Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/20/1990 1544 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington February 20, 1990 I CALL TO ORDER Mayor Sargent called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at 7:03 P.M. II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Pam Boroughs' Campfire girls Unicorn Starflights. Members present: Danielle Boroughs, Katie Sanderson, Dayna Linde, Nichole Hallman, Kelsea Young, Emma Bankson, Kyla Lind, Andrea Long Amanda Morganroth, Shannon VanDyKen, Stefanie Nichols. 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, D. Wolfe, G. Beck, K. Ridout. Public Present: G. Robinson, J. Robinson, R. King, L. Ross, D. Rudolph, T. Burns, B. Hutchison, R. Page, J. Page, P. Downie, J. Lacey, C. Hufford, R. Robinson, S. Hopper, L. Beil, R. Nielsen, A. Nielsen, M. Ireland, D. Brewer, P. Cronauer, C. Alexander, R. Sexton, L. Boroughs, L. Bondy, G. Colley, L. Torres. IV APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1990. Councilman Ostrowski moved to approve the minutes of the February 6, 1990, regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion which carried unanimously. V FINANCE 1. Final Acceptance and Pa_yment to J.B. Excavating for McDonald Street Water Main Project of $10~469.61 Councilman Nicholson moved that the Council approve and accept the work performed and authorize the release of retainage following the thirty day waiting period for lien filings and after receipt of clearances from the Department of Labor and Industries and the Department of Revenue; further that final payment of $10,469.61 be made to J.B. Construction. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 2. Consideration of Bid Awards for Materials for Street Division Councilman Lemon moved that the Council award the bids to the lowest responsive bidders for each of the following schedules: #1, Norris Paint Company, $3,320.24; #2, Potter Industries, Inc., $857.01; #3, Zumar Industries, Inc., $1,658.50; #4, Correctional Industries, $4,818.01; #5, Zumar Industries, Inc., $1,294.95; #6, Correctional Industries, $1,108.72; #7, Unistrut Northwest, $4,13.00, #8; Zumar Industries, Inc., $640.12; #9, Zumar Industries, Inc., $1,151.30; #10, Correctional Industries, $274.67; #11, Correctional Industries, $776.16; in the total amount of $20,032.68. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 3. Consideration of Bid Awards for Equipment Rental Vehicles Councilman Hallett moved that the City take advantage of the savings offered ($1,362.54) with the State contracts as available and award the bids as follows: #1, Street Sweeper, Utility Equipment, Inc., $95,077.19 (tax incl.); #2, 3/4 Ton 4X4 Pickup (State Contract), Gotee Chevrolet, $16,837.82; #3, 1/2 Ton 4X2 -1- 1545 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 20, 1990 Pickup (State Contract), BBC Dodge, Inc., $10,462.36 (tax incl.); ~4, Patrol Scooter, Western Equipment Dist., $9,945.20 (tax incl.). Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion which carried unanimously. VI CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Hallett moved to accept the items as listed on the Consent Agenda, including: (1) Request for progress payment to Olympic Electric for Del Guzzi Drive Signal Project of $24,715.73; (2) Request for progress payment to Signal Electric for Lincoln Street signals, etc., of $9,055.53; (3) Correspondence from Washington State Liquor Control Board; (4) Vouchers of $283,261.59; and (5) Payroll of 2/4/90 of $246,051.85. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion. Following a short discussion of the items as presented, the motion was voted on and carried unanimously. VII ITEMS FROM THE COUNCIL/AUDIENCE TO BE CONSIDERED/PLACED ON THE AGENDA Craig Walley requested that the Council allow him to speak to Legislation Item 5. Mayor Sargent stated that she didafeel that it was appropriate to accept public testimony on this issue. Jerry Austin, 1305 East First Street, requested that the Council reconsider an item previously acted on at the February 6, 1990, meeting regarding the supplying of City services to property located on Fairmont Avenue. He requested this be placed on the agenda of the March 6, 1990, City Council meeting. Councilman Hallett requested that the item be placed on the Agenda at the March 6, 1990, City Council meeting. Lorraine Ross, 418 East Front Street, requested to speak on Legislative Item 8. Bill McDowell, 318 East Front Street, requested to expand upon the letter submitted to the Council as Item 5 on the Agenda and additionally that a portion of his request be placed as a Public Hearing Item on a later Agenda. Attorney Knutson advised the Council that there is no legal prohibition against allowing the public to address the Council about existing ordinances. However, if the Council is intending to hold a public hearing, he suggested that any comments regarding the existing ordinance be kept to a minimum, keeping in mind that there may be an opportunity to address the matter in depth during the public hearing process. Linda Bondy, 1309 E. 7th, requested to speak to Item 2D of the Planning Commission minutes. Attorney Knutson responded that it would not be possible to accept public testimony on this issue as there has already been a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City Council's decision must be based on the Planning Commission record. VIII LEGISLATION 1. PUBLIC HEARING A. REZONE REQUEST REZ 90(01)01 DOWNIE/GUND, Eighth & "G" Streets' Request to rezone property (6 lots) from RS-7, Single Family Residential, to RMF, Residential Multi-Family Patrick Downie, 1538 West 8th Street, representing George Gund, owner, made specific reference to items in the Comprehensive Plan, Goals, Policies and Objectives, which he felt related to this rezone request: Residential Policies Nos. 4, 5, and 15 were noted, as well as Land Use Objectives Nos. 1 and 6, and Comprehensive Plan Goal No. 2. He pointed out the fact that the site is on a collector arterial and is adjacent to the City's largest park. He defined the area as an "area in transition" and believed tb,~t the rezoning of the property to Residential Multi-Family provided the most appropriate designation. He noted that the owners are not seeking an expansion of the RMF Zone to the adjoining lots, stating that they concurred with the Findings of the Planning Commission, and further noted that the property would be built to the same quality and standards as the Park View Villas. In closing, he felt that the project stands -2- 1546 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 20, 1990 on its own merits, noting the need for residential multi-family housing within the City of Port Angeles, and requested that the Council approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Councilman Hallett noted that the Planning Department had recommended denial. One of the reasons cited was the fact they felt the application was a spot zone because it would benefit a single property owner of a six-lot area and he asked Mr. Downie if Mr. Gund owned any additional property in the area. Mr. Downie noted that of the 10 lots on the north side of the alley, eight are owned by Mr. Gund. However, the two that are owned by another party are in the middle of the eight owned by Mr. Gund. Mr. Downie again reiterated that the applicant is not desirous of expanding the project but he felt it was rather ironic that the Planning Department staff recommendations for denial were rather a loose endorsement of the project because, in essence, approval would be granted if the project were larger. Frank Robinson, 1310 West 8th Street, a neighboring property owner, stated that he had lived in the area for 34 years. He said that he had no objection to the building of the Gund Plaza project; however, he expressed concern about the amount of fill being placed on the property. He asked from which point the 35- foot height restriction is measured: from the top of the fill, or from the grade of the street. He suggested that the Council consider denying the rezone request until such time as the traffic impacts can be determined after the Park View Villas project is completed. Councilman Hallett asked if the rezone was approved, how much control does the Planning Department have with the siting of the project, such as where parking lots are located and the height of the buildings. Planning Director Collins stated the bulk requirements and the parking requirements are stated in the ordinances of the City; the City can only require those as minimum standards, and there could not be any deviation from those ordinances requiring more stringent controls unless there was an environmental problem. In this case, a Determination of Non-Significance has been made regarding the environmental impacts and the restrictions of the bulk requirements of the Zoning Code and the Parking Ordinance are the standards which will be followed. Councilman Lemon asked staff if the City has any control of the amount of fill and the grade of the property. Director Collins stated that as a matter of the building permit, grades could be established; however, the City does not have a clearing and grading ordinance. Public Works Director Pittis expanded on the issue by stating the area in which the Department would be most concerned is with the capability of the soils to withstand the structure load. Director Collins added that the desirability would be that the grade is similar to the finished grade of Eighth street. Councilman Lemon asked what type of criteria the City could attach to the granting of this application. - Attorney Knutson stated that the developers can do whatever is in compliance with present City ordinances. Any other restrictions placed on specific rezones would have to be in the form of a conditional rezone, contract rezone, concomitant agreement, or planned unit development. Councilman Nicholson asked with a 35-foot height restriction, from where is the height measured. Director Collins stated that a finished grade would have to be established; that the City would try to establish in the final building permit plan what the finished grade would be, based on the geotechnical requirements for the foundations. Dean Amdahl, 1535 West 5th, contractor for Park View Villas, discussed with the Council the placement of the fill on the property in question and noted that it is not structurally stable for building but is only being stored temporarily on the site. -3- 1547 CITY COUNCIL REETING February 20, 1990 Donald Rudolph, 1013 East 3rd Street, spoke in support of the rezone, citing a need for rental properties within the City of Port Angeles. Louie Torres, 1620 West 13th Street, made several observations regarding the rezone request. He noted it was a goal of the City to ensure that residential multi-family projects are located throughout the conununity. He felt this project has a particular luxury in that the density of the neighborhood does not bear a hea~burden with regard to density. He noted there is a tremendous intensity of activity on the side of the street where Shane Park is located. He suggested in this particular case that the existence of an apartment type structure on the south side of 8th Street in the area may represent a buffer between the intensity of the activities of Shane Park and the single-family residences. He requested the Council give consideration to the economic issue, as the City does have a scarcity of apartments or rental-type facilities within the community. He felt that there was an obligation to ensure an adequate supply of multi-family housing units to provide reasonable competition among facilities. He encouraged Council to support the reconunendation of the Planning Commission. Carl Alexander, 1712 West 5th Street, stated generally he is in favor of residential multi-family units within the residential area. However, he cited specific concerns regarding this rezone request: (1) the Planning Department recommends denial; (2) concerns regarding the effect of Gund Plaza on the neighborhood, citing a lack of services in the area for multi-family projects, and further that the effect of Gund Plaza needed to be studied before committing to projects of a similar nature. In closing, he stated that rezone request should not be based upon concerns with housing shortages or the cost of rentals. He requested that the Council deny the rezone request. Randy Sexton, 1321 West 9th Street, a neighboring property owner, expressed concern with the loss of the view if apartments are built in the neighborhood, a decrease in property values, and safety of the children, as younger children walk to the elementary and middle schools. He was concerned that he would also lose his right to privacy and requested that the Council support denial of the rezone. Richard Page, 918 South "G" Street, spoke in opposition to the rezone request. He stated the City has no legal requirement but a moral responsibility to protect the property owners in the single-family neighborhoods. He read a list of properties potentially available for residential multi-family building sites and requested that the Council make a long-range plan for residential multi- family lands. Roger Neilson, 1311 West 9th Street, was opposed to the rezone and expressed concerns with the traffic volumes which are anticipated to be quite high, a loss of privacy for himself and the neighbors, a loss of view, and the decrease in the marketability of his home. Mr. Downie again addressed the Council in answer to some of the questions raised. He pointed out that if approved, there would be a project built on the site that would be consistent with the requirements set by the Public Works Department and City Planning Department guidelines, and quality standards that will be presented with and would probably exceed those standards. With regard to the traffic impacts, he reminded the Council that this project is located on a collector arterial which is designed and prepared to handle increased traffic loads. The residential multi-family zone must consider the needs of the community. The Comprehensive Plan considers the needs of all of the citizens of Port Angeles, whether property is zoned or rezoned. He stated that no neighborhood is an ideal setting; however, he believed this site is very close. He recommended that the Council concur with the Planning Commission. Ann Nielson, 1311 West 9th Street, submitted a petition to the Council which supported the denial of the proposed rezone. The petition was signed by 18 citizens located within the City of Port Angeles. The petition states: "We, the undersigned, request that the City Council deny the proposed rezoning of the Gund property at the southwest corner of 8th and "G" Streets from single-family residential to multiple family dwelling." There being no further comments, Mayor Sargent closed the public hearing at 8:31 P.M. Mayor Sargent read the ordinance by title, entitled -4- 1548 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 20, 1990 ORDINANCE NO. 2566 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles reclassifying property located at the southeast corner of 8th and "G" Streets from RS-7 to RMF. Councilman Ostrowski requested an explanation of the recommendations made by the Planning Commission and the Planning Department. Jerry Cornell, Chairman of the Planning Commission, stated that Residential Policies Nos. 2, 4, 5, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, and Land Use Objectives Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6, all support the rezone request. Planning Director Collins responded that Mr. Downie characterized the staff recommendation as saying if there was a larger rezone then the staff's recommendation may, in fact, have been to approve. He believed this to be an accurate characterization of the Department report and is a conclusion which he also would support. The Department's primary concern was in regard to the size and nature of the rezone in comparison to the single-family area. If there was, in fact, to be a transition in the area, then the rezone should be for the full 10 lots and not for 6 lots. The consequence of having the six lots zoned multi-family is to leave one single-family house on the block and then the single-family house, by the rezone action, becomes somewhat an isolated land use, the primary issue of a spot rezone. Another issue is the impact on valuation in that a multi-family project should not decrease values in an area. Mr. Cornell wished to clarify spot zoning to the Council and the interpretation of that from the Planning Commission's point of view versus the Staff point of view. The Planning Commission has traditionally used the interpretation that spot zoning is one that is not functionally related to adjacent zones. In this case, the Planning Commission felt they were putting a residential use in a residential zone, which are functionally related. The Staff then, during the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, added two additional elements which they believe should be considered, one being the issue of private ownership versus the benefit to the City. The conclusion of the Planning Commission was that this would provide benefit to the entire City by providing additional multi-family housing and thus it was not one developer who was gaining but rather the entire City. The second issue was that this was too small a rezone request; however, the Planning Commission came to the conclusion that this is not important to a spot rezone. Following further discussion of the staff versus the Planning Commission recommendation of the rezone, Councilman Wight moved to accept the recommendation of the Planning Gommission to approve the rezone as proposed, citing the following findings and conclusions: Findings: (1) The property and adjacent areas to the south and east are currently zoned RS-7, while property to the north is zoned PBP and property to the west is CSD-G2; (2) On December 26, 1989, the Port Angeles SEPA Responsible Official issued the proposal a Determination of Non-Significance; (3) Public notice of a public hearing was given by a publication in the Peninsula Daily News and by posting the subject site and surrounding areas; (4) If approved, the rezone from RS-7 to RMFwould allow the development of an apartment building of up to 36 dwelling units, an increase in density of 30 units; (5) The surrounding area, with the exception of Park View Villas and Shane Park, is an area substantially developed with single-family dwelling units on standard Townsite lots; (6) Eighth Street is designated as a collector arterial street by Ordinance No. 1635; (7) The six Townsite lots of the rezone area are currently vacant; (8) The rezone of six lots under one ownership includes only a portion of Block 255 to be designated as RMF; (9) Studies completed as part of the Daishowa EIS process indicate that multiple-family housing in Port Angeles has a low vacancy rate, indicating the need for additional units; (10) Data compiled for the DelHur rezone application, No. REZ-89(07)5, indicates that there are 43 blocks in the City of Port Angeles zoned RM_F, four of which are vacant and available for development. Conclusions: (A) The proposal is consistent with the Goals, Policies, and Objectives of the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan; (B) Public notice, as required by the Port Angeles Zoning Code, has been given, and a public hearing before the Port Angeles Planning Commission has been held; (C) The City's responsibility under the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21G RGW, has been fulfilled; (D) The interests of the general public in the -5- 1549 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 20, 1990 City of Port Angeles would be served by approval of the rezone. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion. Councilman Hallett asked what place the impacts on the neighborhood in transition have on any conclusions which may be drawn with the rezone of the property. Director Collins stated approval of this action would accelerate the transition. Councilman Hallett asked if there were any known impacts of Gund Plaza in the neighborhood. Director Collins responded there is some understanding of the impacts on traffic and other services in the area. However, there is no information regarding pedestrian patterns; whether there will be need for crosswalks or traffic lights in the area. Councilman Ostrowski expressed his concern of the unsureness of the impacts in the area, and he felt the Council should consider the feelings of the residential neighborhood and those signatures on the petition, as well. He also expressed concern about the size of the area being rezoned, as he felt it was a spot rezone. Councilman Wight, in speaking to his motion, stated there is a danger in following the interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan, in that with the allowance of more intensive pockets of development occurring in traditional neighborhoods, there should be a mechanism in place so as not to overload the neighborhoods. He noted in this area, the density is light and there is open land, public parks, and open spaces. Councilman Hallett felt the area would be better served with a larger rezone area and concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Department to deny the rezone request. The motion was voted on and carried, with Councilmen Hallett and Ostrowski voting "No". Councilman Hallett moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. BREAK Mayor Sargent recessed the meeting for a break at 9:00 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:15 P.M. 2. Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 1990 A. Shoreline Management Permit SMA-90(01)107 City of Port Angeles, Francis Street: Request for a permit to allow for development of six (6) all-weather surfaced parking spaces and access provided with soil erosion and surface runoff control facilities, constructed in association with the Waterfront Trail Councilman Gabriel moved to delay consideration of the issue until the March 6, 1990, City Council meeting. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion. Councilman Gabriel stated he did not feel he had adequate information to make a decision on the issue. He stated his concern about the fairness in requiring a builder to prepare an environmental impact assessment while the City has a Determination of Non-Significance. He questioned where the Trail might lead to, especially in the area of ITT Rayonier, and whether it would be the intention to build a ramp. Councilman Wight stated he felt it may be expensive to build a ramp, considering the topography of the area. Councilman Gabriel felt there should be a ramp to make it wheelchair accessible, as well the ability for bicycles and strollers to move freely up and down the Trail. Councilman Nicholson pointed out that the Department report states that the improvements proposed as part of the Shoreline Permit are not exclusive or -6- 1550 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 20, 1990 permanent, and he did not believe the issue with the private developer would have any impact on this particular request. Councilman Lemon expressed concerns with the complicated area which could cause difficulty in performing the work, stating he still has many unanswered questions. Councilman Gabriel felt there was no urgency on the issue, and suggested that the Council take a step back and look at the overall plan of the area. The motion was voted on and carried, with Councilmen Lemon, Gabriel, and Ostrowski and Mayor Sargent voting "Aye", and Councilmen Hallett, Wight and Nicholson voting "No". Louie Torres questioned the Council on the process they were entering into, and suggested the Council take the approach of a public hearing. Councilman Lemon expressed his concern that there was no public hearing held at the Council level on the issue. Planning Director Collins explained that is the normal procedure in Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, that there is no second public hearing scheduled at the Council level, stating however, this does not prevent the Council from holding a public hearing. Councilman Lemon moved to hold a public hearing at the March 6, 1990, City Council meeting. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion, which failed, with Councilmen Lemon and Gabriel voting "Aye", and Mayor Sargent and Councilmen Hallett, Wight, Nicholson, and Ostrowski voting "No". B. Appeal of Conditional Use Permit - CUP-89(11)22 HO Robinson, 1126 East Seventh Street: Appeal of decision on operation of bed and breakfast in an RS-7, Single-Family Residential District Councilman Wight moved to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission upholding the denial by the Administrative Hearings Officer, citing the following findings and conclusions: Findings: 1. The only vehicular access and on-site parking for bed and breakfast clients is via the 7/8 alley, which is only improved in part to a width of 10 feet; 2. Testimony was received that the alley does not adequately serve the needs of current residential uses and that the proposed bed and breakfast will further decrease the level of service provided by the alley; 3. The development standards for bed and breakfasts are defined in Article IV, Chapter 17.18, of the Port Angeles Zoning Code; Conclusions: (A) Vehicular access and on-site parking that does not adversely impact the residential use of surrounding properties must be provided for the subject site; (B) Traffic and access problems are present for four or more residents who use the 7/8 alley as their primary access; (C) The following criteria will not be met for the proposed bed and breakfast: 1. Section 17.18.079(A) and (B) of the Bed and Breakfast Chapter of the City's Zoning Ordinance (#1709, as amended): A. Water, sewer, power, road, police and fire, and refuse disposal must be available and adequate for the proposed use. B. The proposal should not cause detrimental effects on the surrounding residential area as a result of changes in the following elements (but not limited to just these elements): traffic, noise, activities occurring on-site, lighting and the ability to provide utility service; 2. Section 17.86.040 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Ail Home Occupations shall comply with the following development standards: * * * * * B. That the Home Occupation does not significantly increase local vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion. Councilman Lemon expressed concern with the findings regarding the alley's inadequacy to handle the impacts of the bed and breakfast, stating that there are other bed and breakfasts located on the alleys. He stated he felt the proposed bed and breakfast did provide adequate parking facilities, and spoke in opposition because he did not believe there were any increased impacts regarding the traffic, stating he would be more in favor of approving the request on a six-month trial basis. The motion was voted on and failed with Councilmen Hallett, Ostrowski, and Wight voting "Aye", and Mayor Sargent and Councilmen Lemon, Gabriel, and Nicholson voting "No" -7- 1551 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 20, 1990 Councilman Lemon moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit, CUP-89(11)22 - Robinson, subject to the following conditions and citing the following findings and conclusions. Conditions: (1) The Conditional Use Permit will be granted for six months; (2) Parking will be provided as required by the City's Parking Ordinance (the Public Works Department will be provided a more complete diagram in order to determine the available parking spaces); (3) A traffic count shall be done by the neighbors and the owners to determine the traffic impacts on the area. Findings: (1) The only vehicular access and on-site parking for the bed and breakfast clients is via the 7/8 alley; (2) It is anticipated that the Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect access; (3) There is sufficient access to property for the public safety purposes. Conclusion: (A) The limited six-month duration of the Conditional Use Permit will allow for a determination of traffic and/or other impacts. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion. Councilman Wight stated the key in the Planning Commission and the Administrative hearing were that they determined the business use made the alley access problem worse than it currently is, and that was the basis for the denial of the Conditional Use Permit. He spoke in support of the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the request. Councilman Lemon again reiterated he did not believe this was an adverse impact because the increase would be approximately three cars traveling six to nine trips per day. Following further discussion, the question was called and the motion carried, with Councilmen Wight and Ostrowski voting "No". C. Appeal of Retail Stand Extension RTS-89(03)2 Hopper, Railroad Avenue: Appeal of the extension decision for a retail stand for distribution of tourist-oriented marketing material and coupons, located approximately 95 feet east of the Railroad/Laurel intersection, on the north side of City right-of-way, in the CBD, Central Business District The Council discussed the issue with the Planning Staff and Planning Commissioner Cornell. The basis for the denial is that one of the primary purposes of the Retail Stand Ordinance is to promote a mix of uses which are adequately served, and the Planning Commission felt it appeared that some of the businesses were unable to locate retail stands on the waterfront partially because individuals with retail stand permits have not been in operation. Additionally, Mr. Hopper currently holds two retail stand permits, one which he has not been using. The Commission had hoped in denying his permit to free up one space for another business to have the opportunity to locate on the waterfront. Councilman Lemon asked Chairman Cornell why he voted in opposition to the denial of the extension. Mr. Cornell stated his reason for voting in opposition to the denial was because he believed Mr. Hopper has done a good job in the area with his two sites, there have been no complaints received, and he has operated within the rules set forth by the Retail Stand Ordinance. Following further discussion of the issue, Councilman Hallett moved to grant the extension of the Retail Stand Permit, RTS-89(03)2, Hopper, for a period of one year, subject to the original conditions and the following findings, and conclusions: Conditions: (1) One 2AiOBC fire extinguisher shall be provided and approved by the Fire. Department prior to operation; (2) The applicant shall provide a trash receptacle with a lid incorporated with the Retail Stand; (3) The Retail Stand will comply with all development standards of the Retail Stand Ordinance, which includes, but is not limited to, a minimum of $500,000 public liability and property damage insurance coverage, naming the City as co- insured, and an agreement to indemnify and hold the City harmless. Findings: A. The applicant was previously approved two stands at two sites; B. Use of both sites occurred over the past year with only one stand; the second stand was not constructed; C. Another operator was turned down for a stand site when space was not available; D. Stand separation requirements permit only four to six locations along Railroad Avenue; Conclusions: 1. To prevent restriction of competition by unfair practices, Retail Stand approval should be conditioned so that the permit can be revoked if the stand space is left unoccupied during the permit period; 2. The time frame for sidewalk stand approvals should recognize the seasonal nature of the permit period between April and September. -8- 1552 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 20, 1990 Councilman Lemon seconded the motion. Councilman Gabriel was opposed t° ~the process which the Council had entered into in taking information from the Planning Commission Chairman. The question was called and the motion carried, with Councilman Gabriel voting "No". It now being past 10 P.M., Councilman Hallett moved to continue the Council's Agenda, with the exception to delay Items 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 to the Council meeting of March 6, 1990. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. D. Conditional Use Permit CUP-90)92)1 .- Davidson, 100 Block of East Eighth Street: Request for a permit to allow a self-service car wash to be located in the CSD-C2, Community Shopping District Councilman Hallett moved to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the Conditional Use Permit application subject to the following conditions, and citing the following findings and conclusions: Conditions: 1. No portion of the facility shall include a self-service, automated car wash use, as proposed in the application; 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposal, the applicant shall prepare a landscaping plan designed to ensure that the development is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding uses. The Plan shall be approved by the Planning Department or Planning Commission and implemented by the applicant prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the structure. The plan should meet the minimum standards for landscaping, as found in the Arterial Commercial Zoning District; 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposal, the applicant shall obtain a right-of-way use permit from the Department of Public Works. Access shall be restricted to a single entrance from Eighth Street (in only) and a controlled exit at the alley (exit only); 4. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall comply with Department of Public Works requirements for sanitary and storm sewer hook-up, including providing oil/water and oil/grit separators; Findings: 1. The Port Angeles Zoning Code requires that prior to acting on a Conditional Use Permit the Planning Commission must hold a duly advertised public hearing; 2. Public notice, as required by the Port Angeles Zoning Code, has been given; 3. The property subject to the permit application is described as Lots 12 and 13, Block 231, Townsite of Port Angeles, and is located within a CSD-C2 Zoning District; 4. The Port Angeles Zoning Code allows 'independent, self-service, non-automated car washes" as a conditional use in the GSD-C2 Zoning District; 5. One of the five car wash bays includes a type of self-service, automated car wash system; 6. No reviewing agency has indicated that the use of the property as a self-service, non-automated car wash would be inconsistent with or detrimental to other uses within the vicinity, provided conditions are attached to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit; 7. The Port Angeles Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission shall consider all applications for Conditional Use Permits and may grant said permits for such uses as by these regulations are required to be reviewed and which can be permitted only upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit; 8. The Zoning Code states that the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit shall be to assure that the maximum degree of compatibility between uses shall be attained; 9. Service stations, which include automated car washes by definition, are allowed as a permitted use in the Arterial Commercial Zoning District (ACD); Conclusions: (A) The proposed activity, with the exception of the automated portion, can be permitted through - the granting of a Conditional Use Permit; (B) The proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with the tests for issuance of Conditional Use Permits as found in Article XI, Section 5, of the Port Angeles Zoning Code; (C) Procedural requirements relating to public notice and public hearing have been accomplished; (D) It is the opinion of the Planning Commission to investigate the possibility of a Zoning Code Amendment to allow a self-service automated car wash facility in the CSD-C2 Zone. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. E. Acceptance of Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 1990 Councilman Hallett moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission minutes of the February 14, 1990, meeting. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. -9- 1553 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 20, 1990 3. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2564 (DelHur Rezone - REZ-89(07)5) and Adoption of Map Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2567 AN ORDINANCE 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 from RS-9, _ Residential Single-Family, and RMF, Residential Multi-Family, to ACD, Arterial Commercial District, and amending the official Zoning Map, Ordinance 2158, and amending Ordinance No. 2564, by correcting the legal description of certain rezoned property and by amending the Official Zoning Map. Councilman Hallett moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title and to authorize publication by summary. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 4. Consideration of a Contract with Noise Consultant for ITT/Harborcrest Noise Impact Study Councilman Nicholson moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with Towne, Richards, and Chaudier, Inc., for noise consulting services. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried, with Councilmen Lemon and Gabriel voting "No". 5. Consideration of Bill McDowell's Letter Regarding the Sign Code Ordinanc~ Mayor Sargent asked the Council if they wanted to hear from Mr. McDowell on the subject. Councilman Gabriel stated he did not feel it was appropriate. Councilman Wight concurred. Attorney Knutson stated that there was nothing illegal about the Council hearing comments on the existing ordinance, unless the Council had already decided to pursue a possible amendment to the ordinance which would require a public hearing, in which case, the comments would have to wait until the public hearing. Bill McDowell, 318 East Front Street, representing a number of Downtown merchants in a suit arising from a "grandfather clause" which was added to the revised Downtown Sign Ordinance, stated he did not recall that a public hearing had been held on the proposed "grandfather clause" and the purpose for his appearance before the Council is to suggest an alternate "grandfather clause" which, in his opinion, does not provide any special benefits to any individuals, and requested that the Council hold a public hearing strictly on the "grandfather clause". He provided the Council with background information regarding the Sign Ordinance to date, then reviewed with the Council the proposed "grandfather clause". The proposed clause states: "Any sign legally existing prior to 1982, which was not fully depreciated for income tax purposes by 3uly, 1989, may remain in use until the sign is fully depreciated under the fastest depreciation schedule allowed under IRS regulations; provided, however, that maintenance and repair costs may not be counted for purposes of this clause. Applicants for relief under this clause must provide certified copies of depreciation schedules clearly showing entitlements hereunder." He read to the Council a portion of the Washington Constitution, Article I, Section 12: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens." It is his clients' position that the current Sign Ordinance is in violation of the Constitutional provision because it does grant special benefits to the Red Lion Inn and Haguewood's Restaurant. He believed the proposed "grandfather clause" would satisfy all the clients; however, the alternative would be to ask the -10- 1554 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 20, 1990 City to pay to his clients the sums which they paid to bring their signs into conformance. Councilman Hallett suggested that the Council return the Ordinance to its original form, as proposed in 1987, or open a public hearing to discuss the proposed change in the "grandfather clause". Councilman Wight spoke in support of opening a public hearing to discuss the proposed "grandfather clause". Councilman Wight moved to schedule a public hearing for the April 3, 1990, City Council meeting to consider the Sign Ordinance in the form as submitted by the Planning Commission in 1989. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion. Councilman Lemon spoke in opposition to the motion, as he felt the Council should take action to rezone the property. Councilman Nicholson stated in looking at the whole picture, in his opinion there was a manifest unfairness which the Council needed to deal with. Following further discussion of the motion, Councilman Wight withdrew his motion. Councilman Nicholson withdrew his second. Councilman Wight offered a motion to set a public hearing for the April 3, 1990, Council meeting to consider an amendment to the "grandfather clause" in the existing Central Business District Sign Code. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion, which carried, with Councilman Lemon voting "No" 6 Consideration of Amendment to the Parking Ordinance Eliminating ParkinK Lot Activity Permit Provisions (Continued from February 6, 1990) Continued to March 6, 1990. 7. Request to Modify Easement for Property Owner by Elwha Road on City-Owned Property (Elwha Watermain) Continued to March 6, 1990. 8. Consideration of Agreement with Waldron & Co. for Services RegardinK Selection of City Manager Lorraine Ross, 418 East Front Street, was opposed to the use of an outside firm to screen the applicants for the City Manager's position. She felt it was an unnecessary expense of the City and that if the Councilmembers were unwilling to spend the time, perhaps they would form a volunteer committee. She volunteered her time to serve on the committee. Mayor Sargent explained that she bad, at an earlier meeting, presented to the Council and the audience the L~ a~plications received for the position, with some of the resumes as long as 20 pages. She noted that Councilman Ostrowski had also made a proposal similar to Mrs. Ross'; however, the Council had decided not to pursue that avenue because of the magnitude of the job. Councilman Lemon was opposed to the interviews being held with Department Heads, as he felt it was the duty of the Council, and if the Council wished to interview Department Heads individually they could do so. Councilman Hallett felt it was important to have the thoughts of the Department Heads to know what they perceived as needs, and have those needs presented to the Council, stating it would still be the choice of the Council as to who to hire for the position. Councilman Lemon disagreed with Councilman Hallett's comments, as he felt it was more subjective and the Council needed complete objectivity in this issue. Councilman Ostrowski stated he would be opposed to the motion as he feels strongly that the Council should follow the suggestions made previously by himself and again reiterated by Mrs. Ross. Councilman Lemon moved to accept the contract with the deletion of sub-section B from Phase I and additionally to have Phase III as an option of the Council. Councilman Gabriel seconded. The motion was voted on and carried, with Councilmen Hallett and Ostrowski voting "No" 1555 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 20, 1990 The Council set meeting dates for interviews individually with Waldron & Co. for February 27th and 28th, and additionally set a special meeting for February 28, 1990, at 5:00 P.M. for a group discussion with Waldron & Co. regarding the selection of the City Manager. 9. Consideration of Applications Received for Vacancies on the City's Boards and Commissions/Setting Interview Date Continued to March 6, 1990. 10. Consideration of Contracts with Special Agencies Receiving Funding in 1990 From the City of Port Angeles Continued to March 6, 1990. 11. Consideration of Contract with BPA for "Design Wise" Program Continued to March 6, 1990. 12. Reassignment of Energy Conservation Contract due to Relocation of Individual Consultant Continued to March 6, 1990. 13. Request to Convene Councilts Ad Hoc Committee to Discuss Consolidation Activities with Clallam County and Other Peninsula Agencies Mayor Sargent stated there is a request from the Assistant Chief of Police to appoint an ad hoc Council committee to review a high priority goal of the City Council and the County Commissioners regarding the centralization of the emergency services dispatch center. It was suggested that it was the appropriate time to facilitate the progress by the use of the Councilts ad hoc committee concept, chaired by the Deputy Mayor and Councilmembers. The Council formed a committee of three members to serve on the ad hoc committee: Councilmen Hallett, Lemon, and Wight. IX CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/LATE ITEMS Councilman Gabriel updated the Council on his attendance at a three-day recycling seminar. Councilman Hallett brought the Council's attention to a proposal brought forth from Port Angeles Recycling Team regarding a pilot curbside recycling program. He also noted the staff had requested Council participation in the compensation study for the Admin Group. It was determined that the Comp. Study would come to the Council in a draft form at the March 6th meeting in the Information Agenda. Mayor Sargent updated the Council on her participation in an Earthquake Awareness seminar, stating she has put together a program which she would be willing to give to any service organizations or other clubs which may be interested. She also noted that the City's Home Show would be held February 24th and 25th. X ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Sargent adjourned the meeting to executive session at 11:18 P.M. for the discussion of one item of real estate, one item of litigation, and one personnel item. Approximate length to be 30 minutes. XI RETURN TO OPEN SESSION The meeting returned to open session at approximately 12:14 A.M. XII ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:15 A.M. -12-