Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/10/2004 5173 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington February 10, 2004 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Headrick called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order SPECIAL MEETING: at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Headrick, Councilmembers Braun, Pittis, and Rogers. Members Absent: Excused from the meeting by virtue of having recused themselves were Councilmembers Erickson, Munro, and Williams. Staff Present: Manager Quirm, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Upton, B. Collins, and S. Johns. Public Present: C. Waldron, S. Hale, M. & C. Melly, D. & M. Edmisten, J. & L. Darling, S. Ahrndt, D. Orr, A. Kendrick, J. Henderson, K. Turner, S. Hayden, B. Harden, C. Brown, R. Tulloch, B. Tulloch, D. Wendeborn, and J. & C. Williams. All others present in the audience failed to sign the roster. PLEDGE OF The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Manager Quinn. ALLEGIANCE: Independent Bible Church Independent Bible Church (IBC) Conditional Use Permit Appeal - CUP 02-08: (IBC) Conditional Use Permit Appeal- CUP 02-08 Mayor Headrick advised those present that the purpose of the special meeting was to consider a petition from the Independent Bible Church for a Family Life Center. The Council heard arguments a week ago and has taken the matter under advisement. He observed that the matter was heard by the Planning Commission, who recommended that the permit be approved with certain conditions. Public testimony from the neighbors was taken into consideration by the Planning Commission, and the appellant made use of that testimony. However, Mayor Headrick noted, although able to rely on the complete record, Mr. Melly was the only appellant and, as such, Mayor Headrick's decision would in part be based on Mr. Melly's point of view. He noted there were a number of other factors to be taken into account, one being that the Church has been in the area and, in terms of Mr. Melly's argument on compatibility, there has been no indication that the Church in its present location has not been compatible. The issue at hand is the addition of the Family Life Center and, as requested by Mr. Melly, there is the matter of groundwater that must be addressed. Mayor Headrick noted the Council has options that can be considered in that regard. Another issue has to do with the location of the Family Life Center, which was originally approved for placement 40 feet from the property line. He indicated the Council has the authority to accept the placement as approved or beyond; however, it was his understanding that, if the project is moved too far, the new location may be subject to further review by the Planning Commission. Mayor Headrick cited his own preferences on development that may occur in his own neighborhood, as well as other neighborhoods in the City, where property owners have ultimately purchased additional -1- 5174 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING February 10, 2004 Independent Bible Church property in order to retain the view corridor. He felt that people have the right to (IBC) Conditional Use develop and use their property in a manner that suits their needs as long as it is within Permit Appeal - CUP 02-08 the law. Mayor Headrick sought input from the other Councilmembers noting that, (Cont'd) because three Councilmembers eliminated themselves from the consideration, the remaining four would need to be in agreement. He then identified the issue having to do with the tree buffer, as well as the height of that buffer. Another issue had to do with a designated parking lot and whether that specific area should also be designated for future expansion. He felt that future expansion should not be established at this point, as the petitioner should return to the City at a future date with a proposal specific to expansion. Councilmember Pittis delineated the issues that he had identified for further consideration, the first being to assure that the Council was clear as to what the specifics meant and were approved as designations A - F in the plan submittal, such as the parking lot versus building. Second, he referenced Condition No. 8 wherein "lighting installed for the athletic field shall be shielded and directed downward..."; he noted there was no mention of the time of operation. Also, Councilmember Pittis referred to the placement of the landscaping in Condition No. 7, questioning whether it should be placed on the property line. He indicated the current trees are moderately mature and appear to provide shading, something that may contribute to the shading issue even more than the structure. He then questioned whether the 40-foot minimum setback is appropriate in this case. Councilmember Pittis cited the Clearing and Grading Permit, feeling it should include the entire site and not just the picnic and sport field area. He suggested that consideration be given to a vegetation management program in that some alternative trees might be planted in place of those removed in order to absorb some of the groundwater. Councilmember Braun, referencing the tree removal south of Galaxy Place, suggested the placement of a swale on the lower end of the property for collection of the additional water, and Councilmember Pittis suggested the consideration of ponding. Councilmember Rogers added that most of the neighbors' concerns had to do with surface water and the potential for flooding and/or constant runoff due to tree removal, and she proposed that a better management plan would be in order. She then sought clarification that the Mellys were, in fact, the appellant, which was confirmed by Attorney Knutson. Councilmember Braun indicated it is difficult to determine the height of the existing trees on the property line, and Planner Johns put a picture on the screen to help put the matter into context. Councilmember Braun expressed concern that the root system of the trees will travel and potentially cause problems for the homeowners. Councilmember Pittis questioned the setback of the current structure, and Planner Johns responded it is 30 feet. Councilmember Pittis continued that trimming of any kind of tree will result in further growth to the side. Discussion then followed as to what height is acceptable for growth and still not hinder the structure itself. Councilmember Pittis felt that the selection and placement of trees should be under the guidance of a professional, and he read and clarified Condition No. 7 having to do with required additional landscaping. Discussion followed onthe issue of landscaping, and Councilmember Pittis observed that the neighbors, with the exception of one, hadn't asked to have the project denied but, rather, to address the matter of the scope of the project. Councilmember Rogers addressed Condition No. 9 relating to a no-protest LID, inquiring how the LID would be assessed, given what will occur at Laurel and Ahlvers. Attorney Knutson explained the LID process, starting with initiation by City Council resolution and an assessment plan to determine how the properties would be benefitted and how the costs should be allocated. The no-protest agreement would indicate that this particular applicant would not be able to protest the initiation of a LID. There is a lengthy process to determine how the costs would be allocated. Councilmember -2- CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING 5175 February 10, 2004 Independent Bible Church Rogers clarified her question such that, if the Church were to further develop its (IBC) Conditional Use property at some future date, would it be reassessed to accommodate additional Permit Appeal- CUP 02-08 development. She wanted to assure the assessment is fair while, at the same time, she (Cont' d) wanted to be certain that many wouldn't pay for the few. Attorney Knutson stated that such an assurance could not be guaranteed at this time and that how an LID is established will depend on future activity and what types of future improvements in the area would necessitate additional street access and improvements. Councilmember Rogers concluded that additional conditions could not be added to the LID portion, to which Attorney Knutson agreed. Councilmember Pittis offered further information pertinent to LIDs and the fact that benefits to the property owners must exist. Councilmember Pittis suggestedthat the Council first decide whether to deny the CUP; however, Attorney Knutson provided clarification in that this is an appeal only challenging a few specified conditions of the CUP. He further cautioned the Council that changes should only be made to those conditions specifically challenged, and such changes should relate to the basis of the appeal and the testimony that is contained in the record. Mayor Headrick inquired as to whether the record reflected any concern related to traffic patterns, and Attorney Knutson did not recall that as an identified issue. Therefore, it was agreed that the only issues to be considered by the Council would be location, water problems, and Area D, which involved a parking lot and future expansion. Mayor Headrick voiced his opinion on location by stating that a 40-foot setback, as well as a 60-foot setback, would be reasonable. On the issue of groundwater and curtain drains, the Mayor felt it is clear that there is a groundwater issue that would likely be exacerbated by removal of trees. He suggested the possible requirement of curtain drains, perhaps on both sides of the property, but that should ultimately be determined by the developer. On the parking lot issue, Mayor Headrick reiterated previous comments in that the parking lot should be designated as such and not as future expansion for classrooms. Councilmember Pittis referenced the curtain drain, agreeing the problem should be addressed and resolved; however, he expressed the hope that the matter could be left open enough to allow for other forms of management, perhaps in the form ora pond. Discussion followed, and Mayor Headrick opined that the resolution should not be anything less than a curtain drain. Councilmember Braun inquired as to the process to be incorporated, and Councilmember Pit-tis felt the Clearing and Grading Permit would address groundwater and surface water. In addition, he felt that the applicant should engage an engineer for mitigation through the Clearing and Grading Permit. Attorney Knutson suggested a modification to Condition No. 4, having to do with the Clearing and Grading Permit, as follows: "The Clearing and Grading application shall include an engineering analysis as to thenecessity of a curtain drain or some other mitigation measure to prevent groundwater from the site to encroach upon neighboring properties." Councilmember Rogers suggested that this clause also include surface water, but Attorney Knutson mentioned that there was already a condition dealing with stormwater. Regarding the parking lot, the Councilmembers were in agreement that Area D should be designated for parking only for the purpose of this CUP. Turning to the matter of location, consideration was given to a setback of 40 feet or the proposed 60 feet. Councilmember Pittis asked if the consideration of 60 feet was new. Attorney Knutson clarified that it was new, but the appellant's suggestion that the project be moved to another location was also new, so what he advised the Council during the appeal hearing was that both parties should be allowed to present their positions on mitigating the location of the building. Discussion followed as to the appropriate landscaping buffer, and Attorney Knutson cautioned the Council that it should only suggest that the landscaping be reviewed. Mayor Headrick suggested that a landscaping plan should be reviewed with the abutting property owners to effect a plan to create a visual buffer without creating too much shade. Councilmember Rogers 5176 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING February 10, 2004 Independent Bible Church felt that a landscaping plan shouldbe compatible with the neighborhood, as the location (IBC) Conditional Use of the building could add to the issue of shading. Attorney Knutson suggested that the Permit Appeal- CUP 02-08 landscaping condition could be modified to the extent that both parties must agree if (Cont'd) it is going to be different than what is in the condition at present. If the parties don't agree, then the condition as written would be followed. Councilmember Pittis suggested that variety in landscaping could be helpful in softening the impact of the structure, and Councilmember Rogers agreed that the additional 20-foot setback would help the landscaping plan. Following further discussion, Councilmember Rogers sought clarification, as she didn't want to establish a specific setback number, thus preventing creativity to a mutual solution. Attorney Knutson noted that the parties have had a year to agree, which has not happened. The City Council should be specific as to what is required, and if the parties want to agree to something different with regard to setback and landscape plan, that would be acceptable. If, however, the parties are unable to reach agreement, then the landscaping must be placed as established by the condition. Councilmember Braun suggested a 60-foot setback, to which Councilmember Pittis agreed, also suggesting that a height reduction would be helpful as well. CouncilmemberRogers agreed, as did Mayor Headrick. Attorney Knutson advised the Council that it could accept the applicant's proposed mitigation measure, to include a redesign of the building and a location 60 feet from the property line. The Council then addressed landscaping, and Counciimember Pittis emphasized the need for the development of a landscaping plan for the area between the building and the neighbors; he didn't like just a rowoftrees in an institutional setting. Discussion followed, and Councilmember Pittis spoke as a proponent of variety in plantings, color, texture, and the like, with the intention of softening the wall and height of the building. Attorney Knutson suggested an addition to Condition No. 7: "Alternatively, the applicant and the appellant are encouraged to agree to a landscaping plan that would feature a variety of types and heights of trees and shrubs." He was asked if the condition should include the reason for this addition, and he indicated there should be a written fmding in that regard. Attorney Knutson advised the Council that staffwould need to return with the revised conditions and findings for approval at the next Council meeting. Mayor Headrick summarized that there was agreement on groundwater with an engineering study as part of the application for Clearing and Grading (Condition No. 4), the condition on landscaping (Condition No. 7), a 60-foot setback as proposed, to include redesign and an altered height. Coun¢ilmember Pittis moved to approve the amended conditions as set forth by the Mayor. Councilmember Rogers seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. ~~~4 Becky J~Upt~ C~ Clerk' /- ic~hard A.~eac~c~, Ma,or - ' ~/1~ J ~/~ -4-