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-