Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/07/19881026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington June 7, 1988 I CALL TO ORDER Mayor McPhee called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Boy Scout Troop #101 from St. Andrews Church, Scoutmaster Andy Anderson, and members Paul Anderson, Clay Ellinwood, Andrew Sinclair, Chris Balducci, Anthony Balducci, and Brad Kirsch. III ROLL CALL Members Present: Mayor McPhee, Councilmen Gabriel, Hallett, Hesla, Lemon, Sargent, Stamon. Members Absent: Staff Present: None. Manager Flodstrom, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Maike, 0. Miller, M. Cleland, R. Orton, J. Hicks, L. Glenn, J. Pittis, T. Smith, M. Bowes, M. Campbell, K. Ridout, D. McGinley. Public Present: P. Feeley, J. Smart, H. Fulkerson, H. Reagin, S. Hyett, F. Back, J. Miller, Mr. & Mrs. C. Alexander, Mr. & Mrs. D. Kline, P. Nekodym, E. Colompos, D. McLain, H. Presher, D. Milton, K. Schermer, C. Sue, R. Bryant, V. Dick, L. Beil, R. French, V. French, B. Maloney, D. Vautier, H. & S. Fuller, H. Berglund, R. & E. Dorr, D. Birke, L. Bondy, P. Cronauer, D. & P. Brewer, C. Hulse, C. Whalley, K. & L. Rose, J. Kirner, V. Perri, E. & M. Hansen, J. deBord, B. Barrell, T. Marvin, G. Pettit, M. Swanson. IV MINUTES Councilman Hallett moved to accept and place on file the minutes of the May 17, 1988, regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council. Councilman Sargent seconded. Councilman Stamon offered a correction to page 6, paragraph 4, striking the word "amended ", so the sentence would read, "On call for the question the motion carried, with Councilmen Hallett and Sargent voting in opposition." Councilman Hallett offered a correction to the bottom of page 3, last paragraph. The correct spelling to Charles LaBaron is "Leber ". And again on page 6, paragraph 6, correct spelling to "Leber ". On call for the question, the motion carried. Councilman Sargent moved to accept and place on file the minutes of the May 23, 1988, special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council. Councilman Gabriel seconded and the motion carried. V FINANCE None. VI CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Gabriel moved to separate Item W. 1 and to treat it as a separate issue. Councilman Hallett seconded for d'_scussicr. The motion carried. Councilman Stamon moved for approval of Items 2 through 4 op. the Consent Agenda, as follows: (2) Correspondence from Wash.*lCton Statn Liquor Control Board; (3) Vouchers of $1,152,903.13; and (4) Payroll of 5 -15 -88 of $233,755.94. Councilman Hallett seconded and the motion carried. For purposes of discussion, Councilman Stamon moved to concur with the recommendation of the Public Works Department that Council authorize a call 1 CITY OF PORT ANGELES ADVERTISEMENT FOR BID FOR REMGVAL OF A CITY -OWNED BUILDING Sealed bids will be received by file office of the City Clerk, 321 East Fifth Street, P.O. Box 1150, Port Angeles. Washington 98362, until 3:00 P.M.. June 28, 1988. and not later. and will be opened publicly at that time. Bids will be taken for: Sale and removal of a City - owned building located at 201 West Railroad Avenue and commonly known as Pisces Seafoods, located on the Oak Street dock. Bid documents may be ob- tained from the Public Works Department, City of Port An- geles, at the above address, (206) 457 -0411, Ext. 120. All proposals or bids shall be submitted on the pres- cribed form and in the man- ner as indicated in the In- structions to Bidders and conditions and said propos- als or bids shall be ac- companied by a certified or cashier's check or a bid bond in the amount of five per- cent (5 %) of the total amount of the proposal or bid, said bid bond shall be issued by a surety auth- orized and licensed to issue said bonds in the State of Washington. The City of Port Angeles re- serves the right to accept the- proposals or bids and aw rd to responsible bidders which are in the best inter- est of the City; to postpone the,, acceptance of proposals or bids and the award of the contracts for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days; or to reject any and all proposals or bids received and further advertise for bids. Jack N. Pittis, P.E. Director of Public Works Pub.: June 12, 19, 1988. 1027 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 7, 1988 for bids for the removal of buildings and docks on City -owned property at 201 West Railroad Avenue. Councilman Lemon seconded. Councilman Gabriel questioned whether this was a removal of the building and the pilings or just the building. Manager Flodstrom replied that this was just the removal of the building. Councilman Stamon requested that Public Works Director Pittis speak to the necessity for leaving the pilings in place and why the City would want to do that, rather than taking them all out. Manager Flodstrom responded, reminding Council of the removal of the Owens Bros. building several years back and how even then they had left most of the pilings, the concern there being if the City or someone wanting to buy the property should want to build a dock facility or a fill area, conceivably the permitting process through the State of Washington for the shoreline permit and the Army Corps of Engineers permit would be easier if the outline of the existing dock facility and the pilings associated with the dock facilities were still in place. This would alleviate the necessity of starting from the beginning in the permitting process because previously buildings had existed in the area. Councilman Gabriel asked whether it would be less expensive to wait and remove the building when we had a project for it. Manager Flodstrom replied that it would be; however, leaving it as it is could constitute an attractive nuisance and we then stand the responsibility for the liability if someone should wander into the area and be intentionally or accidentally hurt. He stated in getting the authorization to call for bids, it gives staff the chance to look at the cost and to come back to Council with some other alternatives. Councilman Stamon replied the other consideration is the engineering reports if the area got winds from the correct direction there could be a lateral shift of the building, which would take out not only the dock but the pilings as well, and then we would have to go back and have the added expense of not only replacing the building, but the pilings as well in order to maintain a future use of the building. She believed this to be an important consideration. Mayor McPhee asked Councilman Stamon if she would be willing to amend her motion to specifically leave the pilings. Councilman Stamon concurred, saying that we could write bid specifications to include that also. On call for the question, the amended motion carried. VII ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA Carl Alexander, 1712 West Fifth Street, requested that Council consider taking public discussion on Item No. 4 Mayor McPhee stated that in the event of any changes in the present ordinance, public discussion would be allowed. Paul Cronauer, 1936 West Fifth Street, addressed the Council in regard to a "Stop Work" order placed on a project located at the end of Francis Street which he had been working on. He requested the Council rescind this order. He cited several reasons: (1) The Planning Department had required a Shoreline Permit after he had been told that this permit was not required because of the residential zoning of the development. (2) He stated he was willing to go ahead and proceed with the Shoreline application, which he has done, but that one of the hold -ups was the establishing and getting the plans approved for the extension of Francis Street to establish grades, which is to include a drawing showing the elevations of the grading. He stated he would be submitting the improved plans. He stressed that it was important to finish the grading because of the drainage problem and the potential liability to both him and the City. He further stated that it might be appropriate to finish the site grading so that they could establish the draining and the drainage system and to eliminate the potential damage that may happen in the case of a downpour. He believed this to be a big liability issue and stated that he was not willing to accept it if the City continues with the "Stop Work" order, but that the liability issue would lay with the City. He further spoke of previous problems with the City on various projects; however, he stated that during this particular project, he had come to the City with cooperation in mind. He has been in constant contact with the City during this project and that his goals have not 2 1028 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 7, 1988 changed. However, the City's requirements of him have. He requested that the Council rescind the "Stop Work" order so that the grading on the project could be completed and to limit the liability that now exists. Councilman Stamon pointed out to Council that it was upon the direction of Council that the "Stop Work" order was placed on Mr. Cronauer's project. She stated in fairness to the people on the agenda, that the item be placed after Item No. 13, or refer the issue back to staff for further information. Mayor McPhee questioned Attorney Knutson as to what type of permits were needed for the work done so far. Attorney Knutson stated that a Shoreline permit was needed, which was the main reason for the issuance of the "Stop Work" order because the amount of earth moving which had been done was far in excess of what staff had been informed of. Also, rezone from Public Buildings and Parks, as well as right -of -way use permit and eventually building permits. Mayor McPhee questioned Attorney Knutson as to whether, in the absence of a Shoreline permit, the Council has a legal obligation to prevent further work. Attorney Knutson stated that he believed Council did have an obligation. Councilman Lemon suggested maybe a possible compromise in the sense of possibly getting the grading finished, as he was concerned with the possible liability involved with the City, as well as the contractor. Council then decided to place the issue after Item No. 13 on the Agenda. Pearl Nikodym, 118 South Chambers Street, spoke in objection to the sign ordinance. VIII LEGISLATION 1. Yard of the Month Awards Mayor McPhee presented Yard of the Month Awards to Miles and Eleanor Troyer, 2035 West Seventh Street; Ralph and Shirley Christiansen, 821 West Sixth Street; Lucille Stovall, 2123 South Cherry Street; Gary and Trenia Funston, 602 East Lauridsen Boulevard; Mrs. Albert Reagin, 506 North Jones Street; and Neighborhood Yard of the Month awards to residents of the 200 Block of Dogwood Place: David and Carla Sue, 201 Dogwood Place; Jack and Bea Helpenstell, 202 Dogwood Place; Matt and Roni Bryant, 203 Dogwood Place; Herb and Shirley Fuller, 207 Dogwood Place, Tom and Jan Neudorfer, 210 Dogwood Place, Dave and Melanie Kline, 213 Dogwood Place; Jon and Tami Brodhun, 214 Dogwood Place; Generoso Andaleon, 219 Dogwood Place; Bud Briehler, 220 Dogwood Place; Ed and Maryles dos Remedios, 225 Dogwood Place; and Woody and Rosemary Jones, 226 Dogwood Place. 2. Public Hearings A. Alwine Rezone, RZ- 88(5)1 - Seventh and Peabody, Northwest Corner Mayor McPhee opened the public hearing at 7:32 P.M. Ken Schermer, 738 West Sixth Street, spoke in opposition to spot zoning of three -lot parcels. He pointed out that Councils in the past, as well as the Planning Commission, had discouraged lot spot zoning specifically because of detriment to the neighborhood as well as the zones immediately next to it. Secondly, under the present Port Angeles zoning situation, Office Commercial is not necessarily the highest and best use of this land. He stated at the present time the City of Port Angeles is rapidly approaching a tremendous need for rental housing. He stated there were realtors waiting on the sidelines for property larger than one or two lots, to build multi - family complexes. Finally, he stated that the Council has already set precedents in the past in fairness to avoiding a checkerboard zoning. He cautioned that Council should evaluate this from a standpoint of the entire City. He recommended strongly that Council not allow this at the present time but to go back to the drawing board and include the whole area, because there is a definite need for this type of zoning but not on a spot plot method. Dosie McLain, 321 East Seventh Street, spoke in agreement with Mr. Schermer's comments. 3 1029 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 7, 1988 Carl Alexander, 1712 West Fifth Street, stated he was not against the Office Commercial rezone, as the property was standing vacant and was not being utilized at this point. He felt Office Commercial was the most compatible with the residential zoning around it. He reminded Council of several issues. The commercial land forecast and locational principles put out three years ago by the Planning Commission states there are no available estimates of commercially zoned land under the newly adopted County Zoning Ordinance. However, he stated it is revealing to compare the City's supply of commercial land allocated by the present City ordinance - about 100 acres of the 265 acres of commercially zoned land in the City are vacant or not used for commercial development. Therefore, from a land use standpoint, the major public policy implication is that there is no need to rezone addi- tional amounts of land for commercial purposes. The problem, as he saw it, of rezoning any residential area to commercial or Office Commercial, is that it is a one -way process because once land is rezoned to commercial, it never goes back to residential. He urged Council to do a planned approach, rather than a piece -by -piece rezone. Dennis Alwine, representing the property owners making the rezone request, Brown Maloney, Frank Phillips, and Tandy Latson, stated that he was in concurrence with the Planning Commission's recommendation for the rezone. He stated that in 1986, this property was looked at for a possible rezone; however, Council at that time had tabled the issue in order to look at the impacts that the new City Hall would have on the Peabody corridor. He pointed out that Peabody Street now has a traffic count of 13,000 cars a day, as opposed to 11,000 cars a day in 1986. He stated this was hardly conducive to residential development. He felt this to be a demographic shift that everyone was feeling, which puts more pressure on Council to take action. He further stated that there is no Office Commercial space vacant or available in the City and that there is nowhere an individual can build an office in a quiet, campus atmosphere for professional people to work. He urged Council to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Alwine, directing a question to Acting Planning Director Miller, asked for clarification on Mr. Schermer's comment of spot zoning and asked if this was considered a spot zone. Mr. Miller stated that spot zones are somewhat of a misnomer and it has very little to do with the size of the zone, but whether or not it complies with the Comprehensive Plan, whether it is consistent with the surroundings of the zoning and whether or not it is in the public interest or simply in the interest of the proponent. He replied that this is not a spot zone. Mr. Alwine commented that he felt Council had already set a precedent in the need for Office Commercial by allowing rezones to take place as the need arose, piece by piece, and he felt this was a natural step in the develop- ment of Peabody Street. He stated that Peabody has become less and less desirable zoned as Residential Single - Family. He stated that Residential Multi - Family is not the highest and best zone for this area. Councilman Hallett asked, in Mr. Alwine's opinion, would the City be better served by zoning change requests as projects become available, or to take a comprehensive approach and look at the entire corridor and to see how that fits into the overall plan of things. Mr. Alwine'5tated that the compre- hensive approach would be the appropriate way for Council to proceed and then they would not have to deal with each one of the requests, step by step. Larry Leonard, 1030 Olympus Avenue, speaking as a member of the Planning Commission, pointed out to Council that rezoning this to Office Commercial does not preclude the use of Residential Multi - Family, as multi- family is a permitted use in the Office Commercial Zone. He stated there was a need for Office Commercial in the governmental complex area for professional people who deal with the government agencies. Ken Schermer again addressed the Council in order to clarify some issues that Mr. Alwine had made statement on. He stated he did not say he was opposed to Office Commercial in this area. He reminded Council again that there is a precedent on record that the Council would reconsider zoning the entire area instead of just three lots, and this was his recommendation; that Council consider rezoning the entire area. He stated he felt personally Council would have a checker -board design in the City if they allowed the spot rezones, regardless of where they might be, and he emphasized the need for the entire Zoning Map to be studied. He stated in his opinion the City is approaching the time when the economy is demanding more area for building and construction and because of that, the City should 4 1030 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 7, 1988 carefully look at their present ordinances to make it a better place to live in Port Angeles and to protect what we have, but to also allow orderly and good development. There being no further comments from the public, Mayor McPhee closed the public hearing at 8:03 P.M. Mayor McPhee then read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE N0. 2493 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles reclassifying property located at the northwest corner of Peabody and Seventh Streets from RMF to OC. Councilman Lemon moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title. Councilman Gabriel seconded. Councilman Lemon in speaking to his motion stated that the market is what dictates the demand and that the council has already set a precedent on Peabody Street by allowing professional offices to be built. He felt there is a supply and demand for Office Commercial, further stating that he believed it is a political reason why something has not taken place at this point in time. The issue of rezoning the entire area was tabled by Council in 1986 and has not been brought up until this time. He felt this could be a possible encouragement to the Council and Planning Commission to study the issue. Councilman Hallett spoke in opposition to the motion, stating the appro- priate way to handle the issue is not to be project specific, but to do a complete review of the strip from Eighth and Peabody to First and Peabody and do it the correct way. He stressed the need to provide a positive balance between the OC zones and the RMF zones and in order to do this, there needs to be a comprehensive study done. Mayor McPhee reminded Council that Residential Multi- Family and Office Commercial can exist together, and also that the Planning Commission had passed this unanimously. Councilman Gabriel spoke in favor of the motion, as he felt it was unfair to delay the project. Councilman Hallett replied he believed a rezone should never be predicated on a project in question because that project may or may not come about, and he believed very strongly that a rezone should stand on the merits of the rezone and not on a project, and to do anything else would be short - sighted. Councilman Stamon questioned Acting Planning Director Miller on the reasons for the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Miller replied that the reasons generally were because the rezones were compatible with the uses in the general vicinity and compatible with the surrounding uses, which is Residential Multi- Family. Councilman Stamon stated she felt it was important the Planning Commission and the Councilmembers both provide vision and leadership in the community. To anticipate needs for particular types of zones in different areas of the City, and in weighing all the factors, she spoke in support of the motion for the rezone, with some reservations, as she was not in favor of this type of action, stating she would be more comfortable with the motion if Council would direct the Planning Commission to come back to the Council with some recommendations in terms of the entire area. Mayor McPhee reminded the Council of the fact that the rezone is in con- formance with Commercial Policy No. 3, Residential Policy No. 17, and Land Use Objectives Nos. 1 and 2, and also Commercial Policy No. 2. Further, he reminded Council the Planning Commission is an experienced, very highly regarded, group of responsible citizens whose work has generally been very, very good, and there is a genuine need for this type of office space in this area of town. He concurred with the Planning Commission's actions and recommendations. Councilman Stamon offered a correction to the staff report, stating it was the northwest corner, not the southwest corner of Seventh and Peabody. On call for the question, the motion carried, with Councilmen Hallett and Hesla voting in opposition. 5 ORDINANCE NO. 2493 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles reclassifying property located at the northwest corner of Peabody and Seventh Streets from RMF to OC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Port Angeles has held a public gearing and recorded its recommendation to the City Council in the Planning Commission Minutes of May 11, 1988; and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act have been met; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after a public hearing, finds that said rezone would be in the best interests of the City and of its citizens and in keeping with the Compre- hensive Plan; NOW, THERE- FORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES as Follows: Section 1. The Official Zoning Map and Ordinance No. 1709 are hereby amend- ed to change the zoning of the following described property from RMF, Residen- tial Multi - Family, to OC, Of- fice Commercial: Lots 16, 17, and 18, Block 202, Townsite of Port Ange- les, all in Clallam County, Washington. Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to attach a copy of this Ordinance to the Official Zoning Map' and to file a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Clallam County Auditor. PASSED. by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of June, 1988. Frank McPhee, MAYOR ATTEST: Michelle M. Maike City*Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Craig D. Knutson City Attorney Pub.: June 12, 1988. Streets, paths and roads as required. Minimum Yard Requirements No buildings constructed subsequent to adoption of these regulations shall be constructed closer than 35 feet to a public right -of -way line. Lighting Facilities Overhead lights, flood- lights, etc., shall be con- structed so as to shine away from neighboring property as far as is practical. Offstreet Parking - (See Arti- cle V and Ordinance No. 1588 as amended.) Signs Permitted 1. One wall sign per puild- ing/ structure facade, ntit to exceed 50 square feet per facade. 2. One detached free- standing identification sign per entrance, provided each individual sign does not ex- ceed 32 square feet. 3. Public and private direc- tional and informational signs including but not limit- ed to "exit ", "entrance ", warnings, restrooms, "park- ing", no parking ", "fire lane ", and signs required by State and Federal Safety regulations are exernpt; pro- vided they do not exceed 6 square feet in area. 4. Message boards .and scoreboards shall be Gtndi- tional use Permits. 5. Signs may be indirectly lighted, but not interri€;tent or flashing. 6. Additional signage req- uired to meet public safety needs may be obtained through a Conditional Use Permit. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be effective five days after date of publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port `- Angeles at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of June, 1988. Frank McPhee, MAYOR ATTEST: Michelle M. Maike City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Craig D. Knutson City Attorney Pub.: June 12. 1988. K 1031 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 7, 1988 Councilman Stamon moved that Council direct the Planning Commission to elevate this item on their list of things to do and then to come back to Council with a recommendation in terms of the entire area bounded by Peabody and Lincoln and Eighth and Fifth, in terms of the recommendation of future zoning in the area that would include a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the Council, if necessary. Councilman Lemon seconded. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. B. PBP Zoning Code Amendment - CZA- 88(5)3 - Signs Mayor McPhee opened the public hearing at 8:27 P.M. There was no discus- sion. He then closed the public hearing and read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2494 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles amending the sign requirements for the Public Buildings and Parks District and amending Article IV, Section 13, of Ordinance No. 1709. Councilman Hallett moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title. Councilman Stamon seconded. Councilman Gabriel questioned what the main reason was for the amendment of the ordinance. Acting Planning Director Miller stated it was for safety reasons and easy identification of certain offices, not only for the public interests but for tourists. Councilman Stamon replied that the amendment fixes some inadequacies of the Ordinance. Mayor McPhee stated that he understood the purpose the of the signs but questioned why there could not be flashing signs to indicate the entrance to the Police Department. Mr. Miller replied that flashing signs can be distracting and can actually be not in the public interest. Mayor McPhee stated he was not sold on the danger of a flashing sign and suggested that at one entrance, there be a lighted sign, while at the other entrance we had a flashing light. He felt that people who are looking for a Police entrance in the evening want to find it with as little problem as possible. He further stated since the sign for the Police Station was so far off the road, he really did not see a danger and questioned Chief Cleland to this effect. Chief Cleland replied that he did not see that as a danger; however, he did not believe it would be the illusion that they wanted to create; but stated he would be in favor of lighting the sign. Acting,Planning Director Miller stated a flashing sign would be inconsistent with any other signs allowed within the City limits. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. C. Overgrown Lot Abatement - Consideration of Resolution Mayor McPhee opened the public hearing at 8:37 P.M. Robert D. Edgington, 906 South Cedar Street, addressed the Council, asking who made the decision as to whether or not his lot was overgrown, stating he had lived at this residence for ten years and there had never been a problem, but now suddenly, it is overgrown. Public Works Director Pittis replied that the source of the problem was an overgrown hedge on the sidewalk. Mr. Edgington asked how much the hedge was overgrown, stating the hedge had been there for as long as he could remember and once a year he trims it back. Public Works Director Pittis stated staff would be happy to work with the resident in resolving the problem. Mayor McPhee requested staff work with the resident, stating he, too, had gone to each and every overgrown lot and he did not feel there was a problem with the hedge. However, it does encroach upon the sidewalk. Councilman Stamon asked if this was brought before Council because of a complaint by a citizen. Public Works Director Pittis answered that it had been. Mr. Edgington asked that he be informed of who made the complaint. 6 1032 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 7, 1988 Vincent Perri, 202 West 14th Street, stated he has been a resident of the City of Port Angeles since 1952. He said he has seen a lot of instances of hedges being overgrown, but believed the problem was the ordinances were never enforced. Further, he stated a person buying a piece of property can give the excuse that they were not aware it was a public nuisance; however, he did believe that it was a nuisance. He gave several instances where he felt public nuisances need to be addressed. There being no further comments, Mayor McPhee closed the public hearing at 8:42 P.M. Mayor McPhee read the Resolution by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. 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 deny the recommendation of the Public Works Department. Councilman Gabriel seconded. Councilman Lemon, in speaking to his motion, stated he had brought this issue out in the last meeting and would bring it out again; unless there are two issues linked, safety factor or fire hazard, with aesthetics, then the City would have a difficult time in the courts for enforcement. He stated he had seen Mr. Edgington's hedge and felt it was well manicured, as it was not infringing upon the space where people would walk, and in the other lots, the grass is green. But if there is a fire hazard or a safety factor, that is when the public nuisance ordinance should be enforced. In each and every one of the cases brought tonight, this problem does not exist. He stated in his opinion, it is something we have given Public Works an inch and they have taken a mile, and that is why he is recommending denial. Councilman Gabriel commented that he is more inclined to say it was a bad ordinance and in visiting the properties, he felt there wasn't a single one with a real problem attached to it. He commented he would be in favor of the motion if it included the ordinance be brought back before the Council for review and offered it as a friendly amendment. concurred. iymo- Councilman Lemon Councilman Sargent stated she was in agreement with the comments made by Councilmen Lemon and Gabriel. A Councilman Stamon questioned Public Works Director Pittis as to whether the enforcement was because of complaints by the public. Director Pittis replied that is the difficulty. The Department gets complaints and follow - ups from previous years. They have between 200 and 300 lots that they go out and survey and they cannot go out and do them one at a time to provide a list of 200 or 300 in one meeting. He stated the Department would like Council to review the ordinance and to tell them Ghat they would desire, as the Department does not want to go out and enforce an ordinance the Council is not willing to back. He requested Council give some direction. it cment and do it as a matter of pol -ey - er- w•he-er i-ewing and Attorney Knutson recommended looking at the terms of the ordinance and reviewing it. He stated if Council is uncomfortable with enforcing the policies within the ordinance, then the issue does need to be addressed. Councilman Lemon replied if this was a township in California where the lawns were manicured and cared for, it might become a different issue, but the City should practice what it preaches, making reference to City -owned lots which are overgrown and unkept. Councilman Hallett stated when the ordinance was originally adopted, it was adopted at the request of several citizens who were tired of somebody else's property causing a problem. Further, he would disagree strongly with the comments that the staff was over - zealous in their enforcement. He felt the staff had not done enough and the ordinance is very clear in terms of what is to be encompassed in the enforcement. As soon as we start making exceptions to policies and we 7 1033 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 7, 1988 start watering things down, we will have a problem with the ordinance which it was made to address in the first place. He was in favor of review of the ordinance, if that was Council's wish, but felt an ordinance such as this was necessary. Councilman Sargent replied that she had difficulty with the motion, mainly because this ordinance was already invoked on some people. She further stated she felt the ordinance needed to be more specific. After further discussion, the question was called and the motion carried, with Mayor McPhee, Councilmen Gabriel, Lemon and Sargent voting "Aye ", and Councilmen Hallett, Hesla and Stamon voting "No ". 3. Planning Commission Minutes of May 25, 1988 Councilman Stamon moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission minutes of May 28, 1988. Councilman Lemon seconded and the motion carried. 4. Discussion of Downtown Sign Ordinance Sam Haguewood, 306 East Front Street, addressed the Council, speaking in regards to a letter sent out to 24 businesses within the Downtown area requesting that they comply with the Downtown Sign Ordinance. As a result of the letter, he prepared a petition and took it around to the merchants. He was able to collect 93 signatures on the petition and of all the people he had spoken to, only 8 had refused to sign. He read the petition for the record: "We, the undersigned members of the Port Angeles Downtown Association, request repeal and /or adjustment of the existing Downtown Sign Ordinance. We feel the existing Ordinance is much too restrictive and should be more in line with the rest of the City." He supplied each Councilmember with a copy of the petition. Mr. Haguewood stated that the ordinance was started in order to emphasize the pedestrian nature of the Downtown. At that time, there was a hodge -podge of signs over the sidewalks, but by the time the ordinance was enacted, it was so restric- tive that nothing else could be done. For some reason, it has grown and grown to be all- inclusive and to become so restrictive that it has a nega- tive impact on the Downtown. It is so cumbersome that it can be inter- preted many ways. The result has been the inability of the public and the tourists to locate individual businesses in the Downtown, compared to the rest of the City. Things have changed in the Downtown with the coming of the Kitsap Mall and the moving of City Hall, which generates a lot of foot traffic. Also on the horizon is the K -Mart complex which will further complicate the matter. It places the Downtown at a disadvantage with the rest of the City. The sign ordinance, by being so restrictive, places an additional burden on the Downtown businesses. He requested that the ordinance be placed on hold and the Mayor appoint or defer the ordinance to a study committee of the Council for review and revision, to make it more in line with the rest of the City and less restrictive. Councilman Stamon responded that in reviewing the history of the ordinance, it was enacted by a previous Council on information brought to the Council by the membership of the Downtown Association and that the ordinance was drafted by the members of that organization. She wanted to make it perfectly clear that it was an ordinance not by the Council but made by and requested of the organization. She then offered the motion that the Council should create a committee made up of seven members of the Downtown Associa- tion and two members of the Council who would take the ordinance under advisement, would work on it, and would come back to the Council with recommendations for revision based upon input from the Committee. Councilman Hallett seconded for discussion. Councilman Stamon, in speaking to her motion, stated that the reason for the motion was so Council could get something started and suggested that she and Councilman Sargent be the members of the Council to sit on the committee, as they were Councilmembers on the Downtown Association. Councilman Hallett asked if there had been any changes in the ordinance since it had been adopted. Acting Planning Director Miller replied that it had been amended by Ordinance No. 2182 which made some minor changes in the wording. Councilman Hallett was in favor of reviewing the ordinance but he 8 1034 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 7, 1988 was disturbed that there had been some people who had complied in good faith while others had not. Councilman Lemon commented that he did not feel it should be restricted to two Councilmembers on the committee, as he, too, was interested. Further, he stated if it was true that 24 people were up for enforcement for non- compliance, he felt action by the City should be frozen or put on hold. He offered that as a friendly amendment. Councilman Stamon replied that she would feel more comfortable with the amendment if Council would recess for a quick executive session to discuss an issue of one particular enforcement action, as she did not feel that this was an issue which should be discussed in public and she was concerned with some of the ramifications of what may happen. She questioned Attorney Knutson as to the possible ramifications hampering the enforcement of such violations by extending the statute of limitations. Attorney Knutson stated he did not think we would be running into problems with the statute of limitations, as the ordinance does state that each day would constitute a separate violation; and therefore, it would not be a statute of limitations problem. However, he stated if the action was taken by Council he would double -check the statute of limita- tions issue and if that was true, he would so advise the Council. Councilman Stamon stated that with that caveat she would be willing to accept the amendment if it was in concurrence with the Council that they could come back and discuss the issue if Attorney Knutson did, in fact, find out the statute of limitations was a problem. Mayor McPhee stated that he felt members of the Audit Committee should be the ones to serve and review the ordinance, as he felt Council was elected to represent the public and therefore members of the Downtown Association would not be the appropriate people to serve on the committee. Council had seen the product of an ordinance that was written with probably an inordinate amount of influence from the merchants Downtown and in his opinion, it was never a good ordinance and 90% of the merchants Downtown also believe it is not a good ordinance. He was concerned that Council would be continuing the same mistake, as he felt this was a City matter. He stated he would be voting against the motion as it is proposed because Council did not need a select group of merchants to help them re -write another bad ordinance. Further stating this is something the public should be involved in and he urged Councilmembers to vote against the motion also. He asked that Council accept the responsibilities as their elected repre- sentatives to stand up in front of the public and make decisions regarding the sign ordinance, as he felt the current ordinance was grossly inade- quate. Councilman Stamon, once again speaking to her motion, stated that she purposely left the membership open to whoever the Downtown Association, as a body; chose to direct to serve on the committee. She stated she did not feel it was the function of the Audit Committee and she asked, as a point of courtesy, to be able to serve on this Committee, as it was of particular interest to her. Bill Barrere, 2606 Masters Road, addressed the Council as President of the Port Angeles Downtown Association. In summation, Mr. Barrere stated that the petition presented by the majority of the members of the Port Angeles Downtown Association offered two alternatives: (1) To repeal the sign ordinance; and (2) To adjust it, presumably to bring it into conformity with whatever ordinance applies to the rest of the City. He stated that the original sign ordinance was enacted in an effort to respond to the need for signage change in an area which was pedestrian oriented but had signs for cars. There was a great deal of controversy at that time, which became resolved through the mutual respect and compromise of the warring parties. The result was the passage of the current law by the City Council. Fur- thermore, he stated that it seems to the Port Angeles Downtown Association Board that it is a P.A.D.A. problem and should be resolved there. It is fairly obvious by the number of signatures on the petition that something is wrong; that something needs review and attention. However, the Board also feels that to scrap the law or loosen it so that it again allows the type of sign proliferation we had before, would be a mistake. He stated the Board would like to plead the referral back to its point of origin to solve. 9 1035 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 7, 1988 Councilman Hallett stated to Mr. Barrere that he appreciated his comments and that he was in agreement 100 %. Councilman Stamon then amended her motion to not specify the number of members represented by PADA, but to let them set the number themselves, and she reminded Council that the members of the PADA Board had requested the ordinance be brought back to the origin to be revised and to be looked at and that Council should honor their request to review the Ordinance and to be part of the change. Councilman Sargent stated she was in favor of the referral back to PADA to let them come back with some recommendations to the Council; then hold a public hearing; and then let the Council make the decision, but to not have Councilmembers involved in the process while the Port Angeles Downtown Association is working on it. Councilman Stamon concurred, and further stated she did not want to impose the Council on the Committee, stating if they were more comfortable in doing this internally and then bringing it back to the Council, that would be fine. Clint Hulse, member of the Board of Directors, Downtown Business Associa- tion, addressed the Council, stating he heartily agreed that Council should let the members of the Downtown Association sit down and decide what they wanted to do with the ordinance and then to bring it back to the Council. He had one concern: That it should possibly encompass the whole town and if this was to be considered, that they request representation from the Business Association. Councilman Stamon then restated the motion: The Council would remand he issue back to the Port Angeles Downtown Association, requesting that they formulate a committee made up of membership of the Association that will study the issue and bring back recommendations to the City Council for enactment or consideration. At that point a public hearing will be held to allow public comment and also if the Downtown Association concurs, that up to three members of the Council could be involved with the process and that Council defer enforcement action under the present ordinance, with the caveat that if there is a problem with time on one particular issue, that issue would be brought up for consideration by the Council. Councilman Hallett, the seconder did not concur, as he had a problem with the enforce- ment proceedings and out of fairness and consistency, those people in vio- lation previously should not be avoided simply because the ordinance was being changed. Councilman Stamon stated that she felt it was important to defer enforcement because Council did not know if there would be changes made or what would happen, and it would be inappropriate to press on and force people to make expensive changes to their property which the next day may not be necessary under the terms of the new ordinance. Councilman Hallett then replied how do we tell those people who have complied with the ordinance through great expense that their effort was fruitless. Councilman Stamon stated that was not what she was inferring by her motion. After further discussion by Councilmen Stamon and Hallett, Councilman Stamon withdrew her motion. Councilman Hallett withdrew his second. Councilman Stamon re- offered the motion. Councilman Sargent seconded. YC BoC.)C Fred $tte*c, 131 East First Street, addressed the Council, asking Councilman Hallett if he knew what the penalties were for the violation. Councilman Hallett said he did not. Mr. Buck replied that it was $500 per citation per day. He stated he did not feel this was a fair figure on something that was this far up in the air, and personally, that Council should stop any legal action until the issue is settled. On all for the questio the motion carried unanimously. • i tic �,,k ct 44e.±4 wa a. 45 hu,.�c c, 5. `bequest f r m Port Angeles Food Bank o Use Space in Vacant City Building Before the issue was discussed, Councilman Hallett moved for continuation of the meeting. Councilman Stamon seconded and the motion carried. Councilman Hallett moved to defer Items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 to the June 21, 1988, City Council meeting. Councilman Stamon seconded and the motion carried. 10 1036 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 7, 1988 Linda Bondy, 1309 East Seventh Street, president of Port Angeles Food Bank, addressed the Council. Mrs. Bondy was there on behalf of the Port Angeles Food Bank to request that the Council consider donating the space in the City Light Building for the Port Angeles Food Bank. She stated she realized that several other organizations had come forth and asked to rent the space. However, her main concern was that the Food Bank does require only a small amount of space in the City Light Building and would be a compatible partner with anyone else who would be using the building. Further, she stated that it was time that the City of Port Angeles took a stand for a very large portion of people and join hands with the Food Bank. She asked for full consideration of the Council in giving the space to the Food Bank and to perhaps subsidize by renting the upstairs space. Councilman Sargent moved that the Council refer the consideration to the Real Estate Committee so they can look at the space being requested and to come back to the Council with a recommendation. Councilman Hallett seconded. Will Muller, 814 Mount Angeles Road, member of the Food Bank Board, stated that there is a precedent for City government to take some of its space that is not urgently needed and turn it over to food banks. He stated that it is right to take care of people who simply have nowhere else to turn but to the Food Bank and therefore appealed to the Council to give careful consid- eration to the suggestions in hope that they would be able to give the Food Bank part of the space in the City Light Building, and if not, to at least try to find some other adequate space for them. After some discussion by Council and staff, the question was called for and the motion carried unanimously. Q11. Consideration of Easement Over City Property West of Lower Elwha Road jll\'�V Councilman Sargent moved to accept the recommendation of the Public Works Department and to allow access. Councilman Hesla seconded. Councilman Lemon questioned whether these particular properties were land- locked. Councilman Stamon replied that in looking at the map, they were. Councilman Stamon asked Public Works Director Pittis if it was the responsibility of homeowners to maintain the road. Director Pittis replied that it was a condition of the easement. Mayor McPhee cautioned the Council to consider the possible changes that can occur and probably will occur, changes that may require the full right -of- way and we would not have access to it because we would have given it away in 1988. He urged Council to not give away this asset, which is the unrestricted use that we currently enjoy. Councilman Lemon asked Public Works Director Pittis to expand upon the Mayor's comments. Director Pittis replied that this particular right -of- way which we own as a piece of property in fee simple. He believed some day it could become a public right -of -way, since it does have a public utility in it. He stated that there is certainly a risk if you remain conservative as the Mayor is mentioning and he believed that risk could be fairly minimal. However, these requesting property owners have very few options available to them. Councilman Stamon offered a friendly amendment, specifying under Condition 3 that the ingress and egress only would be for single - family residences developed as specified on the easement, stating that will prohibit future development down the road and a freeway type of effect running back and forth, but would be limited to simply those particular pieces of property. Terry Fell, 1318 Eden Valley Road, stated that the people involved were not asking for ownership of the property, but specifically a right to use it, and for that right of ingress and egress for single - family residences and they are willing to construct the road per City standards, which is a 26- foot wide gravel road. Councilman Stamon replied that is why she specified the use of single - family residences for the property being developed, because then it becomes very clear it is not a public ingress and egress, but is specifically designed to be used by those property owners and it is not a public street. Mr. Fell did request that Condition No. 6 be removed after a single - family residence 11 1037 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 7, 1988 has been put in, or at least the gate be removed beyond that residence, as he did not feel it was fair to a family to have to get out, unlock the gate to get in every time they leave the property. Director Pittis replied that moving it would be appropriate as it were developed in stages. Councilman Lemon requested that for the future a clause be added to the point that if the City needs to have 80 feet that the road would be moved to one side. Councilman Lemon suggested that the City provide the labor or something like that, so that the City has an escape if the need arises we have the right to access. Director Pittis stated the City would reserve the right to move the roadway upon notice and the property owner would provide the cost of materials for moving such roadway. Councilman Lemon offered that as a friendly amendment. Mayor McPhee interjected that he did not feel the people of Port Angeles should have to pay to move a road that did not benefit them particularly and the people who are being benefitted, the land owners, should bear the full cost of moving the road, if a road has to be moved. The motion restated: Council to concur with the recommendation of the Public Works Department that access be allowed to the property owners along the corridor from the Elwha Road to the easterly bank of Dry Creek, all within Section 2, Township 30 North, Range 7 West, subject to the following terms: (1) An easement must be approved by the City Council. The easement shall include hold harmless and insurance provisions and shall be consistent with the following conditions; (2) No excavation shall take place within the City -owned property without the written approval of the City of Port Angeles; (3) The use of the roadway shall be for ingress and egress only and shall be further conditioned to be used for single - family residences developed as specified on the easement; (4) The water and electrical utilities along this corridor are the sole property of the City of Port Angeles and shall not be utilized by the adjacent properties for any reason; (5) The road shall be constructed to City standards and shall be maintained by the property owners in a condition satisfactory to the City of Port Angeles; (6) The cable gate shall remain in place at its present location and the property owners shall place their own lock on the gate in the manner prescribed by Jim Abernathy, Water /Sewer Superintendent of the City of Port Angeles. The City of Port Angeles may allow the removal of the gate at such time as the area is developed with single - family residences in a sufficient number to ensure that the roadway will not be utilized for parking and parties; (7) The City reserves the right to request or require the gravel roadway be moved for cause shown from its location at the expense of the property owners. On call for the question, the motion carried. Staff was directed to draft the easement to be reviewed by the Real Estate Committee and then brought back to Council for ratification. 13. Consideration of Right -of -Way Trade at Sixth and Boulevard - Construction Detour Councilman Stamon moved to concur with the recommendation of the Public Works Department and authorize the appropriate person to enter into an agreement whereby the City would vacate the northerly 20 feet of the Boulevard right -of -way in exchange for the easterly 70 feet of Lot 1, Block 216, TPA, under the following conditions: (1) The City of Port Angeles would construct a temporary crossing between Boulevard and Sixth Street for the duration of the Golf Course Road project; (2) Upon completion of the project, the City of Port Angeles will remove the crossings and restore the area to its natural condition and the crossings will not be used except for emergency purposes; (3) The City will not open the crossings on a permanent basis for a period not to exceed ten years or until the Groshongs sell their property, whichever occurs first; (4) The Groshongs will be allowed to use the property as a garden area as long as they maintain the property. Upon the sale of their property (should it occur), no property rights of the Groshongs shall transfer to the new owners. Councilman Hesla seconded. Councilman Stamon then asked Attorney Knutson if we needed to hold a public hearing to vacate. Attorney Knutson stated that we did. Councilman Stamon then changed her motion to state that Council authorize staff to proceed with the process and to come back to Council for a public hearing at a future time. Councilman Hesla concurred. 12 1038 RESOLUTION NO. 9 -88 A RESOLUTION of the City of Port Angeles setting a hear- ing date for a petition to va- cate a portion of Lauridsen Boulevard abutting Lots 1, 2, fter 3 and 4, Block 216, Townsite of Port Angeles. WHEREAS, the owner of in- terest in Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4,.ayor Block 216, Townsite of Port Angeles, has filed a petition with the City Clerk to make vacation of that portion of Lauridsen Boulevard abut- ting Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 216, TPA; and WHEREAS, said petition ap- pears to have been signed by the owners of more than two- thirds of the property abutting upon the rights.of- way sought to be vacated; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE- SOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES as follows: Section 1. The petition to make such vacation. shall be heard and determined by this Council on the 5th day of July, 1988, which is not more than sixty (60) days nor less than twenty (20) days hereafter. Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give twenty (20) days notice of the pendency of said petition according to the provisions of RCW 35.79.020. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of June, 1988. Frank McPhee, MAYOR ATTEST: Michelle M. Maike City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Craig D. Knutson City Attorney Pub.: June 12. 1988. CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 7, 1988 some discussion, the question was called and the motion carried. McPhee read the Resolution by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. 9 -88 )uncilman to Lemon Ition A RESOLUTION of the City of Port Angeles setting a hearing date for a petition to vacate a portion of Lauridsen Boulevard abutting Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 216, Townsite of Port Angeles. Hallett moved to seconded. The carried. pass the Resolution as read by title. Council - public hearing was set for July 5, 1988. The . Cronauer Discussion of Francis Street Work Stoppage . Cronauer gave Council a brief history of the project, stating that he nted to understand the Council's decision for the work stoppage, as he It there may be a shroud of misinformation or lack of information grounding the executive session when the decision was made to issue the top Work" order and to add light to the issue, he had prepared summaries all of the contacts he had had with the City since the beginning of the oject. He stated he had gone through quite a few interactions with the ty to try to determine what they had wanted in the way of permits, etc., d to try to arrange it so he would comply with all the standards. He ated he did not feel there was a consistent line with the City in regard this project and he asked two key questions to Attorney Knutson and ting Planning Director Miller: Is a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit required for residential use of shoreline property? Attorney Knutson replied that it is not; but it is required for a substantial amount of fill ithin the shoreline, particularly when the Shoreline Master Program NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN>ntains specific requirements for how fill is to be deposited within the that the PORT ANGELES CITY iorelines and those requirements are not being followed. In his under - COUNCIL will hold a public q g hearing on JULY 5, 1988, at;anding, when Mr. Cronauer originally talked to City staff, they were not 7:00 P.M. , or l soon there tder the impression that the amount of fill to be moved was actually going in the City P y g g after as possiblee council chambers, 321 East) take place; and their impression was that Mr. Cronauer was not aware when Fifth Street, Port Angeles, Washington, to consider a: started how much fill would be moved into the shoreline, but when staff request to vacate City own -,w the amount of filling which occurred, it was clear that it was a matter ed right -of -way. LOCATION: Portion of Laur- e Shoreline Management Act regulated; therefore, the "Stop Work" order had idsen Boulevard. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That be issued. portion of Lauridsen Boule- vard abutting Lots 1, 2, 3 -and 4, Block 216, Townsite . Cronauer requested that Attorney Knutson clarify what "substantial" of Port Angeles. regard in re d to the amount of fill brought in to the residential APPLICANT: CITY OF PORT g g ANGELES. velopment, and where is the cut -off. Attorney Knutson stated that it was PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF PORT ANGELES. ,5Q0 worth. Mr. Cronauer stated that he understood in his initial contact STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PO- th Planner Carr that the development of residential lots was exempt LILY ACT (SEPA): N /A. All interested parties may cause when a house is built, obviously it would be more than $2,500. appear at the hearing and torney Knutson replied that there is a distinction between filling and express their opinion on thisilding a house in the Shoreline Master Program. The two activities are proposal_ DATE:June8,1988: gated differently. Mr. Cronauer stated that if it is a question of the Michelle Maitre City Clerk reet development, he had changed his plans somewhat to accommodate the Pub.: June 15. 1988. velopment of Francis Street and the terminal point for the Waterfront 'rail and he had done his grading in anticipation of the City's participa- tion in the project, which has caused the project to grow. He stated that he had spent several thousand dollars as well as many hours of his time developing the street design and a Trail access that is to benefit the City as well as himself. Councilman Stamon stated that Council had a real concern about the amount of fill that was being deposited in the area without a Shoreline Permit and the impact upon the shoreline. The second concern expressed was the fact that although there had been discussion between Mr. Cronauer and City staff, there still was not concrete evidence of what Mr. Cronauer had in mind for the project. The third concern Council had was erosion control in the entire area. Council wanted to make sure they were not exaggerating or exacerbating an already difficult problem in that particular area, where water would be running down the open right -of -way and straight into the waters of the Harbor. Those were the three key areas of Council's concern. Council felt it was important to have a comprehensive and cohesive plan of what it was that he intended to do before they went ahead with any further development permits. Further, Councilman Stamon stated that there has been 13 1039 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 7, 1988 earth moved that was not anticipated; the deposit of a significant volume of fill within 200 feet of the shoreline, which had not been indicated when the SEPA checklist was requested; and that those were the types of things that had disturbed her. She suggested that Mr. Cronauer go back and talk to the staff to find out once and for all exactly what it is, put it on a piece of paper, so that Council, staff, and Mr. Cronauer all know what is going on and to do this before he proceeded any further. Mayor McPhee commented that there was a large amount of fresh dirt deposited on the shoreline and he stated it was his understanding of the State law the City had an obligation to prevent this. Attorney Knutson stated that was correct. Mayor McPhee further questioned as to whether the City had an obligation to prevent that from continuing. Attorney Knutson stated yes. Mayor McPhee replied regardless of what permits were issued, what plans were made, and what changes were made, the City has an illegal situation which we cannot allow to continue. Attorney Knutson stated that was correct. Attorney Knutson stated that the plans which the City has been asking for since the very beginning of the process are a necessary step in the process of getting a SEPA checklist completed and the necessary permit applications completed; and that has to be done through City staff. The Shoreline Permit will go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and then it will come to the Council after the Planning Commission decides on its recom- mendation. We cannot, at this point, legally, in his opinion, allow Mr. Cronauer to continue with illegal filling and complete the process before he obtains his Shoreline Permit, which could be denied; in which case legally he would have to take out all the fill that he has put in to date. One further matter with regard to liability for any drainage problems, in his opinion, it was Mr. Cronauer's. There was one option that the City could do, and the "Stop Work" order was drafted with this in mind, which is to allow some minor amounts of work to alleviate any drainage problems that may exist without furthering the problems of the shoreline area. Mr. Cronauer stated that he doubted that this was an illegal action, since this was a residential development which is exempt from the Shoreline Act. After further discussion, Mayor McPhee directed Mr. Cronauer to discuss the issue with City staff. 15. Consideration of Planning Grant for Secondary Treatment From State Department of Ecology Councilman Gabriel moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement to receive assistance from the Centennial Clean Water Fund Referendum 39. Councilman Stamon seconded and the motion carried. 16. Setting up Interviews for Applicants for the Utility Advisor and Applicants for the City's Position on the Clallam County Council set the interview date for June 21, 1988, at 5:30 P.M., Council Chambers. .4 17. Proclamation - National Flag Day - June 14, 1988 Council accepted the proclamation to be read June 14th by the May 18. Request for UAC Meeting - Weatherization Contract Changes Council set the meeting date for June 23, 1988, at 4:30 Light Conference Room. P.M., NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of Port Angeles, Washington, will hold a special meeting on Tuesday, June 21, 1988, at 5:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 321 East Fifth Street, Port Angeles, Wash- ington. The purpose of this special meeting is to conduct interviews with applicants for the two positions on the Utility Advisory Committee and applicants for the Port Angeles position on the Clallam County Fair Board. Michelle M. Maike City Clerk Pub.: June 13, 1988. 1 They also set a meeting date for the Real Estate Committee for June 1988, at 5:02 P.M., City Light Building. 15, 19. Consideration of Agreement for Operation of Downtown Parking Lot Between PADA and Budget Councilman Stamon moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement for operation of Downtown parking lots. Councilman Lemon seconded and the motion carried. 14 1040 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 7, 1988 IX ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE Ken Schermer, 738 West Sixth Street, stated that in watching the development of the Cronauer problems on Francis Street, he urged Council to reconsider Mr. Cronauer's offer to have the Real Estate Committee come down and walk the property with him and with staff to at least understand what his proposal entails. He stated he realized the problems with the moving of the dirt and wanted to have nothing to do with that, but he thought it would be imperative and important because this property, if developed correctly, would become a very prime development in the City of Port Angeles. Attorney Knutson stated that he had a problem with the discussion of the issue, as it would be coming before the Council on a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, which is a quasi - judicial matter and is inappropriate for input being given to the Council on the appropriateness of the development at this time. Mr. Schermer stated that he understood and withdrew his statement. X CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /LATE ITEMS Councilman Stamon spoke in regard to a memo which asked that Council desig- nate an alternate to the Public Power Council Executive Committee. Mayor McPhee appointed the Chairman of the Utility Advisory Committee, Councilman Stamon, as the alternate to the Public Power Council Executive Committee. Councilman Stamon requested from the ez 'ba - if t-tey should receive information pertaining to conferences or meetings that send the information on p all other members so that ver one ca be informed, ,c4I D�to s w rks=1.4 " ,�,f � i.dt x-tc�k r/ Tiuno Manager Flodstrom brought forth some information for the Council, stating that Chris Martin, Public Relations person of Derby Days, has asked that Council provide signatures on information that will be brought forth in the Derby Days pamphlet; and also requesting that Councilmembers interested in attending the AWC convention inform him so that he could make travel arrangements. XI ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor McPhee recessed the meeting to executive session at 11:23 P.M. to discuss items of negotiation and litigation. The length of the session was estimated to be approximately 15 minutes. XII RETURN TO OPEN SESSION The meeting returned to open session at 11:47 P.M. XIII ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:48 P.M. Clerk 15 Mayor