Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/03/1990 1588 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington April 3, 1990 I CALL TO ORDER Mayor Sargent called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at 7:00 P.M. II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Sargent. III ROLL CALL Members Present: Mayor Sargent, Councilmen Gabriel (arrived at 7:10 P.M.), Hallett, Lemon, Nicholson, Wight. Members Absent: Cpuncilm~n OstrowskiA(attendi~g Staff Present: A~ting Manager Knutson, Clerk Maike, S. Brodhun, M. Cleland, B. Collins, K. Ridout, B. Titus, C. Jones, B. Coons, M. Campbell, G. Kenworthy. Public Present: L. Beil, Mr. & Mrs. C. Alexander, E. Colompos, J. & J. Haguewood, S. Haguewood, H. Berglund, B. McDowell, J. Nelson, L. Fuller, K. Erickson, E. Dorr, M. Ireland, D. & P. Brewer, R. Terrilo IV APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETINGS AND REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1990 Councilman Hallett moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting and the special meetings of the Port Angeles City Council for March 20, 1990. Councilman Lemon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. V FINANCE 1. Request for Payment to Riddell~ Williams of $1,484.05 for Legal Representation on WPPSS Litigation Councilman Nicholson moved to authorize payment of the current Riddell, Williams bill in the amount of $1,484.05 for the period January 29th through February 28, 1990, for legal representation on WPPSS issues. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. VI CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Nicholson moved to accept the items as presented on the Consent Agenda, including (1) Request to advertise for consultant to provide Value Engineering (VE) on Secondary Treatment Design; (2) Correspondence from Washington State Liquor Control Board; (3) Vouchers of $1,468,163.86; and (4) Payroll of 3-23-90 of $291,395.61. Councilman Wight seconded the motion. Following questions on some of the items as presented, the motion was voted on and carried unanimously. VII ITEMS FROM COUNCIL/AUDIENCE TO BE CONSIDERED/PLACED ON THE AGENDA Leonard Fuller, 420 East llth Street, spoke regarding Legislative Item 9, concerning a resolution for abatement of public nuisances. His property was listed on Exhibit "A". He requested that the Council give him the opportunity to clean up his property within the next thirty days. Following a lengthy discussion on the issue, Mayor Sargent stated the Council would take Mr. Fuller's request into consideration. Elmer Dorr, 416 East llth Street, requested to speak to Item 9 on the Council's Legislative Agenda. Acting Manager Knutson requested Item 19 be placed on the Agenda, Authorization to Sign a Purchase Contract for the Fire Truck. -1- 1589 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 3, 1990 Mayor Sargent placed Item 20 on the Agenda, Discussion of the City Manager Selection Process. VIII LEGISLATION 1. Public Hearing A. Sign Ordinance - Central Business District Discussion of "Grandfather" Clause Prior to opening the public hearing, Mayor Sargent noted that any citizens who wished to voice their opinion on this issue be brief, concise, and try not to be repetitious, reminding them that it is a discussion of the "grandfather" clause only. The public hearing was opened at 7:20 P.M. William McDowell, 318 East Front Street, member and Board Member of the Port Angeles Downtown Association, additionally representing a number of the Downtown merchants in a suit against the City arising from the "grandfather" clause, presented to the Council some facts regarding the origin of the Sign Ordinance and the subsequent "grandfather" clause, and those merchants who are not in compliance with the original Sign Ordinance. He stated with the passage of the Ordinance amendment in 1989, the Council immediately gave benefit to those six non-conforming signs. Two of those businesses were no longer operating at the passage of the "grandfather" clause, which left four businesses in non- compliance. The Red Lion, Haguewoodfs, Grebinfs, and the Camera Corner benefited by the adoption of a "grandfather" clause in the ordinance. He stated that 161 out of 165 businesses have complied with the Ordinance as of 1990. He stated his clients are in favor of the revisions to the Downtown Sign Ordinance. He suggested that during the original compliance period every merchant wrote off his sign. Their signs were fully depreciated and they reaped the benefits of the tax laws to cover the compensation for their signs having to be removed. With that in mind, he requested that the Council rescind the existing "grandfather" clause which benefits primarily the two sign owners identified as Haguewoodfs and Red Lion Inn. This action, in his opinion, would allow for fair treatment of all sign owners. He reminded the Council of a portion of the State Constitution which states: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen privileges or immunities which, upon the same term, shall not equally belong to all citizens." He suggested to the Council that the "grandfather" clause provides a special benefit and privilege to Mr. Haguewood, the Red Lion, Grebin's, and the Camera Corner, which are not available to all citizens. In closing, he suggested that a review of the law would prove that it is unfair and the "grandfather" clause should be rescinded. Rick Messinger, general manager of the Red Lion, 221 North Lincoln Street, stated that he is in favor of the "grandfather" clause and hoped that the City Council would not succumb to the pressures of the few because of the threat of a lawsuit. He stated "grandfathering" is proper and just. The previous City Council realized the Council does not have the right to make a person remove an existing structure that is not a risk to health and safety simply because of a depreciation schedule. He questioned the Council whether they felt they had the right to request a business tear down an investment and purchase another sign. He stated that the Ordinance has a "grandfather" clause to protect investments. Effie Columpos, 217 West Fourth Street, stated that enough is enough. The solution to the problem is that new businesses adhere to the ordinance, letting the "grandfather" clause remain. She stated that the Downtown Association should stick together and not tear the town apart. She did not feel it was right to place ultimatums on businesses. Craig Whalley, 1000 Mt. Pleasant Road, owner of Odyssey Book Shop, stated the question to be decided is one of simple justice. He gave a brief outline of the Sign Ordinance law to date. He stated the time to file a lawsuit on the original Sign Ordinance and the compliance date was during its discussion or shortly after its adoption. He urged the Council to repeal the "grandfather" clause. Richard Terril, Old Olympic Highway, Port Angeles, stated that big businesses should not have advantages by having large signs. He requested that the Council give everyone a fair chance and enact laws that provide that same opportunity as other cities have regarding sign ordinances. -2- 1590 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 3, 1990 Lou Russo, 213 West Park Street, spoke in support of the "grandfather" clause, stating he does not object to the Haguewood's sign, and requested the Council allow it to stay. Kevin Thompson, owner of the Family Shoe Store, stated a "grandfather" clause was originally requested when the first Sign Ordinance was being discussed, but it was struck down by the Council. His business has obeyed the law, as requested, and he has had to remove a sign and put a new sign up. He stated that it was not fair to add the "grandfather" clause after so many businesses had complied with the original Sign Ordinance. 3im Haguewood, 705 Christman Place, spoke briefly on the depreciation proposal, - stating that most businesses cannot terminate the life of an asset as soon as it has been depreciated. He stated he did not feel it was appropriate to single out the "grandfather" clause for discussion only, as in his opinion, there are several other defects in the Sign Ordinance. He stated the "grandfather" clause was discussed during the original adoption of the Sign Ordinance and he was in agreement that it should have been included in the Ordinance in the beginning. He noted that the Red Lion and Haguewood's signs are within the CBD District, while the businesses themselves are not, pointing out that those businesses are not pedestrian-oriented. He stated they have worked hard for the correction of the Ordinance, and the reason for not complying is because he believed there were other corrections that needed to be addressed. He presented to the Council a petition with 912 signatures, which states: "The Red Lion sign and Haguewood's sign are vital to identify the location of each business. We petition the Port Angeles City Council to maintain in effect the "grandfather" clause in the existing Sign Ordinance, or zone the Red Lion property out of the CBD." In closing, he asked, is it good government to require people to destroy their personal property, which is still functional, and is still a good asset for the business. Dave Brewer, 111 East 13th Street, a business owner in the Downtown area and also one of the businesses which removed a sign in order to meet the compliance requirements of the Ordinance, stated it is a simple matter of fairness: compliance versus non-compliance. He pointed out that one sign (Elks) which until recently was in non-compliance, decided to comply to be a good neighbor. He stated he concurred with comments made by Mr. McDowell and Mr. Thompson, and urged the City Council to rescind the "grandfather" clause. Lou Russo addressed the Council regarding the comment made by Mr. Brewer on the Elks sign, stating that a committee voted to remove the sign and in his opinion, they were pressured to do so. Mayor Sargent closed the public hearing at 7:55 P.M., stating that the Council has three options on the issue. (1) To leave the Ordinance as is; (2) to adopt a proposed "grandfather" clause submitted by Mr. McDowell which puts in force a depreciation schedule; or (3) to adopt a proposed modification submitted by herself, which allows the existence of signs until January 1, 1992. Councilman Wight, in speaking to the issue, stated he favored the proposal submitted by Mayor Sargent, as this has the most merit of the three alternatives presented. The issue boils down to two specific issues: One, can business owners and operators in a specific zone ask for restrictive legislation in their district and expect it to be enacted by City government. He believed the answer to be yes, as this is quite evident throughout the State and other cities which have enacted restrictive legislation. Secondly, should the law be equitable and apply to everyone. Again, he believed the answer was yes, it should apply to all. To that end, he moved that the Council delete the existing "grandfather" clause, and substitute the following: Page 1, second paragraph, delete "two" and insert "three". Page 1, sixth paragraph, third line, delete "but received no evidence substantiating that any Downtown businesses spent money in order to remove or correct pre-1982 non-conforming signs; yet, on the other hand, the Council did receive much comment during the public hearing to the effect"; and add "and". The paragraph would then read: "WHEREAS, the Council received testimony during the public hearing that Downtown businesses spent money complying with the Sign Code and that the existing Sign Code was unfair to, and discriminated against, pre-existing non- conforming signs;" and on page 15, delete paragraph 3 and 4 and substitute the following: "(3) A prohibited sign, existing and in use on January l, 1982, may -3- 1591 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 3, 1990 be retained in use until December 31, 1991, provided that if the business or service advertised by the sign is discontinued during that ten year period the sign shall be removed within thirty (30) days of discontinuance. Such sign shall be either removed or made to conform to the requirements of this Ordinance by January 1, 1992. (4) Any sign which is of a type of sign permitted under Section 7 of this Ordinance, but which does not conform to the specific requirements for that type of sign, and existing on January 1, 1982, shall be classified as legal nonconforming, and may remain in use until December 31, 1991. Such sign shall be either removed or made to conform to the requirements of this Ordinance by January 1, 1992." Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion for discussion purposes. Councilman Wight, in speaking to the motion, stated the two signs which are obviously in question are located on the Red Lion property. He stated personally, the signs are not bothersome to him; however, the problem is they are an exception to a basic Ordinance which was adopted over eight years ago and have never complied with that Ordinance. In his opinion, the fairest thing to do is to rescind the "grandfather" clause. Councilman Nicholson expressed concern that the Council may still be faced with this same issue two years down the road if, in fact, these signs are not removed by the 1992 deadline. Councilman Hallett stated he believed this to be a very simple issue. The Ordinance is not community-wide; it was brought to the Council with a specific boundary within the community. Therefore, this is a simple case of the majority of people within boundaries, asking the Council to take an action. He stated due process has been served, and in effect, there was a "grandfather" clause in the Ordinance because of the five-year compliance period. He believed the issue of fairness was very appropriate; that there has been ample time during the years to challenge the Ordinance, to make changes, and to work out the inequities. He urged the Council to enact the Ordinance as originally brought to the Council, without the "grandfather" clause. Councilman Lemon spoke in support of the motion, providing the Council adds some teeth to the action, and to look at other variables with the businesses being outside the Central Business District while the sign is inside the boundary. He noted that the Red Lion sign is not in violation; they have been granted a variance as long as they remove the reader board and the Triple A sign. He proposed that the Council bring the issue of rezoning the property to a public hearing. Councilman Hallett stated that a rezone may be a good alternative to consider: however, this action should not be made, in his opinion, by the Council. Councilman Gabriel offered an amendment to the motion to. refer a rezone request to the Planning Commission. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion. Councilman Wight spoke in opposition to the motion, as the issues are disconnected and it should be acted on as a separate issue. Councilman Hallett stated he was opposed to the amendment, as to change the boundaries was not the Council's concern. The Council discussed briefly the boundary lines of the Central Business District. The amendment was voted on and failed, with Councilmen Lemon and Gabriel voting "Aye". Following discussion on the main motion, Councilman Wight withdrew his motion. Councilman Nicholson withdrew his second. Councilman Nicholson, for the record, stated he felt a strong sense of resentment at the suggestion that the Council would make decisions based on the fear of lawsuits. He stated he does not make decisions on that basis, but makes them on what he feels is fair and honorable. Councilman Hallett moved that the Council rescind the existing "grandfather" clause and substitute one which states: "Any sign legally existing prior to 1982 which was not fully depreciated for income tax purposes by July, 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. -4- 159R CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 3, 1990 Applicants for relief under this clause must provide certified copies of depreciation schedules clearly showing entitlements hereunder." The motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Nicholson moved that the Council enact the Ordinance as originally drafted and proposed by the Planning Commission, without the "grandfather' clause. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion. Following a short discussion, Councilman Nicholson added to the motion, "to be effective September 1, 1990". Councilman Hallett concurred. The motion was voted on and carried, with Councilmen Lemon and Gabriel voting "No". Acting Manager Knutson noted that before the Ordinance is enacted into law it will be brought back before the Council for approval. 2, Continuation of Parking Variance - PKV-90(02)i - John Nelson 116 Railroad Avenue: A request to reduce the number of required parking spaces for a proposed antique mall located in the Central Business District (CBD) (Continued from March 20, 1990) Planning Director Collins noted that the applicant has requested that the Council postpone this item indefinitely, pursuant to the applicant's request. Councilman Wight moved to postpone the Parking Variance Request, PKV-90(02)i, John Nelson, 116 Railroad Avenue, indefinitely. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 3. Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 1990 Councilman Lemon moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 1990. Councilman Wight seconded the motion. Councilman Wight pointed out the options which were discussed by the Council and Commission regarding the review of long-range planning issues. He specifically noted Item 6, regarding establishing an ad hoc committee for specific long-range issues, such as the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code updates. Council discussed the value and noted approval of an ad hoc committee and the steps the Council would need to take in order to implement such committees. The motion was voted on and carried unanimously. 4 Resolution Setting a Public Hearing for Street Vacation STV-90(04)i - Lee, et. al.: Request to Vacate a Portion of East Sixth Street Mayor Sargent read the Resolution by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. 5-90 A RESOLUTION of the City of Port Angeles setting a hearing date for a petition to vacate a portion of East Sixth _ Street abutting Lots 10 and 11, Block 189; abutting Lots 17 and 18, Block 190; abutting Lots 1 and the east 30 feet of Lot 2, Block 211, and abutting Lot 9, Block 212, TPA. Councilman Hallett moved to pass the Resolution as read by title. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The public hearing was set for the May 1, 1990, City Council meeting. 5, Consideration of Acceptance of the Harbor Resource Management Plan Councilman Lemon moved that the Council endorse the planning process and recognize the Harbor Resource Management Plan as a reference tool, not adopting it as an ordinance, but use it as appropriate when updating other City Ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Shoreline Master Program. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. -5- 1593 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 3, 1990 BREAK Mayor Sargent recessed the meeting for a break at 8:43 P.M. The meeting re- convened at 8:53 P.M. 6, Request from Olympic Outdoor Sportsmen's Club to Research Ownership of Property Where Small Dam is Located on Ennis Creek Councilman Hallett stated the Olympic Outdoor Sportsmen's Club has requested that the Council give them permission to remove a dam located in the County on City-owned property on Ennis Creek; to direct staff to research the ownership and give the Club their permission to remove the dam. Jim Nelson, 1117 West 15th Street, representing the Olympic Outdoor Sportsmen's Club, stated the dam is an old wooden structure located on Ennis Creek. It has a headwater of approximately 6 to 8 feet deep and is in total disrepair, but it must be removed in order to successfully restore the salmon runs in Ennis Creek. Currently, the Club is working with the schools in the area and with the Department of Wildlife in this restoration project. He requested that the Council authorize the dam removal. Following a brief discussion of the issue, Councilman Wight moved to direct staff to cooperate with the removal of the dam, providing there are no adverse impacts. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion. Mayor Sargent expressed her concern with any impacts resulting from removal of the dam. Councilman Hallett stated by giving Council approval for removal of the dam, the final decision will need to be made by the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Mr. Nelson noted that the Club needs the Council's permission to remove the dam before going to the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to ask for permission to remove it. The motion was voted on and carried unanimously. 7, Consideration of Contract for Public Information Program with Thompson Mackellar Councilman Nicholson moved that the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with Thompson Mackellar for the Public Information Program, for the period April 1st through December 31, 1990. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 8. Consideration of Agreement with State Department of Information Services for SCAN Phone Services Councilman Hallett moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the DIS Customer Service Agreement for Scan phone services. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion. Councilman Wight requested that staff provide the Council with information as to the types of services covered by the agreement. The motion was voted on and carried unanimously. 9. Consideration of Resolution for Abatement of Public Nuisances Staff provided the Council with a revised Exhibit "A" for the Resolution. Leonard Fuller, 420 East llth Street, requested that the Council give him time to finish the projects he has ongoing on his property and presented background information regarding his ownership and use of the property and his relationship with his neighbor. Kay Erickson, 416 East llth Street, stated the garbage in Mr. Fuller's yard has been there for at least six months, and in her opinion, it would only get worse with time. Elmer Dorr, 416 East llth Street, stated the conditions of Mr. Fuller's yard have existed for five and one-half years. -6- 1594 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 3, 1990 Councilman Lemon stated he would be agreeable to extend the 10-day condition for correction to 30 days, provided the staff clarified to Mr. Fuller specifically what needs to be done to his property. After the lapse of thirty days, if he has not met the criteria, the City go in, do the work, and bill Mr. Fuller for the work that has been performed. He stated the condition of Mr. Fuller's yard is detrimental to the public welfare. Attorney Knutson advised the Council to revise Section 3 of the Resolution to change the 10-day period to a 30-day period. Mayor Sargent read the Resolution by title, entitled - RESOLUTION NO. 4-90 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, declaring the existence of a public nuisance and requiring the elimination of such nuisance. Councilman Lemon moved to pass the Resolution as read by title, changing the lO-day period in Section 3 to 30 days. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 10. Consideration of Petition for LID on East Fifth Street West of Penn Street Councilman Nicholson moved that the City Council accept the petition from the property owners and authorize the Public Works Department to proceed with surveying, engineering, and preliminary costs for the preliminary layout and estimated cost; to then prepare a resolution of intent to form the Local Improvement District (LID) to be brought to the City Council for consideration. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 11. Ordinance Clarifying Width of Front Street West of Oak Street Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2578 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, clarifying the width and boundaries of that part of Front Street lying west of Lincoln Street, and amending Ordinance No. 50. Councilman Wight moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 12. Acceptance of Resignations of Mr. Jerry Cornell and Mr. Jerry Glass from the Planning Commission Councilman N£cholson moved to regretfully accept the resignations of Mr. Cornell and Mr. Glass from the Planning Commission, and requested that a letter of appreciation be sent to each of them for their service. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 13, Consideration of Candidates for Planning Commission - Roger Carts, William Anabel, and Jewel Vanoss Councilman Hallett moved to fill the vacancies on the Planning Commission by using candidates Roger Carts, William Anabel and Jewel VanOss. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Council voted for the vacancies, unanimously appointing Roger Carts to fill vacancy ~1. His term will expire March, 1994. For vacancy #2, Councilmen, Gabriel, Lemon, Nicholson, and Mayor Sargent voted for William Anabel; Councilmen Hallett and Wight voted for Jewel VanOss. Mr. Anabel was appointed to fill the unexpired term for the period April 3, 1990, to March, 1991. -7- 1595 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 3, 1990 14. Proclamation - "Keep America Beautiful - Clean Up Week" April 14-22, 1990 Mayor Sargent proclaimed the week April 14th through 22nd as "Keep America Beautiful - Clean Up Week". 15~ Proclamation - "Yes to Youth, No to Drugs Awareness Week"~ April 7-14, 1990 Mayor Sargent proclaimed the week April 7th through 14th as "Yes to Youth, No to Drugs Awareness Week". 16. Proclamation for LOGO's Trip to Japan Mayor Sargent proclaimed the support of the City of Port Angeles for the good will tour of LOGOS Musical to Japan. 17. Consideration of Recognition of Mr. and Mrs. Syd Tozier for Waterfront Trail Land Gift Mayor Sargent stated she will be representing the City at a meeting of the Port, City, and PUD for recognition of Mr. and Mrs. Syd Tozier's gift of land to the Waterfront Trail project. 18. Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding of January 8, 1988, with Olympic National Park Councilman Lemon moved that the Council authorize the Chief of Police to sign the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Port Angeles and Olympic National Park. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 19. Consideration of Equipment Order Contract for Fire Truck Councilman Gabriel moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the equipment order contract between the City and Pierce Manufacturing Co., Inc., for the purchase of one transport-capable pumper. Councilman Wight seconded the motion, which carried, with Councilman Lemon voting "No". 20. Discussion of City Manager Selection Process Councilman Lemon moved the Council exercise the optional Phase III, Consensus Phase, of the Contract with Waldron & Associates in the amount of $1,000, and to set an executive session for Tuesday, April 10th, at 5:00 P.M. at City Hall. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. IX CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/LATE ITEMS Mayor Sargent noted that the County will be doing another household hazardous waste roundup and stated that the City should support this issue and requested the issue be placed on the April 17th City Council agenda. Councilman Lemon discussed with Attorney Knutson the request for access along the Waterfront Trail from Mr. Glaubert and Mr. Austin. Councilman Lemon requested that it be made clear to Mr. Glaubert that access cannot be had to his property from the west end, but must be made specifically from the east end as his avenue for vehicular traffic. Councilman Hallett noted a letter had been received from Foster & Associates offering a seminar for government supervisors and managers, and asked that Councilmembers make their interest known, if they would like to attend. X ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting adjourned to executive session at 10:05 P.M. to discuss litigation and negotiations. Approximate length, 30 to 45 minutes. XI RETURN TO OPEN SESSION The meeting returned to open session at approximately 11:45 P.M. -8- 1596 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 3, 1990 XII ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:46 P.M. 1 ' ~ /. CC.146 -9-