Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/06/1990 1529 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington February 6, 1990 I CALL TO ORDER Mayor Sargent called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at 7:05 P.M. II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Gayla Perez and Earla Stuhr~s Campfire Group. Members present: Crystal DeFrang, Linnea Tiller, Rachel Pinnell, Darcy Stuhr. III ROLL CALL Members Present: Mayor Sargent, Councilmen Gabriel, Hallett, Lemon, Nicholson, Ostrowski, Wight. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Manager Flodstrom, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Maike, S. Brodhun, M. Cleland, B. Collins, L. Glenn, J. Pittis, B. Titus, B. Coons, S. Hursh, K. Ridout, G. Kenworthy, C. Jones. Public Present: M. Langley, Mr. & Mrs. L. Cauja, Mr. & Mrs. K. Langley, T. Phillips, L. Lindberg, J. & R. Mantooth, T. Rymer, B. & N. Johnson, E. & R. Dorr, R. Myren, D. & S. Berry, L. Beil, L. Fuller, D. Rudolph, J. Newlin, E. & D. Flatau, C. Alexander, H. Berglund, J. Cornell, R. Sexton, R. Page, T. Mata, P. Cronauer, D. Willson, J. Rosbach, J. Austin, F. Robinson, Jr., M. Gano, R. Kunholz. IV APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 16 AND SPECIAL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 1990 Councilman Ostrowski moved to approve the minutes of the January 16, 1990, regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion. Mayor Sargent offered a correction to page 17, Item 5, to add to the end of the fourth paragraph: "Also George Petit and Jim Borte wished to serve." The motion was voted on and carried unanimously. Councilman Lemon moved to approve the minutes of the special meeting of January 23, 1990. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. V FINANCE 1. Consideration of Bid Award for 1990 Legal Publications Councilman Hallett moved to accept the legal publications proposal and award the bid to the Peninsula Daily News, and authorized the Mayor to sign the legal advertising agreement at a rate of $5.30 per column inch. Councilman Wight seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 2. Consideration of Bid Award for Transformers Councilman Ostrowski moved to award the bid for purchase of pole-mount and pad- mount transformers to the responsible bidders having the lowest evaluated cost transformers, as follows: #1, General Pacific, Inc., $6,500.30; #2, Western States Electric, $8,142.16; #3, Western States Electric, $16,536.60; #4, General Pacific, Inc., $4,637.55; #5, General Pacific, Inc., $1,803.49; #6, Western States Electric, $6,471.23; #7, Western States Electric, $7,091.08; #8, WESCO, $10,087.92; for a total of $61,270.33. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. -1- 1530 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1990 3. Request for Payment to Riddell, Williams of $3~447.10 for Legal Representation on WPPSS Issues Councilman Hallett moved to authorize payment of the current Riddell, Williams bills in the amount of $3,447.10 for legal representation on W-PPSS issues. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion. Councilman Ostrowski asked Attorney Knutson how long he anticipated the billings from Riddell, Williams to continue. Attorney Knutson responded that an appeal has been filed by Transcontinental on the WPPSS litigation insurance case, noting that the City successfully won at trial court level, and if the City can successfully defend the decision on appeal, then it will be receiving in excess of $2 million. The appeal process could last several months. Additionally, the City will continue to receive small monthly bills from Riddell, Williams for approximately several hundred dollars each until the settlement of the WPPSS securities litigation is finalized. He did not believe the process would be longer than one year. The question was voted on and the motion carried unanimously. VI CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Hallett moved to accept the items as listed on the Consent Agenda, including (1) Request for proposals from Mechanical Engineering Consultants for City Hall second floor space conditioning; (2) Request for consideration of advance travel for Recycling Seminar; (3) Correspondence from Washington State Liquor Control Board; (4) Vouchers of $1,738,954.22; and (5) Payroll of 1-21-90 of $245,056.02. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion. Councilman Hallett questioned staff regarding the request for proposals to correct temperature problems on the second floor of City Hall, asking if any claims could be made on the builder or designer of the building. Director of Public Works Pittis responded that the air conditioning of the second floor was deleted specifically to reduce costs in the project. Council discussed with staff at length the reasons for the deletion of the air conditioning; possible ways to alleviate the problem; the use of City personnel as opposed to a mechanical engineer consultant; and different options which may be used to pursue the issue. City Light Director Titus pointed out to the Council that there are not a lot of options regarding the alleviation of the problem; that personnel has done what they could to correct the problem; but it is a problem with the building. Following a short discussion of other issues as presented, the question was called and the motion carried 6 1, with Councilman Gabriel voting "No", as he was not convinced it was necessary to hire a mechanical engineer to analyze a solution to the problem. VII ITEMS FROM THE COUNCIL/AUDIENCE TO BE CONSIDERED/PLACED ON THE AGENDA Tim Rymer, Department of Wildlife, requested that the Council re-open the public hearing on the DelHur Rezone in order that the Department of Wildlife could provide comments, since it was unable to do so through the SEPA process, and also the Council would allow for comments from other public agencies, as well as Tribes. Councilman Gabriel asked why Mr. Rymer was not able to speak on the issue before. Mr. Rymer responded that he was not contacted through the SEPA process for the rezone. Mayor Sargent pointed out that in order for the council to re-open the public hearing, the notification process must be followed, and therefore a public hearing could not be held during this meeting. Manager Flodstrom stated that William McDowell had delivered a letter to the City Council and asked them to place on the agenda at a future meeting the discussion of the Sign Ordinance. Mayor Sargent placed this as Item 19 on the CouncilVs agenda. '2- 1531 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1990 William Wilbert, Bellevue, representing the applicant for DelHur, Inc., requested that the Council not re-open the public hearing, as he believed the company was entitled to an answer on the rezone request, as it is has been in the process for over eight months. Leonard Fuller, 420 East llth Street, reported to the Council that his cat had been stolen. He had requested action from the Police Department on the issue, but no action has been taken. Mayor Sargent referred Mr. Fuller to the Manager Flodstrom on the issue. VIII LEGISLATION 1. Presentation of Certificate of Office to Gary Kenworthy from American Society of Civil Engineers Mayor Sargent presented to Gary Kenworthy, City Engineer, a Certificate of Office from the American Society of Civil Engineers for Mr. Kenworthyfs serving as President of the Kitsap Branch during 1988 and 1989. 2. Consideration of Decision on DelHur, Inc., Rezone Request~ REZ-89(07)5 - DelGuzzi Drive Planning Director Collins stated the meeting which was requested by the Council was held on January 29, 1990, between staff, the applicant, and concerned neighbors. He stated that some of the issues had been resolved; unfortunately, two of the issues which remain unresolved are density and mapped locations of the rezone. Councilman Hallett asked if the zoning options were discussed during the meeting. Director Collins responded no. The group did have a resolution: They felt a contract rezone would solve their problem. There was a brief discussion on planned residential development, and Director Collins pointed out that one neighbor felt that was not a preferred option because it allowed for some minor changes, up to 10%, without public review. Councilman Hallett asked the difference between a concomitant agreement and a contract rezone, and whether the concomitant agreement has the same advantages of a contract rezone. Director Collins stated it has the same advantages. The difference is that the concomitant agreement is subordinate to the City's zoning actions now and in the future. In the contract rezone, however, there is a fine line where the contract conditions bind the Cityfs future zoning authority. Attorney Knutson stated the distinction does not matter, because staff would recommend that the Council pursue the direction that they approve a concomitant zoning agreement which takes care of the concerns of the Planning Director. He believed that a contract rezone could be drafted so it would be the same as a concomitant agreement, taking into account specific issues. Councilman Lemon asked if the developer chooses to sell the property, does the concomitant agreement become null and void. Attorney Knutson stated that it would depend on the way the agreement is drafted. The owners could assign or transfer the property if the City concurs. However, the City cannot unreasonably withhold its consent. Any transfer or development of the property as Residential Multi Family (RMF) would have to be under the terms of what is being proposed by the developer, within five years. If the project is not substantially completed within five years, then the classification reverts to its earlier zoning or some other classification as approved by the City Council. Councilman Wight questioned the possibility of a conditional rezone which invokes the Planned Residential Development as a condition to the rezone. Planning Director Collins responded that the staff believes a Planned Residential Development is as good or better than a concomitant agreement, stating that to get a Planned Residential Development (PRD) on the property, the Council needs to make a decision as to the zoning of the property and then -3- 1532 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1990 make the zoning subject to a Planned Residential Development by doing one of two separate options: (1) to condition the rezone; or (2) to deny the RMF, without prejudice, and require the applicant to come back to the Council with a Planned Residential Development option. The problem with the latter case is that if the Council does not approve an underlying zoning change, then the density with which the proposal would come back under the PRD (with an overlay on the RS-9 [Single-Family Residential] and the PBP [Public Building and Parks]) zoning would not allow the proposal to proceed as it was brought forth by the applicant. Councilman Wight stated the way he envisioned this mechanism was that the City would conditionally rezone a parcel of property from one residential zone to another, conditioned upon requiring the applicant to submit and successfully gain approval for a Planned Residential Development on the site. If that process failed, then the property would revert to the original zoning. In terms of what the City would gain from this process, if the property is developed at all, be it to RS-9, RS-7, or RMF, then there would be significant physical disturbance to the existing terrain. He did not believe there could be any certainty that the disturbance would be any less under RS-7 or RMF classification than under RS-9. Therefore, if a mechanism is there to invoke the Planned Residential Development, then the whole process becomes site- specific. The applicant identifies the placement of all improvements on the property, the setbacks, the open land set-asides, the protection of the PBP property and the ravine, goes through the public hearing process for the site- specific review and approval to the Planning Commission and then a referral to the City Council. Attorney Knutson interjected a word of caution to the Council. Because the Council has received a request to re-open the public hearing process on the issue, if the Council should choose to do this, they should be cautious of making any statements indicating how they would be voting on the issue, so that an expression of pre-judgment is not made. Councilman Hallett asked when would be the appropriate time for the Council to look at a Planned Residential Development versus a straight rezone application. Planning Director Collins stated the Council may opt to incorporate the rezone process into the Planned Residential Development process to enable them to make one decision, versus rezoning a portion of the property and then applying a Planned Residential Development afterwards. He believed the Council could modify the Planned Residential Development Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the Council to make zoning changes within the PRD process. Councilman Hallett pointed out that the Council should be looking for an alternative which would be sensitive to concerns on a particular site-specific project, but still hold true to the due process of rezoning in general. When the Council has an issue where environmental concerns are sensitive, then'the Council could incorporate those concerns into the process. Planning Director Collins stated that is the intention of the Planned Residential Development zoning mechanism. Unfortunately, that portion of the Ordinance does not allow the Council to change the zoning at the same time. Councilman Hallett asked whether it would be appropriate for the Council to approve the rezone and attach a PRD to the approval, as a condition. Attorney Knutson responded that the Council could approve the rezone conditioned upon a PRD. Planning Director Collins provided clarification to the Council on the final decision-making process of a Planned Residential Development, stating that the developer makes a proposal which is reviewed by the Planning staff, and a report goes before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on the issue, make modifications, if necessary, similar to the process used in a subdivision, and then a recommendation is made to the City Council. The Council has the option of holding a public hearing on the issue, and then the Council has the benefit of the proposal, public testimony, the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Department's report, and based on that information the Council may modify the site design with conditions in addressing the issues they may feel need site-specific mitigation or changes. -4- 1533 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1990 Councilman Gabriel asked if the PRD has been approved and in the middle of the project the applicant proposes changes, does the process begin again. Planning Director Collins stated yes, the applicant must conform with the site plan. Any modifications must be approved by the City, and the City can administratively make changes up to 10%, such as modifying building density and heights. However, he did note that the City is not obligated to make those changes. Anything in excess of the 10% must go back through the process. Councilman Wight stated additionally, the administrative leeway allowed the Planning staff in the 10% rule has the exception of any adjustment which increases the size or the floor space of the project. Director Collins, in answer to a concern expressed by Councilman Lemon regarding the administrative leeway, noted the exception is an increase in density. Therefore, there could not be an expansion of the density by 10%. Director Collins reviewed the maps of the area in question with the Council. Councilman Hallett asked Attorney Knutsonabout the proper wording of a motion, including conditions for a planned residential area. Attorney Knutson responded that additional wording should be added to the Ordinance, adding a section which is conditional, and making the entire Ordinance and the rezone conditioned upon the applicant successfully completing the PRD process. Councilman Hallett asked, with regard to the Environmental Impact Statement, during the initial application process it was determined that an EIS was not necessary because of the adequate mitigation. He asked if the PRD would change the position of the City with regard to an EIS. Director Collins explained that the City would need to go through another review, but in his opinion, the City would be in the same position as it currently is; that the same mitigation measures would apply, and he did not expect the PRD process to substantially change the proposal, as it has been made. Councilman Hallett asked if it would be necessary to do another EIS. Director Collins responded that he believed that the staff would need to go through the checklist process again. Subsequent review, either through the PRD or through application for building permits, will trigger another SEPA review and Environmental Checklist, if there is any significant change in the existing conditions or the impacts from what has been previously reviewed. Councilman Nicholson moved to approve the rezone request, REZ-89(07)5, DelGuzzi Drive, as submitted, and recommended by the Planning Commission, for rezone of Lots 3 and 4 of Short Plat SHP-85(11)7 from RS-9, Residential Single-Family, and RMF, Residential Multi-Family, to ACD, Arterial Commercial District; and that property presently designated RS-9, Single-Family Residential, as requested, except the south 50 feet of Parcel 8 and the south portion of Parcel 1 and extended east to the east property line of LID 211 (per Exhibit 2), be zoned RMF, Residential Multi-Family, citing the following findings and conclusions: Findings: (1) The subject property is approximately 11.6 acres in area and currently zoned RS-9, Single-Family Residential, in accordance with City policy for the classification of newly annexed properties which are in a transition from rural to urban uses; (2) The subject property is heavily vegetated and slopes from its western boundary to the Creek; (3) The surrounding area is characterized by SR 101 and Super 8 Motel to the north of the property, the Plaza Center to the northwest, Monroe and Roosevelt schools to the East, Peninsula Golf Course to the west, and a residential neighborhood to the southeast on Lindberg Road; (4) The area entirely surrounds the newly approved LID 211, which includes a 3-way traffic light on SR 101 and all services; (5) A large number of Comprehensive Plan Policies are directed at determining appropriate density for sites, including: (a) Residential developments should allowed Planned Unit Development techniques where emphasis is on the overall density of the development rather than individual lots or dwelling units. Standards should be established to assure access and services adequate for the density and type of residential development proposed; (b) Building density should decrease as natural constraints, such as slope, drainage, and soil conditions increase; (c) High density development should be allowed in areas -5- 1534 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1990 which would provide aesthetic amenities or suburban environmental characteristics to a larger percentage of the population, provided such development would not have adverse impacts on the surrounding low density development; (6) The Comprehensive Plan map of the area shows the site as suburban residential, which allows multi-family areas occasionally; (7) Although the rezone could have significant impacts to these areas of concern, the City has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the proposed rezone, provided that certain mitigation measures are completed by the applicant; (8) The Ennis Creek Ravine is an environmentally sensitive area; (9) This analysis found that the capacity of water and sewer facilities will be reached by the development, as proposed; (10) The development, as proposed, is not being approved by the rezone action; (11) The SEPA review shows a limitation to densities greater than proposed without additional utility improvements; (12) Few new units (106) of multi-family have been built since 1980, and little RMF- zoned land (4 blocks) is available for new construction within the City; (13) A letter of concern about impacts to adjacent commercial development (Super 8 Motel) was received by the City; (14) The traffic study conclusions are that 155 trips per day will use DelGuzzi Drive from points now accessing Lindberg Road via Golf Course Road, but that no traffic is expected to travel from DelGuzzi Drive west on Lindberg Road; (15) the EIS for the annexation of the subject property has been incorporated by reference and mitigation measures in it can be applied to impacts from the proposed rezone as well [WAC 197-11- 600(4)(b)]; and citing the following Conclusions: (A) Asa newly annexed area, a rezone has been anticipated by the City, particularly with LID 211; (B) Ennis Creek should be protected as an environmentally sensitive area and development should be clustered along the western boundary of the subject site through Planned Unit Development techniques; (C) Multi-family and commercial development should be allowed on this site, which provides aesthetic amenities and suburban characteristics to a larger percentage of the population without adversely impacting the low density, suburban residential development south of the area, along Lindberg Road; (D) The Public Works Department had comments about such items as density, sewer capacity, and road/utility improvements that have been addressed in LID 211, and with mitigation measures for the DNS; (E) The density of the rezone area cannot be substantially increased over that of the proposed development without additional improvements to the utility systems and further environmental review; (F) There is a current need in the City of Port Angeles for multi-family-zoned areas in close proximity to utility services and major arterials; (G) The buffering of the existing motel building should be provided on-site by the Super 8 Motel; (H) Due to minimal traffic from DelGuzzi Drive going west on Lindberg Road, little conflict with the low intensity, suburban residential land uses to the south of the subject site should result; and further, that the Planned Residential Development approach be used in the development of the property. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion. Councilman Wight offered a friendly amendment that the rezone is conditioned upon successful approval of the Planned Residential Development and that the property would revert to the original zoning, RS-9, if approval is not gained through the PRD Ordinance. Councilmen Nicholson and Hallett concurred. Councilman Lemon requested that Planning Director Collins explain the process of the PRD. Director Collins stated the applicant will need to come forward with an application for a Planned Residential Development before any building permits are issued for the project. The Planned Residential Development would then go before the Planning Commission at a public hearing, and the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council. During the course of the PRD review, another SEPA review and a Determination of Non-Significance mitigated by the same measures which have been identified could be expected, and that SEPA process is appealable through the Planning Commission. Following further discussion of the process, the question was called and the motion carried unanimously. Attorney Knutson provided appropriate language to be incorporated into the title of the Ordinance and other corrections which should be added to the Ordinance: add to the title of the Ordinance and correcting an error, third line from the bottom, to insert before "ACD" RS-9, Residential Single Family and RMF, Residential Multi-Family to; additionally to add Section 3. The new Section 3 would read: "Section 1 of this Ordinance and the changes to the official zoning map adopted therein shall be conditioned and dependent upon approval by the City of a Planned Residential Development for the property described herein; and in the event such approval is not obtained, said property shall revert to -6- 1535 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1990 its zoning classification prior to the adoption of this Ordinance."; and changing the present SectiOn 3 to Section 4, and that a phrase would be added to the summary . that it is conditioned upon the PRD process. Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2564 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles reclassifying property located south of Highway 101, east of the Port Angeles Plaza, and immediately north and east of the Peninsula Golf Course, from RS-9, Residential Single-Family, to RMF, Residential Multi-Family, and RS-9, Resi- dential Single-Family, and RMF, Residential Multi-Family, to ACD, Arterial Commercial District, and amending the Official Zoning Map, Ordinance 2158. Councilman Hallett moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title, as corrected and amended, and authoriz publication by summary. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Attorney Knutson stated that the Council should also adopt a conclusion which states the beneficial effect that the PRD condition will add to the rezone. Councilman Nicholson moved to add the following additional conclusion: (I) The requirement of a Planned Residential Development will incorporate measures and address concerns so as to benefit the public, as a whole, and the project in particular. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 3. Continuation of Item from Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 1990 Request to Circulate Annexation Petition, ANX-89(12)3 - Glaubert/Austin, Fairmont Area, West of City Limits Councilman Gabriel moved to deny the reduced annexation petition and extension of utility services outside the Corporate limits, in favor of the 1985 approved annexation petition. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion. Councilman Lemon expressed concern, as the City has in the past provided services outside the City limits. He was opposed to the motion, as he felt an agreement could be drafted with conditions. Councilman Nicholson concurred. Councilman Lemon suggested a contractual agreement that in the event of future annexation the property owner will not contest annexation, and that there be restrictions to one service to be recorded in a deed of trust, that if the property should transfer ownership no other services would be provided. Councilman Nicholson felt the Council had other alternatives available and outright denial was too restrictive. Councilman Gabriel expressed concern regarding the jurisdictional boundaries; who is to provide fire services, medic services. He asked Attorney Knutson if the City is to annex property into the City, does the City have the right to deny services. Attorney Knutson responded that it would depend upon the circumstances, but that generally, the City would need reasons to deny services; otherwise the City could be subject to claims for discrimination. Councilman Hallett concurred with the motion. The motion was voted on and failed, with Councilmen Hallett, Gabriel, and Ostrowski voting "Aye", Councilmen Lemon, Nicholson, Wight, and Mayor Sargent voting "No". Councilman Lemon moved to extend utility services through logical improvements and require concomitant agreements by County residents to annex to the City in the future. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion. -7- 1536 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1990 Attorney Knutson stated that concomitant annexation agreements have been upheld by Washington Courts on two occasions and he would contact the cities involved in those two cases to obtain copies of agreements developed for assistance in drafting an agreement for Port Angeles. Councilman Hallett expressed concern, as he believed one of the benefits of living inside the City limits is access to City services, and he believed in this case, the City is giving up something without gaining anything in return. Following further discussion, the question was called and the motion failed, with Councilmen Lemon, Nicholson and Wight voting "Aye", and Councilman Gabriel, Ostrowski, Hallett and Mayor Sargent voting "No". Councilman Lemon moved to deny the reduced annexation area. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried, with Councilmen Nicholson and Wight voting "No" BREAK Mayor Sargent recessed the meeting for a break at 9:10 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M. 4. Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 1990 A. Rezone Request REZ-89(12)09 - City of Port Angeles - Proposal to rezone property presently designated M-2, Heavy_ Industrial, to CBD, Central Business District Location: West of Oak Street, North of Front Street, between Oak and Cherry Streets Councilman Lemon moved to continue this item to the March 20, 1990, City Council meeting. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. B. Shoreline Management Permit - SMA-90(01)106 - Port of Port Angeles, East End of Ediz Hook: Request for a permit to allow replacement of an existing float; the placement of a second identical float; and placement of 8 piling, located in the M-2, Heavy_ Industrial District Councilman Hallett moved to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the Shoreline Permit, citing the following findings and conclusions: Findings: (1) The proposal increases physical access to the shoreline in an Urban Environment, using an existing parking facility located on the northern edge of Ediz Hook; (2) No public resource agency has stated that the proposal would degrade the existing condition of marine resources in the area of the existing boat launch; (3) The existing boat launch is heavily used and has demonstrated that it serves both local and regional needs; (4) The subject property is identified as Heavy Industrial (M-2) by the Port Angeles Zoning Code. This zoning district allows boat havens and marinas as a permitted use; (5) The location of the proposal does not conflict with the future location of the Port Angeles Waterfront Trail and is identified as an area of public access by the unadopted Harbor Resource Management Plan; (6) The Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, Chapter 15.08 PAMC, requires that the Planning Commission provide notice and hold a public hearing on shoreline permit applications; (7) The Port of Port Angeles SEPA Responsible Official has issued the proposal a Determination of Non-Significance which has been reviewed by the City of Port Angeles; (8) The subject property has been used as a boat launch for 25 years; (9) The City of Port Angeles provides approximately 200 vehicle and boat trailer parking spaces on the northern Edge of Ediz Hook; Conclusions: (A) The proposal is consistent with the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program; (B) The proposal is consistent with the Waterfront Trail Plan and the nnadopted Harbor Resource Management Plan; (C) Public notice and hearing, as required by the Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW, has been done by the City of Port Angeles; (D) The Port's issuance of a Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal is final and fulfills the City's responsibilities under the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. C. Rezone Request - REZ-90(01)01 Downie/Gund, Eighth and "G" Streets: Request to rezone property (6 lots) from RS-7, Single-Family Residential, to RMF, Residential Multi-Family Councilman Ostrowski moved to set a public hearing for the February 20, 1990, City Council meeting. Councilman Wight seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. -8- 153'7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1990 D. Acceptance of Minutes of January 24, 1990, Planning Commission Meeting Councilman Hallett moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission minutes of the January 24, 1990, meeting. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 5. Consideration of Resolution Declaring Public Nuisances Mayor Sargent noted that all public nuisances have been abated; therefore, no action is necessary on this issue. 6. Report on Harborcrest Noise Situation Attorney Knutson updated the Council on the issue. He has received a report from the Police Department showing a reduction between the old loader and the new loader, although the readings were taken for only a short period of time. He has also spoken to one of the residents in the area who has been affected by the noise and to someone from ITT Rayonier. Apparently the new chip-loader has not been operating during the nighttime working hours, so the neighbors have not been able to determine how the new loader is going to affect them at night. However, the same resident indicated that during the daytime, the neighbors' experience is that the new chip-loader is not quieter and may even seem to be louder. To Attorney Knutson's knowledge, the Police Department has not received a call to measure noise levels during the day while the new chip-loader is operating. Councilman Hallett moved that the Council authorize staff to negotiate a contract with a noise consultant and bring the proposed contract for Council approval at the February 20, 1990, City Council meeting. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion. Councilman Hallett, in speaking to his motion, felt it was the appropriate action for the Council to take; that the Council owed this action to the neighbors in the area and to ITT, to have some professionals who are expert in the area make some findings by which the Council may determine any further action in order to reach a conclusion on the issue. Councilman Gabriel asked if the Council was to pursue the issue and hire a consultant and the same readings are taken, what option would the City then follow? Attorney Knutson responded that under the City's current Noise Ordinance and the regulations of the Department of Ecology, which have been adopted in the Ordinance, even if there is not a violation during the nighttime hours because of the exemption for existing industrial installations, the City could still require the installation of the best available technology which is consistent with economic feasibility. Therefore, the primary reason for hiring a consultant is to receive recommendations as to what other steps could be taken to mitigate the noise problem. Councilman Gabriel asked if the City would be in a position to enforce the recommendations made by the consultant. Attorney Knutson responded yes; however, there may be an appeal if ITT does not agree with the City's directive to implement certain measures. Following further discussion, the question was called and the motion carried with Councilmen Gabriel and Lemon voting "No". 7. Proposal from Mike Langley, Peninsula Trails Coalition Mike Langley, 2600 Masters Road, presented a proposal to the Council whereby the City would be the lead agency in the Centennial Waterfront Trail Project, stating that the Port Angeles lO0th Birthday/Centennial Celebration Committee had voted unanimously to adopt the project. The project will be known as the Port Angeles Centennial Trail, and would complete the eastern portion of the City's existing Waterfront Trail by extending it from the presently completed portion, terminating at Francis Street, to the Cedar Park Viewpoint just east of Morse Creek, utilizing the former Chicago Milwaukee Railroad corridor. He proposed that the City adopt the project as part of its Centennial celebration and that it participate as the lead agency in the implementation of the project. Other participants would include Rotary Nor~Wester, Peninsula Trails Coalition, 1538 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1990 Jet Set Soroptomist, and Olympic Audubon, as co-sponsors; ITT Rayonier, Sid Tozier, Ken Langley and Doug Wood as landowners; DaishowaAmerica, Northwestern Territories, Inc., the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Transportation, Department of Ecology, Clallam County, Clallam Transit, and the Port of Port Angeles as support entities. Dave Berry also urged the Council to support the proposal, citing other cities' positive experience in implementing similar projects. Mayor Sargent asked Mr. Langley if he was proposing that the City be the lead agency in forming the committee. Mr. Langley stated yes. Councilman Hallett felt this was an excellent idea, and moved that the Council adopt the proposal as the City's Centennial Project, and form a committee of Council and staff to take the appropriate roles to bring the project to fruition. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion. Following a short discussion regarding the alternate routes around ITT Rayonier Millsite, the question was called, and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Hallett volunteered to be the Councilmember on the Committee. Mayor Sargent appointed Scott Brodhun to serve as the staff member. 8. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment Correcting the Uniform Sign Code Adopting Ordinance Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2565 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, correcting an error in the adoption of the Uniform Sign Code and amending Section 14.03.020 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code, and Section 2 of Ordinance No. 2552. Councilman Hallett moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title, and to authorize publication by s,mmary. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 9. Consideration of Options for Replacing Lisa Cochrun as the City's Public Information Officer Mayor Sargent noted that the issue is filling the vacancy created by Lisa Cochrun's resignation as the City's Public Information Officer, stating that the firm of Thompson McKellar has assisted the City with the preparation of the February newsletter. Councilman Ostrowski moved to authorize staff to request proposals for providing public information services. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. It now being past 10:00 P.M., Councilman Hallett moved to continue the items as listed on the Agenda. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 10. Consideration of Change in City's Health Plan Administrators The issue was whether the City should replace its current Health Plan administrator, Network Management, Inc., with Concept Administrators. Risk Manager Claude Jones stated the recommendation to the Council is the replacement of Network Management by Concept Administrators, effective April 1, 1990. This allows for the effectiveness of the 30-day notification clause to Network Management and transition and set-up of the new program. Mayor Sargent noted that two of the main reasons for this change are because Network Management is unable to process the claims as quickly as they should, and also the fact they have been unable to provide the proper reports for the administration of the program. Following a short discussion on the issue, Councilman Nicholson moved to accept the recommendation to negotiate the contract with Concept Administrators to -10- [ 1539 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1990 administer the Health Plan for the City, effective April 1, 1990. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 11. Update on Expiring Terms on City Boards and Commissions Mayor Sargent stated that after speaking to Councilman Hallett, she decided to instruct staff to proceed with the advertising of the vacancies. Councilman Wight stated he had spoken to Planning Commission members Cornell and Leonard regarding the expiration of their terms. In the past, the Planning Commission had a six-year term, which ran from June 1st through May 31st, but an Ordinance was passed which changed the length of terms to four years, with the expiration of March 1st. However, the Planning Commission By-Laws do not incorporate the changes made in the Ordinance. He felt this was an issue which should be alleviated so the expiration dates in the Planning Commission By-Laws are the same as those in the City Ordinance. He took the liberty of asking the members if they would stay on until May 31st if the Council should administratively extend the terms, and suggested that the Council take that action. Mayor Sargent also suggested an alternative that the Council may look at is the forming of a long-term and a short-term committee to deal with planning issues. Following further discussion of the issue, Councilman Wight moved to re-appoint Commission members Cornell and Leonard for the period March 1, 1990, to May 31, 1990, to the Planning Commission. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 12. Consideration of Contract and Consent Order for Clean-Up at Northwest Transformer Site Councilman Ostrowski moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the Memo of Agreement and Administrative Order of Consent for the clean-up of PCB contamination at the Northwest Transformer mission/pole site. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 13. Consideration of Agreement with Clallam County for Use of Night Weapons Training Facility Councilman Hallett moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with Clallam County for use of the night weapons training facility. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The training facility is located in the County's Place Road gravel pit. 14. Request Utility Advisory Committee (UAC) Meeting for Mid-February The Utility Advisory Committee members set a meeting date for February 22, 1990, at 4:00 P.M., City Hall. 15. Consideration of Use of Executive Search Firm for City Manager Selection Process Councilman Lemon asked what process an executive search firm would use to arrive at the top 25 candidates. Personnel Manager Coons responded the firm would develop a profile based upon the criteria established by the City Council; then screen the applications to try to arrive at a group of 25, or any number upon which the Council may decide. Councilman Lemon noted that this would cost the City approximately $4,000, plus expenses, to screen the applicants, and meet with the Council to establish the criteria. He felt that would be the most appropriate action for the Council to take, or for the Council to do the screening themselves. Councilman Ostrowski submitted a proposal to the Council in regard to the selection process. The proposal, in part, stated that use of a professional selection firm does not seem to be desired for the following reasons: (1) the cost of using an executive search firm seems excessive; and (2) the community seems to feel that the Council was elected to do this type of job for the City. He proposed a slightly different approach, which he felt was appropriate: Use of a selection committee made up of two or three City Councilmembers and two or three experienced, well-respected members of the community. This committee would screen the available applicants down to a list of finalists, approximately 12. The full Council would then conduct the interviews and make the final -11- 1540 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1990 selection. He stated that he had spoken to the managers of both ITT Rayonier and Daishowa, who have agreed to allow their personnel managers assist the selection committee. Councilman Ostrowski moved that the Council adopt the proposal to use a selection committee made up of two or three City Council members and two or three experienced, well-respected members of the community. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion. Councilman Gabriel spoke in opposition, as he felt the process should be done either by the full Council or an executive search firm. Councilman Lemon concurred with Councilman Gabriel's statement. Although he agreed that the Council was elected to do a job, he felt they would be totally objective in the use of an executive search firm. Councilman Hallett agreed with Councilmen Lemon and Gabriel and noted that the Council would be making the final decision. Councilman Wight also spoke in opposition as he felt the magnitude of the job was overwhelming. Councilman Ostrowski reiterated that when he had run for the Council he knew this would be one of the most important jobs he was to undertake, and although he might not have the appropriate training on how to proceed with the process, that is why he was suggesting the use of experienced members of the community. He felt the Council would be criticized for spending taxpayer's money on an executive search firm. The question was called and the motion failed, with Councilman Ostrowski voting "Aye". Councilman Hallett moved that the Council accept the proposal from Waldron & Co. and direct staff to enter into a contract with Waldron & Co. and return to the Council at the February20, 1990, meeting; to utilize them in their proposed phases (I: Evaluating Port Angeles' situation and needs; III: Preliminary Screening Phase; and IV: Consensus Phase) for a cost of $5,000. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion. Councilman Lemon was opposed to the motion, as he did not believe Phase IV, the Consensus phase, was necessary, and was not in favor of spending the additional $1,000. Councilman Hallett stated once the Council has the top 25 candidates before it, perhaps that would be the time to implement the proposal made by Councilman Ostrowski. Councilman Lemon suggested first doing Phases I and III. The Council could then have a workshop once the top 25 candidates have been chosen, and if the Council could not come to a consensus, then Phase IV could be implemented. Councilman Hallett then rephrased his motion to include Phases I and III for a cost of $4,000, plus expenses, with an option for Phase IV for the additional $1,000. Councilman Nicholson concurred. Following further discussion of the issue, the question was called and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wight suggested that Phase V, the screening of interviews, and VI, background and reference checks, could be done using the proposal of Councilman Ostrowski. 16. Request a Meeting of City Council's Real Estate Committee Councilman Hallett noted that the Committee assignments erroneously named him as one of the members of the Real Estate Committee; it should be Councilman Lemon. The Real Estate Committee set a meeting date for February 12, 1990, at 4:00 P.M. to discuss Library parking concerns. -12- 1541 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1990 17. Consideration of Agreement with Clallam County for Health Services for 1990 Councilman Lemon moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with Clallam County for Health Services for 1990. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 18. Consideration of an Amendment to the City Parking Ordinance Eliminating Parking Lot Activity Permit Provisions Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, amending the Off-Street Parking Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1588 as amended) and Chapter 14.40 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code and repealing Sections 2 through 12 of Ordinance 2097 and Chapter 11.20 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. Councilman Hallett moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title and to authorize publication by summary. Councilman Wight seconded the motion. Councilman Wight made reference to page 2 of the Ordinance under item (f) period of time that an activity permit shall be allowed; questioning whether there should be a specific number of days per year noted. Director of Public Works Pittis suggested making it 14 days for a private business and 30 days for non-profit, and charitable organizations. Attorney Knutson responded that this may not be an appropriate amount of time for private businesses, and perhaps it should be an extended number of days. Council and staff discussed the reasons for regulating parking lots and the enforcement policy regarding this. Following further discussion, Councilman Hallett withdrew his motion and moved to refer the matter back to staff for further review and return to the Council meeting of February 20, 1990. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 19. Request from Bill McDowell to Place the Issue of the Sign Code on a Council Agenda Mr. McDowell sent a letter to the City Council dated February 6, 1990, regarding the McDowell vs. City of Port Angeles case. He requested that the Sign Ordinance be placed on the Council's legislative agenda and that consideration be given to holding further public hearings to consider the following: (1) Whether the grandfather clause added to the Sign Ordinance last year was appropriate legislation or was perhaps of special benefit to certain local businesses; or (2) whether the Council's prior position that the Sign Ordinance without the grandfather clause was an unlawful taking without compensation to those merchants who complied was correct; and if so, what compensation would be awarded to the merchants who complied with this unlawful taking. Attorney Knutson stated that the City is currently involved in two lawsuits: McDowell vs. Port Angeles, which challenged the moratorium that a previous City Council had placed on enforcement of the Downtown Sign Code while the Council went through the process of re-evaluating the Sign Code; and the second lawsuit where Mr. McDowell is representing certain business owners in the Downtown area challenging the current version of the City's Sign Code. Councilman Lemon expressed concern regarding the first issue, whether the grandfather clause was appropriate legislation, asking if the question should not be directed more toward the City Attorney than the Council. Attorney Knutson responded that the question of whether it was appropriate or not is the Council's. The question of whether or not it was a special benefit is a legal question on which he can provide advice to the Council. If the litigation that is pending continues its natural course, the courts will ultimately decide, but in his opinion, it is a legally supportable ordinance. -13- 1542 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1990 Councilman Wight felt that possibly the process should be that the Council ask the Planning Commission to reaffirm its past position on the Sign Code and place the item on the Council Agenda for further review. He made a motion to that effect. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion. Councilman Lemon stated that he had served on the Committee reviewing the Sign Code, and during the last meeting a change was made to a general concept in which the signs which were illegal and a general concept versus sign specific were legal, and this was changed at the last meeting. He stated he had requested a copy of the proposed Ordinance which was brought to the Council at its final meeting on this issue two weeks prior to the meeting. However, the Ordinance was not given to him until 4:00 the day of the meeting. It was his intention to take the proposed Ordinance around to the businesses to get their opinions, but by the time the meeting was to take place, he had a conflict of interest and was unable to vote on the issue, and requested that the issue be postponed, but the Ordinance was ram-rodded through and was changed. Councilman Gabriel felt that before sending the issue to the Planning Commission, the Council should discuss the issue further. Councilman Lemon questioned the reason to refer it to the Planning Commission, as he felt this issue was a decision to be made by the Council. Councilman Hallett felt that the issue should be put on the Council's agenda to be addressed by the Council and then referred to the Planning Commission, if need be. Councilman Gabriel concurred with Councilman Hallett. Councilman Wight withdrew his motion and Councilman Nicholson withdrew his second. Councilman Wight stated that he felt from the beginning that the remedy to this situation was to change the zoning. To begin with, the Central Business District is supposed to be oriented to pedestrian traffic and if the Council were to look at the in-fact and de facto use of the property in question, it would see that it is a parking lot and a vehicle egress and ingress, which does not fit into the definition of CBD. To change it to ACD, the problem would probably go away. Carl Alexander, 1712 West Fifth Street, requested to speak to the Council on the issue. Mr. Alexander objected to the Council's decision to place the item on the agenda as he has seen three City Councils come and go who have made decisions, then changed decisions, and made decisions, and changed decisions. He was not sure that was the best policy for the City to follow because there is a lack of continuity. He objected to the Council revisiting this issue because there is an advantage to having certain issues litigated because it is an objective party, who is not emotionally involved in the issue, citing what is best. The court acts as that. He cautioned the Council to go very slowly in opening this issue again. Councilman Hallett moved to place the item on the agenda of February 20, 1990. Councilman Gabriel seconded and the motion carried unanimously. IX CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/LATE ITEMS Manager Flodstrom noted to the Council that he is on jury duty from February 12th through the 23rd. X ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Sargent adjourned the meeting to executive session at 11:35 P.M. to discuss one issue of litigation. Approximate time, 15 to 30 minutes. XI RETURN TO OPEN SESSION The meeting returned to open session at 11:59 P.M. -14- 1543 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1990 XII ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:00 midnight. Clerk CC.132 -15-