Turning to the specifics of the project, Mr. Melly referenced the Family Life Center and showed the Council area pictures to put the project into context in terms of the Family Life Center footprint, the elevation of the structure, the view of the structure as seen from Galaxy Place, as well as the potential reflection of morning sun from the structure. He discussed the proposed location and square footage of the proposed structure and the proximity of the structure to the Galaxy Place neighborhood. He felt the homes would be dwarfed by the enormity of the project, and he noted that views of the hills would be diminished. He cited the Comprehensive Plan in that scenic views in residential areas are to be preserved. Mr. Melly indicated the neighborhood has sun and shade concerns because of the height and grade of the structure. He felt the comments of the neighborhood should go a long way in establishing whether in fact there is consistency and compatibility, as it is very clear the neighborhood does not consider this project to be a welcome or harmonious addition. He continued by directing the Council's attention to the possibility of relocating the structure on the Church's twelve acres to an undeveloped and vacant area to the west or south side of the Church. Mr. Melly indicated the Planning Commission had addressed the matter of stormwater and stormwater runoff, but he shared his concern with the groundwater in the area. He -5- 5156 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 3, 2004 OTHER discussed a home that has a curtain drain which continues to drain during the dry CONSIDERATIONS: summer months. Because the applicant is proposing a picnic area to the south and (Cont'd) would remove trees that typically use the groundwater, Mr. Melly was concerned that groundwater would then further exacerbate an already troublesome problem in the area. Independent Bible Church He discussed the contours of the neighborhood, feeling it is clear the water will drain (IBC) Conditional Use into Galaxy Place. Mr. Melly requested that the Council add another condition to Permit Appeal - CUP 02-08 require a curtain drain to be installed or, alternatively, the Council could apply the same (Cont'd) language used for stormwater drainage to groundwater drainage. Mr. Melly referenced Area D on the site plan, which addresses future growth, future parking, and future classrooms, and he expressed concern that the Conditional Use Permit might extend to those unplanned future projects. He indicated this is a unique land use matter in that it has not met with virulent opposition from the neighborhood. He felt it was evident that the neighborhood was welcoming the project, but not without limitation. He felt there are some problems associated with the project, particularly in that it is not appropriate to cluster two 19,000 square foot buildings next to a neighborhood when there are twelve available acres for placement elsewhere. He then reiterated and emphasized the issues previously stated, and he urged the Council to base the conditional use approval on the Family Life Center being located to the west or south, as well as the installation of a curtain drain or adequate groundwater studies. Mr. Melly then provided clarification and answered questions posed by the Council. Chuck Brown, Independent Bible Church, disagreed with the contention that there hadn't been a review of the placement of the building, as the Planning staff and Planning Commission defined the parameters under which the property could be developed. He felt this had been dealt with appropriately and thoroughly in order to make a decision. Mr. Brown indicated that, with the conditional use process, churches and schools are allowed in a neighborhood. Mr. Melly had based his argument on the fact that conditional uses had to be consistent and compatible with the area, which Mr. Melly felt had been undefined. Mr. Brown indicated that, in this case, the definition of consistent and compatible is a church in a residential area by tradition. By fact, there are churches throughout the City that define what consistent and compatible look like. At this point, Mr. Melly objected, stating he had reviewed Mr. Brown's materials distributed this evening, and they contained a great deal that was not in the record before the Planning Commission. References to the other churches in the community were not in the record; the compatibility of those churches inthose neighborhoods is beyond the scope of the record, so he asked that Council limit Mr. Brown's discussion with regard to that topic. Mayor Headrick indicated that Mr. Brown was suggesting other properties that should be considered that were not, apparently, a part of the record. Mr. Brown, then, chose to limit the discussion to a generic nature in that viewing churches as a traditional building within a community like Port Angeles, one will see that consistent and compatible are defined by what is seen in the community. He suggested that the comparison is not that a church building or site is the same size as a homeowner's lot or square footage of a particular home, but rather whether the church structure and lot is consistent and compatible with what churches are in the community in which we live. Mr. Brown referenced Mr. Melly's presentation of the project's footprint made a part of the application. In discussions with Mr. Melly over the last year, the Church proposed to change the footprint of which Mr. Melly is aware. Mr. Melly objected, as those discussions occurred after February 12, 2003 and were not, therefore, before the Council at this time. He felt that the only matter before the Council is the original application that was ruled upon by the Planning Commission. The footpnnt and roof lines he showed the Council in his presentation were those submitted by the applicant with the application, and that is the record to be considered at this time. He felt that any subsequent discussions and redesigns were not part of the record. Mayor Headrick inquired as to whether the proposed changes weren't in the form of -6- CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5157 Febmary 3, 2004 OTHER an offer of compromise or resolution that the Council might consider. Attorney CONSIDERATIONS: Knutson responded he was in agreement with Mr. Melly's earlier statement regarding (Cont'd) this matter being de novo, meaning the City Council could place its own conditions on the Conditional Use Permit other than those recommended by the Planning Independent Bible Church Commission. He felt it would be appropriate for any party to suggest different (IBC) Conditional Use conditions, and he further agreed with Mr. Mellythat it would be inappropriate to go Permit Appeal- CUP 02-08 into the nature or specifics of any negotiations that the parties have conducted outside (Cont'd) this process. However, if any of the parties wish to suggest any mitigating measures that the Council could consider as part of its deliberations and decision, he felt that would be appropriate, including reducing the size of the proposal or moving the location of the proposal. Mr. Brown advised the Council that the Church had developed information that speaks to mitigation, and he was prepared to address that point. Mayor Headrick indicated the Council would be interested, as it would help them know the Church's position in that regard. Attorney Knutson offered further clarification that, if the applicant were to make a change to the proposal at this point in time that would require a new permit, that would be outside the scope of this appeal. If, however, the applicant were to propose something that is consistent with the permitted project or that reduces the scope or the impact, then that would be appropriate in this consideration. Mayor Headrick asked what would change the permit or the need for a permit. Attorney Knutson used the example that if the footprint were completely redesigned with additional associated impacts then another permit may be required. It was his understanding, based on information provided by Mr. Brown, that a new permit would not be necessary in conjunction with what is going to be proposed. Mr. Brown indicated that Mr. Melly was citing the design that was submitted with the Church's application. With their mitigating proposal that remedies some of the issues cited, those facts no longer apply. Mr. Brown indicated the primary issue was the citing of the building being so close to the neighborhood, as well as the height of the building creating a wall effect against the neighborhood. Mr. Brown provided the specifics of roof design changes proposed by the Church whereby the structure has been reduced to a single-story ten foot sill at a 60-foot setback. The second story of the building does not start until 27 feet further away from the property line, or 87 feet away from the property line. Further, the second story component is only 100 feet wide, so it is a much further and smaller signature than the previous design. Mr. Brown advised the Council that the relocation does not block any southern exposure, nor did the first design. He added that the trees to the west of the structure block the sunlight before the structure would block the sunlight in the afternoon. Therefore, the mitigating design actually makes a much smaller and lower and less imposing visual imprint on the community. Mr. Brown indicated that the Conditional Use Permit requires that, as construction takes place, barrier trees must be planted to serve as a filter for the building. He felt that, in this effort, the Church has answered the major issue. He acknowledged the Church wants to build the project in that location, and he said the location was discussed by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Rogers sought clarification as to the exact location of the trees that had been referenced in terms of sunlight blockage, and Mr. Brown clarified the trees were on the west side of Laurel Street. Addressing the location of the project, Mr. Brown described the different parcel purchases made by the Church, as well as the configuration of those parcels. One of the parcels was purchased for investment purposes in order to fuFther develop the land and also to control what occurs in the area. The parcel could also be sold at some future date. To place the Family Life Center in that area would severely restrict any future economic options the Church may have. He explained the reason for placing the Family Life Center adjacent to the worship center is that the two buildings function together. Due to the activities, there will be constant foot traffic, and the ministries -7- 5158 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 3, 2004 OTHER need to have a direct form of communication by being able to transit fromone to the CONSIDERATIONS: other with ease. Mr. Brown discussed the decision for placement of the worship center (Cont'd) in its current location, which related to future requirements for street improvements at the time the Laurel Street area might be further improved. It was purposely located Independent Bible Church away from the easement in view of possible future development. In addition, (IBC) Conditional Use requirements for the paved parking lot were such that to move it now would involve Permit Appeal - CUP 02-08 significant and unacceptable financial expense on the part of the Church. Nevertheless, (Cont'd) following input received at the Planning Commission meeting, the Church looked at all other options for placement of the Family Life Center - to the north, west, southwest and incremental steps in between. They concluded, however, that to rebuild the parking lot elsewhere would be a significant and unreasonable expense. Moving the building would also result in additional paving, as a roadway to the relocated parking would have to be placed around the building. He felt this would further aggravate the stormwater drainage issue by virtue of more paved surfaces, plus there would be additional parking lot noise and exhaust into the neighborhood. Mr. Brown explained why the Family Life Center could not be placed to the south, as it would create a situation of parking between the two buildings, thus requiring youngsters, the elderly and handicapped to unsafely transit through an active parking and roadway to get to another ministry building. Therefore, according to Mr. Brown, the only mitigation was to redesign to a single story low-profile building, with only the gym box being two story. The structure is 60 feet from the property line, and he felt this would be a reasonable mitigation. He indicated it is intended that the green space in between will serve as a garden area that will be a quiet and protected zone between the two buildings. An alternative use for that space, if not Church property, would be for the construction of single-family homes. A single-family home would have a higher profile than the single story building being proposed with a 60-foot setback. Mr. Brown felt this addresses the immediate concerns of the neighbors, provides for the needs of the Church, and also allows the Church to stay within that 5-acre plot and not have to financially recreate a parking lot. Discussion followed with Mr. Brown clarifying the distance from Laurel to the east property line, the length and height of the building, and light impact on the neighborhood. Councilmember Braun queried as to mitigation measures, and Mr. Brown responded the Church agrees on the water issue; however, the Church feels it must follow City Code in that regard. It was their feeling that the placement of a curtain drain in the absence of engineering input would not be the best solution. Further, the Galaxy Place neighborhood had a water problem before the Church was built. The Church should not be held responsible for solving the Galaxy Placewater problem, but the Church has invited the neighborhood to get involved with the Church in a joint effort to address water control. Mr. Brown clarified that it is intended to remove some trees for the picnic area. Although it is not totally defined, they would not do a clear cut in that area. Trees would be removed to the south in order to accommodate the sports field. In referencing Area D, as cited by Mr. Melly, the plans as designed included Area D in order to demonstrate what might occur at some future date. It was not included in the application, and it was not approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Brown felt it important to include Area D in the interest of full disclosure. Mr. Brown summarized by stating that the IBC proposed development is fully consistent and compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located. They met the spirit and requirements of the Port Angeles Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan. In fact, IBC proposed to act in excess of Code requirements to remedy the concerns of the neighbors with the impact of the proposed building. The changes made to the plans were in response to what they heard at the Planning Commission meeting from the neighbors. He thanked Mr. Melly for his patience pending the redesign efforts over the past year, but he felt they had arrived at something that is workable. He added that, to require additional conditions beyond those in the Conditional Use Permit, when the CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5159 February 3, 2004 OTHER established planning system worked, would be unwarranted and may be unwise for CONSIDERATIONS: futuredevelopmentby creatinganever-endingprocess. Councilmember Rogers sought (Cont' d) clarification fromMr. Brown as to future intended uses for other undevelopedproperty owned by the Church. Mr. Brown responded and indicated initial planning for the Independent Bible Church Church and future growth went out twenty-five years. That plan has been scaled back (IBC) Conditional Use somewhat. Also responding to Councilmember Rogers, Mr. Brown indicated the Permit Appeal- CUP 02-08 Church went through redesign and recently explained the changes to the neighborhood; (Cont'd) however, Mr. Melly felt he should proceed with the appeal. Community Development Director Collins advised the Council that, following the appeal hearing, the City Council could deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision, or modify the conditions of approval based on the Planning Commission's record and the appeal arguments. Director Collins indicated that the City has patiently waited a year for resolution by the two parties agreeing on redesign, and it is up to the City Council to determine appropriate conditions. Director Collins continued that, with regard to the first question Mr. Melly raised on harmonious and compatible conditional uses, by requiring the extra setbacks for schools at 40 feet and churches at 35 feet, the Zoning Code has taken into account the concept of being harmonious and compatible in the RS-9 Zone, unless there is a circumstance not expected for a normal site. It was felt that this site was considered to be fairly normal, and no such circumstance was found for the IBC relative to the surrounding neighborhood. No adverse impact was identified by the Planning Commission with the scale or setback beyond the usual setback for schools and churches. Director Collins felt that relocating the building through redesign near the same building envelope area but further away from the east property line would be consistent with Mr. Melly's argument. If the Life Center were relocated adjacent to the western or southern property lines, then Director Collins felt it would be conceivable that a new Conditional Use Permit might be in order since those locations were not part of the review of the existing Conditional Use Permit. Regarding the issue of drainage, Director Collins indicated that the City's drainage requirements only manage stormwater runoff and not that of groundwater. He noted that, to a large extent, the City has relied on its authority by conditioning the use concerning groundwater. Another issue that was referenced had to do with Area D, but Director Collins felt it to be very clear that this particular area did not have approval for an unplanned expansion. Therefore, he indicated the issues have to do with setback, relocation of the building envelope and how that might affect the other surrounding properties, and the issue about the City's drainage requirements. Discussion followed with Director Collins providing clarification to Mayor Headrick as to City regulations concerning stormwater runoff as opposed to no regulations pertinent to groundwater drainage controls. Mayor Headrick felt it was possible for the Council to enter a condition concerning the groundwater, to which Director Collins agreed. Councilmember Rogers inquired as to whether there is any wetland designation for that specific area, and Director Collins responded there was not; however, there is a relatively small wetland approximately 1/4 mile to the east and south of the proposed project. Councilmember Pittis asked if the Church chose not to do the expansion but wanted to put the picnic area in Area E, then what permits would be required. Director Collins responded that, at the very least, a Clearing and Grading Permit would be required. Also, there must be a determination as to whether the activity would require a Conditional Use Permit. Responding to Councilmember Rogers, Director Collins indicated that particular permit would deal with drainage as well. Mr. Melly returned to the podium for rebuttal. Regarding the matter of the Clearing and Grading Permit, he read the regulations and felt they did not address groundwater. He felt the regulations were primarily designed for surface water and stormwater, with the primary focus being erosion and siltation. With regard to the lack of controls regarding groundwater, he didn't think it was significant that the City did not have 5160 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 3, 2004 OTHER regulations dealing with groundwater. The Conditional Use Permit process allows the CONSIDERATIONS: City Council to impose any condition to deal with health, welfare, and property issues. (Cont'd) Mr. Melly felt the City Council could establish a condition whereby no additional groundwater should flow down Galaxy Place and, further, the Council could set the Independent Bible Church baseline in determining that issue. Mr. Melly addressed Director Collins' comment (IBC) Conditional Use having to do with 35 and 40 foot setbacks for schools as being consistent and Permit Appeal - CUP 02-08 compatible with the residential zone. He felt that, if that were the case, schools would (Cont'd) be a permitted use in the residential zone and not a conditional use. Mr. Melly reiterated that harmonious, compatibility and consistency must be examined, not by reference to what the standard is in another zone. He felt one must look at the zone in which it is intended for placement. He indicated that the Church did not come to the process as an equal, but it came with "hat in hand", which is the nature of the conditional use process. Mr. Melly stated he is a resident with a single-family home, which is a permitted use, and if someone wanted to do something that is not permitted, then they would have to come into the neighborhood, convince the neighborhood, and convince the Council that it's consistent and compatible. He emphasized that the burden is on the developer to show that what they are proposing works in that particular region. Director Collins stated an objection, as the referenced 35 and 40 foot setback is established in Table A for conditional uses in the RS-9 Zone specifically relating to schools and churches as conditional uses in the RS-9 Zone. Discussion followed as to what would serve as a permitted use, and Director Collins provided clarification in that regard. Discussion followed with regard to side yard setbacks. Mayor Headrick inquired as to whether it would be inappropriate to review the site of the project. Attorney Knutson indicated it would be inappropriate in that it would be outside the record. Mr. Melly expressed the opinion that it would not be inappropriate as the Council would not be taking in new evidence. A site visit would enable the Council to better understand the testimony, the photographs, etc. Attorney Knutson disagreed with Mr. Melly, but if both parties were to stipulate, that would be acceptable. Mr. Melly felt it would be inadvisable for the Council to visit the site collectively, and he recommended individual visits. Discussion followed as to the merits of a site visit, and the Mayor concluded that a site visit would not occur. Mr. Melly continued by referencing Mr. Brown's comments in that he intimated that the placement of the building was discussed and thoroughly analyzed, and Mr. Melly disagreed. The only discussion with regard to placement of the building came from the neighbors who testified in opposition to the proposed location. He indicated that, in reviewing what transpired at the Planning Commission meeting, there was no discussion at all by the Planning Commission with regard to that particular issue. Mr. Brown indicated that churches by definition are compatible and consistent. If that were the case, they would be permitted uses in this zone but they're not, they're subordinate uses. Mr. Melly reiterated that churches can be located in a residential zone, but they must be consistent, compatible, and harmonious. Mr. Melly then clarified his intent when showing the Council a photo depicting the height of the Family Life Center, the Church, and the impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. With regard to the discussion on the new design for the building, he renewed his objection, feeling that consideration of the redesign would be inappropriate and new evidence for the record. Even if it were appropriate and the design was properly before the Council, the Zoning Code still disallows the clustering of buildings and adverse impacts associated with large structures. Mr. Melly objected to discussion held regarding the purposes of the seven acres. He noted there was nothing in the record as to the investment value of the property, why it was purchased, or its intended purposes. Costs weren't before the Planning Commission, and Mr. Melly felt that the fact that it would be more costly to put the building elsewhere was not an issue properly before the Council. Mr. Melly added that - 10- CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5161 February 3, 2004 OTI-IER cost and convenience also were not issues before the Council but, rather, compatibility CONSIDERATIONS: and consistency of the project. He indicated that convenience because of foot traffic (Cont'd) was essentially the motivation for putting the building where it is proposed, and foot traffic was not a good reason to locate a structure of that size in close proximity to Independent Bible Church another 19,000 square foot structure when there are residences directly to the east of (IBC) Conditional Use the location. Mr. Melly indicated the Church is not being asked to solve the Permit Appeal - CUP 02-08 neighborhood's drainage problems, but it is being asked to not exacerbate what the (Cont'd) neighborhood is already experiencing. Referencing Photo 19, Mr. Melly directed attention to the trees south of Galaxy Place and the proposed picnic area. It was represented that it is not dense in that area, yet the photo shows there are a lot of trees. He felt that, no matter how many trees are removed, that much more water will continue down Galaxy Place. Mr. Melly indicated that the applicant's presentation involved a great deal that was not in the record before the Planning Commission. There were elevations attached, new designs, and the reasons for the location of the building, none of which were before the Planning Commission. Mr. Melly said that to the extent the Council considers the new design discussed by Mr. Brown, to the extent that the Council thinks that the building should be moved from the proposed location, the suggestion was made that the permit should be denied and a whole new process commenced. It was not his intent to scuttle the Church's project, but he did want the Council to seriously consider the propriety of the establishment of such a large structure in close proximity to a residential area. If it should result in a new Conditional Use Permit, then regrettably that's the case. First and foremost, Mr. Melly felt it important that the Council look at the size of the structure that is being proposed, the proposed location, the existing structure that's already there, and the multitude of open space to the west and to the south. He noted that moving the structure somewhere else resulting in an adverse affect on the Church's investment plans could not be his concern, nor should it be the Council's concern. Mayor Headrick asked Mr. Melly about his assertion of the building being too close to the property line, thus creating a shading of the properties in the neighborhood. Mayor Headrick asked if, by saying the building is too close, wasn't he suggesting it should be moved further away and then, if the petitioners agreed to move it further away, wasn't Mr. Melly saying that Council couldn't consider the willingness to move the building? Mr. Melly responded that he felt the Council could not consider the new design that has been proposed, as the Council must consider the application that was submitted which shows the footprint and dimensions of a two-story structure. The Mayor observed that, if there was nothing in the record stating the applicant's willingness to move the building, then the Council could make the suggestion. Mr. Melly agreed that the Council could direct that the building be moved. Mr. Brown returned to the podium stating that, regarding the Planning Commission discussion on placement of the building, it would be more accurate to say that the Planning Commission had enough information and was given input from the application and staff and then took testimony at the Planning Commission hearing to have enough information to make a decision. If the Commission chose not to publicly engage in discussion on that matter, it was their choice. He understood the rules of not introducing anything new, but it seemed bizarre the Council would ignore the remedies being proposed over the past year. When Mr. Melly said the Council had the right to essentially start over, Mr. Brown had asked for permission to present the information, as to not consider what actually might remedy the situation would be a waste of time. Mr. Brown found it interesting that costs to IBC should be of no moment to the Council, but the impact to Mr. Melly must be considered important to the Council. He felt the issues are consistency and compatibility, as the Church and Mr. Melly are both neighbors. Mr. Brown indicated that the Church was trying to work within the Codes and within what they could do to mitigate and to create a situation that would be longstanding. The Church has been in that location over fourteen years; it is compatible and consistent, and it gets along with the neighborhood. Mr. Brown indicated there are a lot of trees in the picnic area as pointed out and as shown in the -11- 5162 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 3, 2004 OTHER pictures. The Church did not intend to cut down those barrier trees and when the picnic CONSIDERATIONS: area is thinned, those trees seen from the street that are on the property line will remain. (Cont'd) It will still be a very nice presentation from that end of the street. Further back into the area, trees will be thinned out so that a picnic area grove will exist. Understanding Mr. Independent Bible Church Melly's concerns on drainage, Mr. Brown was not sure it would be wise to ask the (IBC) Conditional Use Council to create groundwater drainage codes. He felt this is an engineering issue that Permit Appeal- CLIP 02-08 has been addressed on the IBC properties when groundwater issues arise. The Church (Cont'd) did not intend to make things worse for Galaxy Place. He asked that any groundwater mitigation be accomplished under an engineered plan that is required in the Codes. In deliberating the action to be taken by the Council, it was agreed by consensus that the Council should take the oppommity to give the matter further thought. It was, therefore, agreed that a special City Council meeting would be scheduled for Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 6:00 p.m., to further address the matter. The Council was reminded that only four Councilmembers would be participating. Break Mayor Headrick recessed the meeting for a break at 8:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m. Proclamation Recognizing 2. Proclamation Recognizing Retirement of Wayne Groff' Retirement of Wayne Groff Mayor Headrick read and presented a proclamation to retiring Engineering Survey Technician Wayne Groff. Mr. Groff, retiring after 22 years, accepted a plaque from Public Works & Utilities Director Cutler, after which Councilmember Pittis offered words of congratulations. Appointments to Planning 3. Appointments to Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment: Commission and Board of Adjustment Councilmember Rogers moved to appoint Dylan Honnold to the Planning Commission for the unexpired term ending February 29, 2004 and for the period, March 1, 2004 - February 29, 2008. The motion, which was seconded by Councilmember Munro, carried 6 - 0, with Councilmember Erickson abstaining in that she had not been present for the interviews. In response to an inquiry from Clerk Upton, the Council opted to defer to the next meeting an appointment to the Board of Adjustment. It was agreed that a special meeting would be set for 5:00 p.m., February 17, 2004, for the purpose of conducting Board of Adjustment interviews, with the regular Council meeting to follow. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None. QUASI-JUDICIAL: PUBLIC HEARINGS - City of Port Angeles/Army Street Vacation - STV 03-04: OTHER: Community Development Director summarized the request for a street vacation by the City of Port Angeles/Army City for the puq~ose of acquiring right-of-way for the placement of the City's new water Street Vacation - STV 03- treatment facility. He indicated the United States is the abutting property owner and, 04 on behalf of the U.S., the U.S. Army has expressed the desire to not acquire any of the Ordinance No. 3156 right-of-way. Director Collins provided the Council with revised Findings and Conclusions associated with the street vacation request. Councilmember Williams advised the Council that the Real Estate Committee had considered this vacation and recommended it for approval. Mayor Headrick opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. There being no public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m. Mayor Headrick read the Ordinance by title, entitled - 12- CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5163 February 3, 2004 PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCE NO. 3156 OTHER: AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, vacating City of Port Angeles/Army a portion of an unnamed 100-foot-wide right-of-way north of Street Vacation - STV 03- Milwaukee Drive east of the City's landfill site. 04. Ordinance No. 3156 Councilmember Braun moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title, citing the revised Findings 1 - 10 and Conclusions A - C, as set forth in Exhibit "A", which is attached to and becomes a part of these minutes. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Rogers and carried unanimously. On another matter, Mayor Headrick noted that a member of the audience wished to address the Council. She was unable to be present during the earlier portion of the meeting for public input, so Mayor Headrick invited her to the podium at this time. Pam Blakeman, 4006 Fairmont Avenue, addressed the Council on the matter of the Elwha Landing project. Acknowledging that she had only gained her facts from the local newspaper, she expressed concern with the transfer of land on Ediz Hook for the marina project. She had discussed this matter with Tim Smith, but Ms. Blakeman noted that Ediz Hook has been accessible to the public for years, and she was hoping to obtain further information on the project in the interest of assuring ongoing public access. Further, Ms. Blakeman expressed concern that the project will involve giant steel buildings and will be view obstructive. She expressed surprise that the project had been approved without the submission of sketches and without the benefit of public input. Manager Quinn responded by providing the history of the City's lease of Ediz Hook from the Federal Government, the dedication of 600 feet of the Hook to the Lower Elwha Tribe by Federal legislation, and the additional dedication of property for the Elwha Landing project. Manager Quinn indicated the marina will be placed 35 feet into the water, and the City will be gaining an additional park along that specific area of beach. Further, he indicated that the agreement establishes that public access will be maintained, there just won't be public access to the gated marina. Councilmember Rogers emphasized the fact that public access is to be maintained, and she informed Ms. Blakeman that a developer doesn't typically spend a great deal on development sketches until it is known the project will proceed. She noted there are still some issues to be resolved on the transfer of land, but that the project will be complementary to other commercial enterprise onthe waterfront. She added that the Elwha Tribe is also desirous ofmaintainingpublic access. Manager Quinn advised Ms. Blakeman that it is intended to have a design scheme that is consistent and uniform, and it is felt there will be no detrimental blockage of the view corridor. Councilmember Williams referenced the Elwha Act, noting this project has been in the planning stage for three years, during which public input was obtained. Councilmember Pittis urged Ms. Blakeman to participate in the 2020 Vision process by bringing her ideas and visions forward. INFORMATION: Manager Quinn again mentioned the meeting with the Sequim City Council. He then directed attention to a draft letter he had written concerning the proposed expansion of the County Board of Health. He had been asked to provide input, and he summarized an alternative he had proposed in that three County Commissioners would not be on the Board of Health. Rather, he suggested there be one County Commissioner, one elected official from each of the three incorporated cities and the hospital district, and two at- large citizens, for a total of seven members. Manager Quinn asked for Council input on the proposed letter, after which he will finalize it for submission to the County. Director Cutler reminded the Council of the upcoming KONP Home Show, February 28 - 29, at which the City will sponsor an informational booth. A sign-up sheet for Council participation has been circulated. - 13- 5164 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 3, 2004 EXECUTIVE SESSION: None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Ri[h~rd A Headrick, May~rrI ' Becky J. Uptef~CitifSglerk - 14- Exhibit "A" 5165 RECOMMENDED Fi~DINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ~ SUPPOP~T OF STREET VACATION PETITION - STV 03-04 - CITY OF PA/U.S. GOVERNMENT Findings: 1. A petition requesting vacation ora portion of unopened, unnamed right-of-way located north of Milwaukee Drive and south of West 18th Street was submitted by the City of Port Angeles Public Works Department and the United States Army on December 2, 2003. The unnamed right-of-way originally formed the extreme edge of the original Townsite of Port Angeles. Annexations in 1957 and 1971 for municipal purposes extended the City limits further to the west to the current City limits. 2. Per RCW 35.79.010, two thirds of the owners of property in an area may request vacation of property and comprise a valid request for such action. The U.S. Army does not wish to acquire any of the right-of-way as verified by the letter accompanying the petition and raised no objection as to the City obtaining ownership of the entire subject area. 3. Abutting properties are zoned Public Buildings and Parks (PBP) and Industrial Light (IL) and are operated as the City's landfill operation, the William R. Fairchild International Airport, and a private mining operation. The City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map identifies the area as being in the Northwest Planning Area and designated as Industrial (I). 4. The City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map were reviewed for consistency with the proposed vacation of right-of-way. Land Use Element Commercial Goals and Policies Policy E.3; Industrial Goal H and Policies 3 and 4; Utilities and Public Services Goal D and Policies D.9 and D.10; and Capital Facilities Goal A were found to be relevant to the proposal. 5. The subject right-of-way area is composed of two strips - one being 100'x 379.4+ feet in size and one being 50'x 694.2+ feet in size for a total of 72,659 square feet in area. 6. The City of Port Angeles' Real Estate Committee met on December 12, 2003, to discuss the proposal and to establish a value for the right-of-way. A value orS0.11 per square foot was set based on the assessment of other similar properties in the area for a valuation of $7,792.92 for the subject area. 7. Properties south of the site are owned and operated by the Port of Port Angeles as a portion of the William R. Fairchild International Airport. Access through the unopened right-of- way to the property south of the site is not desired due to Airport restrictions in the clear area. Access to the Airport property is obtained through the Airport. 8. The vacating of a street is categorically exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review per Section 197-11-800 (2) (h) of the Washington Administrative Code. 9. The site was posted for a land use action and required publication appeared in the Peninsula Daily News on December 16, 2003. No public comment was received. 10. At its December 16, 2003, regular meeting, the Port Angeles City Council established a public hearing date for action on the street vacation petition as February 3, 2004. The Port Angeles Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed street vacation on January 14, 2004. 5166 Findings and Conclusions STV 03-04 - Page 2 Conclusions: A. Traffic patterns on surrounding streets will not be negatively impacted by the vacation. B. The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan specifically: Land Use Element Industrial Goals and Policies Goal G; Land Use Element Commercial Goals and Policies Goal D and H and Policies D.3 and H.4; and Transportation Element Goal B. C. The street vacation is in the public interest. ~ ~~~ted bythe,.,~ Port geles ity. ouncil at its meeting of February 3, 2004. Richard Headrick, Mayor B~clc~i. Ul~n, C~y Cl~rk/-