Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/01/2000 4247 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington August 1, 2000 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Doyle called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at REGULAR MEETING: 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Doyle, Councilmembers Campbell, Erickson, Hulett, McKeown, and Williams. Members Absent: Councilman Wiggins. Staff Present: Manager Quinn, Attorney Knutson, Deputy Clerk Galuska, B. Collins, G. Cutler, D. McKeen, T. Riepe, Y. Ziomkowski, T. Smith, and J. Hicks. Public Present: R. & A. Vami, G. & B. Middleton, F. & A. Donnelly, S. Powell, M. Anderson, K. Allen, N. & O. Brooks, K. & B. Miller, P. Chinneth, M. Schroeder, B. Jacobs, B. Thompson, M. Stolley, V. McFrederick, K. Burgess, C. Reid, A. Hanson, G. Wyatt, P. Walker, H. Wilmot, L. Kirk, M. Kisman, A. Wilmot, B. Martin, C. Mullin, J. Swedstedt, D. Wilcox, E. Lewis, R. & D. Howard, W.L. & H.K. Goecker, M. & R. Otto, R. Wardlow, L. Danks, L. Lee, M. Paulson, and E. & D. Officer. PLEDGE OF The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Williams. ALLEGIANCE: CEREMONIAL The Proclamation was canceled due to Scott Brodhun's absence. MATTERS/ PROCLAMATIONS: Proclamation Recognizing Tenure of Scott Brodhun APPEAL: Mayor Doyle stepped aside due to a relative's involvement in the appeal process. Deputy Mayor McKeown proceeded to chair the meeting, at which time she asked Conditional Use Permit - Attorney Knutson to provide the Council with information on the appeal process. CUP- 00-03 ~ German/ Highland Courte Attorney Knutson discussed the ground rules with the Council, which have been discussed with the attorneys for the two appellants. The Council and the public have been informed that this is a closed record appeal of a decision that was made by the Planning Commission to approve a Conditional Use Permit for the Highland Courte Drug Rehabilitation Facility. The decision by the Planning Commission included a number of conditions, as well as findings and conclusions. Attorney Knutson informed the Council this would be a quasi-judicial decision made by the City Council; therefore, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine would apply. For this reason, Mayor Doyle was excused from the appeal process. Attorney Knutson noted that another Appearance of Fairness Doctrine issue would apply related to the record that the Council would be considering. The Planning Commission has already conducted a public hearing on this matter, and the Council's role is to consider the record of the Planning Conunission's decision and decide whether the Planning Commission had made the right decision. Attorney Knutson noted that the City Council had been provided with a record of proceedings in a bound volume. All the documents in the volume should be documents that were part of the record that the Planning Commission considered. There may be a discrepancy in a document in the bound volume regarding an April 10, 2000, memorandum from Deputy Police Chief Tom Riepe to Senior Planner Dave Sawyer, which related to a conversation that Deputy Chief Riepe had with the Chief of Police of Mountlake Terrace. The applicant's attorney, Craig Miller, thought that this particular item was not submitted to the Planning Commission, although it is unclear -1- 4248 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 1, 2000 APPEAL: whether the entire document including attachments was in the Planning Commission's record. Attorney Knutson advised the Council to consider the document with Conditional Use Permit - attachments, since the attachments clarify the purpose of the memorandum. Also, the CUP- 00-03 - German/ applicant's attorney has raised questions about some of the attachments to the brief that Highland Courte (Cont'd) was provided by the neighborhood group's attorney, Dave Neupert. Mr. Neupert included 8 attachments to his brief. Of those attachments, Mr. Miller is challenging numbers 1, 2, 4, and 8. Attorney Knutson advised the Council that attachment 4 is the April 10, 2000, memorandum from Deputy Chief Riepe that was previously discussed. Attachment number 1 is a memorandum from the Planning staff to the Planning Commission related to the original Planned Residential Development for the Highland community area dated April 8, 1992. That document was not in the Planning Commission's record, and Attorney Knutson advised.the Council not to consider it. The second attachment to the neighborhood group's brief is the PRD Ordinance, and Attorney Knutson advised the Council to consider that attachment, because it is a law of the City which the Council is entitled to take official notice of. Attachment 8 at the end of the neighborhood's brief contains handwritten notes that ended up in the Planning Department's file, because the Planning Director spoke from them at one of the Planning Commission hearings. These notes were not presented to the Planning Commission, so they should not be considered as part of this record. Another piece of evidence that' should not be considered is the restrictive covenants for the Planned Residential Development. They were not in the Commission's record, but Councilman Williams has looked at them. Attomey Knutson advised the Council not to consider the restrictive covenants as they were not part of this record, and also noted that the attorneys for both appellants had been informed of Councilman Williams' action and had agreed to allow him to participate in this appeal nonetheless. Attorney Knutson advised the Council that, when deliberating, one of the first decisions should be to exclude attachments 1 and 8. Attorney Knutson next defined the order of the arguments, indicating that Craig Miller, representing the applicant, Highland Courte, would proceed first. Dave Neupert would follow by representing the Families and Independent Residents of the Highland Neighborhood. Planning Director Collins would then present the perspective of the Planning Commission. Following Planning Director Collins' presentation, the attorneys for the two parties would have the opporttmity for rebuttal. It was agreed that the total amount of time for initial statements and rebuttals would be 30 minutes per party. The opportunity for questions from the Council could be at any time during the presentations or afterward. Questions should be directed to the presenters or to Attorney Knutson for the purpose of clarifying information in the record or questions of a legal nature. Both parties would like a decision made during this meeting, but would agree to an extension of the required time limit for the appeal, if necessary. By State law, there is a 60-day time limit from the date the appeal was filed until a decision by Council must be rendered. The 60-day time period has almost expired. Deputy Mayor McKeown asked Attorney Knutson if it would be better to ask questions of the attorneys after the presentations were complete, to which Attorney Knutson agreed. Craig Miller, 203 East 5th Street, represented the applicant, Tim German/Highland Courte. Highland Courte is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to use an existing facility located in a High Density Residential Zone as a drag and alcohol treatment facility. The Highland Courte Conditional Use Permit record has been provided for Council's review. The applicant agreed with the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Miller also agreed with the analysis of the appeals that were presented by the staff report as it relates to the neighborhood group's appeal. Mr. Miller noted there were a couple of conditions approved by the Planning Commission to which he ~vould like to take exception. He discussed Condition #5 which stipulated the facility would not admit for treatment any persons with violent sexual or felony property crime histories. The applicant did not object to that condition. Mr. Miller referred Council to Page 2 of Director Collins's memo regarding this appeal. The applicant agreed that no persons were to be admitted with a sexual or felony crime history. The applicant objected to the Planning Commission adding felony property crime history. Mr. Miller noted persons convicted of felony property crimes could be convicted for bouncing $250 worth of checks. Mr. Miller felt that a felony property history did not prevent clients from obtaining successful treatment. Mr. Miller asked Council to strike the felony property condition. Mr. Miller noted the Highland Courte record was devoid of any conclusions that identified the proposed drag treatment center as being a risk to the neighborhood. The applicant also objected to Condition #10 which stipulated that patients may not drive -2- CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 1, 2000 4249 APPEAL: their vehicles to the facility. Mr. Miller noted there was no evidence to suggest that patients would be running away from the facility and going into the neighborhood to Conditional Use Permit - cause problems. Mr. Miller referred to the specific issues of the neighborhood group's CUP- 00-03 - German/ appeal. The first issue was in regard to the relationship between the earlier Planned Highland Courte (Cont'd) Residential De{~elopment and the currently pending application. Mr. Miller noted that he did not agree with Attomey Knutson's analysis with regard to the Council's consideration of attachment #2 to the neighborhood group's memo. Mr. Miller noted the attached Ordinance could not be considered by the Council due to it not being in the record. He suggested Councilmembers remand this appeal back to the Planning Commission if there was any uncertainty. The second issue that the neighborhood group had was that the chemical dependency treatment center would be incompatible with the neighborhood. The basis for their position was a fear of crime, breaking and entering, and the proposed use was inconsistent in a RI-ID zone. Mr. Miller noted there was no evidence in the record to support this position. Mr. Miller referred Council to a group of memos from the Port Angeles Police Department. He pointed out a quote in one of the memos which stated the Police Department's reservations could prove to be unfounded. Mr. Miller noted there was no evidence to support public safety fears. He referred the Council to the Comprehensive Plan and discussed policies for residential zones. Mr. Miller urged Councilmembers to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Councilman Williams asked Mr. Miller for the location of the quotes on the subordinate and compatible uses. Mr. Miller responded the quotes were found in the Comprehensive Plan policies as relates to residential zones. Councilmember Campbell asked if Mr. Miller wanted Council to strike or modify Condition #10. Mr. Miller replied some clients might drive to the facility, but they Would be discouraged from doing so. Deputy Mayor McKeown asked what memo Mr. Miller referenced when he claimed the Port Angeles Police Department did not have concerns about the drug treatment facility. Mr. Miller referred Councilmembers to the last two paragraphs in the May 3, 2000, memorandum from Deputy Police Chief Riepe. Councilmember Erickson asked Mr. Miller if he was challenging the portion of the violent offender condition that deals with property. Mr. Miller answered in the affirmative. Deputy Mayor McKeown asked Mr. Miller to clarify the definition of a felony property crime. David Neupert, 403 South Peabody, represented the neighborhood group FAIR, which is appealing the decision made by the Planning Commission to grant a conditional use permit to Highland Courte. Mr. Neupert compared this issue with adult entertainment and how the City of Port Angeles cannot prohibit adult entertainment but can decide where to locate the facilities. Mr. Neupert noted the Council should be able to consider all the attachments to FAIR's appeal. Mr. Neupert felt that to comply with existing ordinances, the Council should require the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on whether to allow an amendment of the PRD and then conduct a City Council public hearing. This never occurred. The area was originally planned as a senior residential community, and the proposed facility was going to be a nursing home facility. These uses are both residential, primarily serving senior citizens in a senior residential neighborhood. The Highland community population allowed the facility because it was compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed use for a transient drug treatment center would be incompatible with the existing neighborhood. Mr. Neupert discussed the investigation by Deputy ChiefRiepe on the effects of a drug treatment center in other communities. The Police ChiefofMonntlake Terrace encountered serious problems associated with a facility similar to the one proposed by the applicants. Mr. Neupert noted that commercial uses are not compatible in the RHD zone. Mr; Neupert asked the Councilmembers to remand this matter back to the Planning Commission to determine a recommendation, and then there could be a public hearing. He stated that his clients had no input to the Planning Commission's conditions, and there would be no enforcement of those conditions. Councilman Hulett asked Mr. Neupert if the clients at the drag treatment facility would be there by court order. Mr. Neupert noted that the conditions state the facility will not take patients that are ordered to a locked down facility, but they will take people that are court ordered to treatment. Deputy Mayor McKeown requested clarification of the property descriptions at the facility .site. Planning Director Collins replied there are two pieces of property. Originally, the CUP property was part of the PRD, but it was going to be in a subsequent phase and only the first phase of the PRD was developed. Deputy -3- CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4250 August 1, 2000 APPEAL: Mayor McKeown asked Attorney Knutson why the April 8, 1992, Planning Department memo to the Planning Commission had to be excluded from the record. Attorney Conditional Use Permit - Knutson responded that the document was not in the Planning Commission's record for CUP- 00-03 - German/ the Highland Courte CUP. Highland Courte (Cont'd) Councilman Campbell asked Mr. Neupert to clarify the definition of hospital. He noted that a hospital is also considered a transient care facility, and in some areas hospitals treat drag and alcohol addicted patients. Mr.. Neupert referred to Section 17.08.045 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code and read the definition of a hospital. He noted that the Planning Commission dealt with this issue and determined the proposed facility would not be considered a hospital. Councilman Campbell addressed the topic of enforcing the conditions that were placed by the Planning Commission on the proposed facility. Councilman Campbell found an element of enforcement in Conditions #12, #14, and #15. Mr. Neupert gave specifics on Condition #12 and noted advice and community input will be received from an advisory board comprised of an executive director and a group of community volunteers. Mr. Neupert noted the condition does not state how often the board wiI1 meet or what they will do with the community input information. Mr. Neupert provided summaries of Condition #13 and Condition #14, and he noted there were no specific enforcement penalties that apply to conditions that are violated. Mr. Neupert thanked the Council for its consideration. Planning Director Collins presented the Council with an outline of the appeals by the applicant and the neighborhood group. He referred the Council to the Planning Commission minutes of April 12, 2000, page 2, and read statements made by the applicant's representative Chuck Mullen, Vice-President of Northwest Care Management. He then referred the Council to the May 10, 2000, Planning Commission minutes, page 6, which contained statements from Bob Martin, the director-to-be of the proposed facility who represents the applicant. Planning Director Collins explained that the number of parking spaces available at the facility would be 17 for the proposed 50 patient treatment center and, therefore, patients would not be allowed to drive themselves to the facility. Director Collins provided the Council with further information to explain why Condition #10 was placed on the facility. He noted that the felony property condition was added in the staff report of May 24, 2000, while the public hearing process was still open. Director Collins noted that he is not opposed if Council chooses to modify Condition #5 by excluding the language of felony property. He added that the applicant agreed to make the conditions work while reserving the right to seek amendments to conditions which prove to be legally unenforceable or operationally unworkable. Director Collins then addressed the concerns of the neighborhood group. The neighborhood is zoned for RHD. City staff did not consider this facility to be a hospital, as there would be no doctor on staff. He noted the Planning Commission continued to have reservations about the location of this center at this site. The Planning Commission determined that the City codes did allow for social service agencies providing 24-hour residential care. Deputy Mayor McKeown asked Director Collins to clarify how a former Alzheimer facility could be approved for a chemical dependency treatment center. Director Collins explained the history of the Highland Courte zoning approval process. Councilman Campbell asked Director Collins how much authority the City had to withdraw a conditional use permit if the conditions were not met or were violated. Director Collins indicated there are laws regarding how conditional use permits are enforced, and there is a requirement that those conditions be met. If the conditions are not met, there is an administrative process and then court action. Director Collins further explained the condition enforcement process. Councilman Williams noted that, after reading the record and listening to the presentations, it appeared that the preliminary plat of the planned residential development of Highland Communities was supposed to be phased. Councilman Williams asked Director Collins for clarification on the use of the common usable open space. Director Collins replied that it was for recreational usage. He elaborated on the specific intended uses for the common usable space, such as walking paths, picnic areas, and parks. Councilman Williams asked if the recreational amenities and the walking paths were a normal part of the subdivision process and not specific to this community. Director Collins responded that the paths and recreational amenities were a normal part -4- CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 1, 2000 4251 APPEAL: of the PRD process, which included specific requirements for common usable open space. In a normal subdivision, an environmental impact analysis determines whether Conditional Use Permit - the subdivision is large enough to generate a demand for recreation facilities. Attorney CUP- 00-03 - German/ Knutson cautioned that it is acceptable for the presenters to talk about things that are Highland Courte (Cont'd) in the record or that have been stated before, and it is acceptable to discuss the City's Subdivision Ordinance and how it compares with the PRD Ordinance. It would, however, be considered new evidence to talk about specific subdivisions or to talk about past patterns of approving subdivisions. Deputy Mayor McKeown asked Director Collins if a non-senior could move into 0,~ Highland ~. Director Collins replied they could not. Highland Conunons was ,~t~granted a conditional use permit and a parking variance which limited their use to senior citizens only. Director Collins noted that Highland Commons 1 and 2 and Highlands Estates are limited to seniors residence. Councilman Williams asked if the proposed project is part of that senior area. Director Collins replied this particular project is not part of either Highland Commons 1 and 2 or Highland Estates. It is a separate area to the west of Highland Commons. Councilman Williams brought up the issue of compatibility in an area that is mostly senior citizens. He noted there is a responsibility to the residents regarding the Fair Housing Act. Director Collins noted that the City's Ordinance does not have any authority to require senior housing on RHD property'. Councilman Hulett asked Director Collins if prior to the PRD the property was zoned RS-9. Director Collins replied that before the PRD the property was zoned RHD. Break Deputy Mayor McKeown recessed the meeting for a break at 7:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:00 p.m. APPEAL: Craig Miller addressed the Council by providing a rebuttal to previous comments. He noted there was a reason for this being a closed record appeal. The reason is that all Conditional Use Permit - participating parties know that evidence has to be put in before the first trier of fact, CUP- 00-03 - German/ which in this case was the Planning Commission. Mr. Miller objected to the PRD Highland Courte (Cont'd) documents, and the Council's discussion has confirrned his objection. He noted that the information should have been brought up at the hearing so that the applicant could have had the opportunity to give a rebuttal. Mr. Miller noted the file on the PRD and on this piece of property is extensive, and the Council has received only 2 documents from the middle of that file. Mr. Miller noted that the Council has been presented with bits and pieces of the record, which resulted in an understandable confusion about previous proceedings. Mr. Miller suggested Council send the appeal back to the Planning Commission for further review. Mr. Miller noted that the applicant was proposing to develop the property as permitted under the terms of the City's Zoning Ordinance in accordance with the processes and conditions. Mr. Miller felt the condition which prohibited patients from driving themselves to the facility might not work. He noted a more reasonable condition may be that if a patient must drive themself, then the car should be moved in a certain amount of time. Mr. Miller then referred the Council to a letter dated April 11, 2000, from Mr. Kimbrough, a consultant for the applicant. In the letter, Mr. Miller pointed out that Mr. Kimbrough called the Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse for the Mountlake Terrace area and spoke with David Curtis, Certification Section Supervisor. Mr. Curtis is responsible for licensing of chemical dependency treatment providers and could find no license for Sunrise Residential Treatment Center or any in-patient chemical dependency facility in Mountlake Terrace. Mr. Miller questioned the appropriateness of using information regarding Sunrise Residential Treatment Center as the basis of a decision for the proposed treatment facility. · Deputy Mayor McKeown remarked about the numbers provided by the applicant with regard to people with a chemical dependency problem in Clallam County. The figures were about 3,900 people with a chemical dependency problem. Ten to fifteen percent of those people, 400 to 500, were expected to access treatment at some point. Deputy Mayor McKeown mentioned that she sits on the Board of Healthy Families, and the organization had to close its outpatient chemical dependency program due to being $70,000 in the red. The reason the facility closed was due to people not being able to afford the treatment. Mr. Miller replied that the need for a chemical dependency treatment center was not a consideration in the zoning decision. Further, whether or not a facility will succeed was the applicant's issue. Deputy Mayor McKeown asked Director Collins if a purpose of this facility was for the good of the community. -5- CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4252 August 1, 2000 APPEAL: Director Collins replied that one of the requirements for the conditional use permit is that the proposed use has to serve the zone and vicinity. Conditional Use Permit - CUP- 00-03 - German/ Dave Neupert then offered rebuttal by referring the Council to a letter dated May 17, Highland Courte (Cont'd) 2000, from Patricia Walker. The letter provided an analysis of the number of people in Clallam County who need drug and/or alcohol treatment. Mr. Neupert noted that the number of people needing treatment, according to this analysis, is much smaller than the number submitted by the applicant's attorney. Mr. Neupert noted the proposed use as being incompatible. Mr. Neupert recommended that the Council deny the CUP and in addition send the matter back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Councilman Campbell asked Mr. Neupert to elaborate where in the Zoning Ordinance did it prohibit the use of this property for a chemical dependency center. Mr. Neupert replied that the proposed facility was being considered as a potential permitted use under a conditional use permit. The Zoning Ordinance specified that commercial enterprises were not felt to be compatible within the RHD. Mr. Neupert noted that prior uses of the facility did fit in with the neighborhood, because they were residential uses within the residential neighborhood. Further, the proposed use would be a commercial enterprise serving a transient clientele. Councilman Campbell referred to Mr. Neupert's Brief in Support of Notice of Appeal, which dealt with the Americans with Disabilities prohibition against discrimination of disabled persons. Councilman Campabell noted that a contentious issue has been that if the Council were to deny this facility, would that constitute discrimination against the disabled. Mr. Neupert disagreed that a denial of the conditional use permit would constitute discrimination against the disabled. Mr. Neupert asked the Council to preserve the character of the neighborhood as a residential area by not allowing a non-residential, transient, commercial use. Upon completion of the arguments, Attorney Knutson advised the Council that the next appropriate step would be for the Council to deliberate on the matter. He reminded the Council of his suggestions about what to include and exclude regarding the scope of the record. He recommended that the Council exclude the first and the last attachments to Mr. Neupert's brief. Councilman Williams noted that, in considering the documents presented, there was not enough information on the previous proceedings regarding the proposed drug treatment facility. Attorney Knutson replied that the Council could remand this issue back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Councilman Williams moved to remand this appeal back to the Planning Commission with the specifics of finding out the sequence of events on how this preliminary plat was developed. Councilman Campbell appreciated what Councilman Williams was trying to accomplish, but he stated his preference to make a decision at this meeting. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Williams moved to exclude document attachments 1 & 8 of the Neighborhood's brief from the record. Councilmember Erickson seconded the motion. A vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. Councilman Hulett asked Attorney Knutson for a response regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act in relation to this decision. Attorney Knutson replied with the same information he had presented to the Planning Commission. There have been recent federal court decisions that have interpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act to apply to land use decisions and in particular to conditional use permits. The decisions have held that because chemically addicted people are considered to be disabled that the laws against discrimination do have to be taken into account. Accordingly, conditional use permits for such facilities cannot be conditioned or denied unless there is specific documented evidence in support of the decision, and the decision cannot be based on unsupported community fears of public safety problems or reduced property values. He also noted that Washington court decisions have applied these requirements to all types of conditional use permits. Councilman Campbell noted this decision as being a difficult one to make. He has looked for reasons to £md the Planning Commission in error in approving this CUP, but he could not find any. He went on record as siding with the Planning Commission in its decision to permit this facility with the conditions, findings, and conclusions as presented. Attorney Knutson suggested that instead of taking the appeals separately, the Council could make a single motion to deny both appeals. Councilman Campbell moved to -6- CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 1, 2000 /4253 APPEAL: deny the neighborhood group's appeal citing the 27 findings and 18 conclusions. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Erickson moved to confirm Conditional Use Permit - the decision of the Planning Commission and deny both appeals based on the CUP- 00-03 - German/ record established by the Planning Commission, citing the 27 findings and 18 Highland Courte (Cont'd) conclusions. Councilmember Campbell seconded the motion. Councilman Williams spoke in opposition to the motion, as this particular facility would be sandwiched in between two senior areas. Councilman Hulett echoed Councilman Williams' sentiments. A vote was taken on the motion, with Councilmembers Campbell and Erickson voting in support of the motion and Councilmembers MeKeown, Hulett, and Williams voting in opposition. The motion, therefore, failed. Councilman Williams moved to grant the neighborhood's appeal and deny the applicant's appeal. Councilman Hulett seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion carried by a 3-2 vote with Couneilmembers McKeown, Hulett, and Williams voting in support of the motion, and Councilmembers Campbell and Erickson voting in opposition. Attorney Knutson suggested that staff return at the next meeting with findings and conclusions that would support the decision. Councilman Hulett moved to direct staff to bring back findings and conclusions at the next meeting. Councilman Williams seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Break Deputy Mayor McKeown recessed the meeting for a break at 9:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. WORK SESSION: Mayor Doyle returned to the meeting and thanked Deputy Mayor McKeown for her prior assistance. Mayor Doyle reviewed the information provided by Manager Quinn Council Goals Update regarding the 2001 Council Goals. Manager Quinn noted that he revised the 2000 operating goals into a policy format. Further, he suggested adding a new goal under the title of Community Relations, which would enhance communications between government and citizens. Councilman Hulett asked about the construction of 8th Street bridge, and Manager Quinn clarified it should read re-construction 8th Street, bridge repairs and road improvements. Councilmember McKeown referred to the Economic Development Objectives and asked if marine industrial should be the Port's issue. Manager Quinn agreed that the construction of marine facilities such as piers should be the main proponent of the Port of Port Angeles. He noted that marine industry in terms of economic development will be a City issue in the near future. Councilman Campbell suggested bringing specificity to the marine industrial issue regarding the old Rayonier Mill site. Mayor Doyle suggested the City work to acquire the Peabody Creek Trailer Park. Further, he recommended that the Council study the goals and objectives for consideration at the next Council meeting. Councilman Hulett asked if additional wiring could be laid for future outdoor lighting when the City installs underground electrical on Ediz Hook. Public Works Director Cutler replied in the affirmative. The Council agreed by consensus to consider these goals and objectives at the next Council meeting. Further, the City Manager can use these goals for planning the City budget between now and the next meeting. LATE ITEMS TO BE A special Council meeting date was set for Thursday, August 3, 2000, at 5:30 p.m., for PLACED ON THIS OR the purpose of considering findings and conclusions in support of the Council's decision FUTURE AGENDA: on the Highland Courte Conditional Use Permit appeal. FINANCE: 1. Contract with DenRee Productions for E-nabled Visions Tour Contract with DenRee Mayor Doyle reviewed the information provided by Economic Develop.ment Director Productions for E-nabled Smith regarding a contract with DenRee Productions for E-nabled Visions Tour. Visions Tour Economic Director Smith summarized the different phases and scope of work related to the DenRee Productions contract. Mayor Doyle asked Director Smith if he knew who Mr. Bragg's employees on this project would be. Director Smith replied there will be part-time help to work on the survey. Councilman Campbell noted there will be an advantage to this contract by providing information and education to the community about opportunities for the future. -7- CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4254 August 1, 2000 FINANCE: Manager Quinn added that Council had asked staff to review the contract after the (Cont'd) original presentation was. made. Manager Quinn noted the contract was renegotiated and the price was lowered by $10,000 - $15,000 from the original proposal. The project Contract with DenRee was redesigned in a phase format to give the City the ability to terminate by task and Productions for E-nabled re-evaluate, if necessary. Councilman Campbell moved to authorize the Mayor to Visions Tour (Cont'd) sign an agreement with DenRee Productions to implement the E-nabled Visions Tour. Councilman Hulett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilmember McKeown moved to accept the Consent Agenda to include: 1) Council minutes of the July 18, 2000, regular meeting. Councilman Williams seconded the motion, Which carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL Mayor Doyle reported that he welcomed the Senior Babe Ruth North Washington State COMMITTEE Tournament at Civic Field, and he threw the first pitch. Mayor Doyle noted the Civic REPORTS: Field has never looked better. Mayor Doyle, Manager Quinn, Director Cutler, and Attorney Knutson met with the EPA Director, Chuck Finely and his staff in Seattle. The City of Port Angeles asked the EPA for assistance in financing a new water system when the Elwha Dams are removed. Director Cutler thought the meeting with the EPA staffwas informative, and some good suggestions by the EPA were made. He noted a letter was drafted thanking the EPA for their time, and it needs to be signed by either Manager Quinn or Mayor Doyle. Mayor Doyle attended a Peninsula Development Meeting in Sequim. On July 28th Mayor Doyle met with the Mutsu City Mayor, on July 292 there was a social gathering with the Soroptimist Club, and on July 30th there was a ground breaking bridge ceremony followed by a farewell community dinner at the Senior Center. Ordinances Not Requiring Public Hearings: None. Appoint City Other Considerations Representative to Clallam Transit Board Review 1. Appoint City representative to Clallam Transit Board to attend review meeting Meeting of Public Transit Benefit Areas (PTBA). Mayor Doyle read a letter received from Daniel DiGuilio, General Manager of the Clallam County Transit System. Manager Quinn recommended that Glenn Wiggins be appointed as representative. Larry Williams moved to appoint Glenn Wiggins as the elected official to represent the City of Port Angeles and attend the review meeting of the PTBA. Councilmember Erickson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None. QUASI-JUDICIAL: INFORMATION: City Manager's Report Manager Quinn presented Council with a Mid-Year Budget Status Report. Finance Director Ziomkowski added that a presentation will be made at the September 19, 2000, regular Council meeting. She outlined some specific amendments that have to be made at that time. Mayor Doyle noted the General Fund reserve was $3,000,000 million on December 31, 1999; it currently stands at $1,750,000. He asked Finance Director Ziomkowski if this was acceptable to .her. Finance Director Ziomkowski replied that the amount required by law in the General Fund reserve is 10%, and the City currently has 14% which is considered healthy. Manager Quinn remarked that the County Fair is coming up August 17th thru August 20th' and the City has been asked to staff the recycling booth. If anyone is interested, Sam Martin has the sign up sheet. Mayor Doyle asked Manager Quinn if the City has received the fun mn walk award for Councilmembers and City staffparticipation. Manager Quinn replied the City has not yet received the award. ADJOURN TO None. EXECUTIVE SESSION: -8- CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 1, 2000 6.255 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Becky J. Upt~CTt~lefk-~" - -'. ry D~ 1M -9- 4256 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4257 1 2 3 4 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF PORT ANGELES 5 6 IN THE MATTER OF TWO ) 7 CONSOLIDATED APPEALS ) OF THE HIGHLAND COURTE ) 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ) ) 9 ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND DECISION 10 APPLICATION NO. 00-03 ) ) 11 ) ) 12 13 FINDINGS 14 15 1. The applicant, Highland Courte - Tim German, applied to the City of Port Angeles for a 16 conditional use permit to establish a private chemical dependency treatment facility in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone. The application and supplemental information by 17 the applicant's representative is identified as Attachment B2 to the May 10, 2000, Staff Report for CUP 00-03. 18 2. The applicant describes the facility as providing professional and affordable treatment 19 services for up to 50 men and women based on the "12 Step Recovery Minnesota Model." Treatment would consist of group, individual, and family therapy and includes lectures, 20 video presentations, and professional guided group therapy. 21 3. Although the application also included "mental health triage and stabilization services," the applicant has stated these services are no longer part of the application. The proposed 22 facility would be a private pay facility and would not be affiliated with any government agency. A "medical director" would oversee the facility and staff of 30 employees. There 23 would be no doctors or nurses on staff; the staff would be trained professionals who would work under the supervision of a licensed medical doctor. The doctor would visit the facility 24 once a week and be on call for the balance of time. The average length of stay for a patient would be 28 days. A patient could choose to leave the program prior to its completion. 25 26 I - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION PORT ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY 27 321 East Fifth Street / POBox 1150 Port Angeles WA 98362-0217 28 Phone: 360-417-4576 / Fax: 360-417-4529 Craig D. Knutson WSBA #7540 Dennis C. Dickson WSBA #17652 4258 1 4. The project site is located at 1704 Melody Circle. 2 5. The 2 ½ acre site is located in an existing residential district with a mixture of single family homes, multi-family apartments, and senior housing developments. 3 6. The existing building and grounds were constructed and opened in 1999 as a 42 unit 4 assisted living facility for residents with Alzheimer's disease. A CUP 97-13 was approved for Alzheimer's use in 1997. 5 7. The Highland Courte chemical dependency treatment center is proposed to be located in 6 a facility that was constructed as part of what was originally planned as a phase of a planned residential development (PRD) approved by the City Council in Ordinance 2875. 7 The PRD provided that the facility was to be a congregate care facility. 8 8. Only Phases I and II of the proposed development were finalized prior to expiration of the Highland Communities PRD. The preliminary PRD is commonly known as Highland 9 Communities and the phases of the PRD that were given final approval by the City are commonly known as Highland Estates. 10 9. A replat of the remaining expired PRD was completed, and a senior oriented housing 11 development was constructed on property in the immediate vicinity of the Highland Communities PRD. This senior housing development is commonly known as Highland 12 Commons I and II. 13 10. Many of the residents of Highland Commons and Highland Estates decided to reside in this housing development in reliance on its exclusive restriction as a senior housing area. 14 11. The Planning Department, Planning Commission, and City Council have previously 15 recognized the unique character of the senior housing neighborhood in approving preliminary plans for a congregate care facility as part of the PRD and later through the 16 issuance of a conditional use permit for the facility to be operated as an Alzheimer's care facility. 17 12. The senior housing developments on each side of the property for the proposed CUP are 18 a separate and distinct neighborhood, which is segregated from the surrounding residential area and which can only be accessed from Melody Circle at one end. Access to the CUP 19 site cannot be accomplished by any publicly accessible route except through the senior housing neighborhood. 20 13. In applying the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan to the proposal, one of the most relevant 21 sections is Land Use Element Residential Policy C-l, which identifies legitimate components of residential district development and commercial uses such as home 22 occupations and district shopping areas which may be considered subordinate and compatible nonresidential type uses. 23 14. The City's Zoning Code, as set forth in Port Angeles Municipal Code (PAMC) 24 17.08.020(E), defines a conditional use permit as "a limited permission to locate a particular use at a particular location, and which limited permission is required to modify 25 the controls stipulated by the Zoning regulations in such degree as to assure that the 26 2 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION PORT ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY 27 321 East Fifth Stree~ / POBox 1150 Port Angeles WA 98362-0217 28 Phone: 360-417-4576 / Fax: 360-417-4529 Craig D. Knutson WSBA #7540 Dennis C. Dickson WSBA #17652 4259 1 particular use shall not prove detrimental to surrounding properties, shall not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and shall not be contrary to the public interest." 2 15. The Zoning Code, as set forth in PAMC 17.96.050, also states that the purpose of a CUP 3 is to "assure that the maximum degree of compatibility between uses shall be attained" and that a CUP may denied if the proposal would "defeat the purpose of the Zoning Regulations 4 by introducing incompatible, detrimental or hazardous conditions." 5 16. As set forth in the Zoning Code, Chapter 17.15 PAMC, the purpose of the Residential High Density(RHD) Zone is to be a high density residential zone for multi-family residential 6 structures. Compatible uses may be allowed with conditional use permits, but the zone is still regarded as a residential area, and commercial enterprises are not generally considered 7 to be compatible. 8 17. The proposed treatment center is a commercial enterprise, which does not primarily serve the residential district in general and the surrounding senior housing development in 9 particular. 10 18. The proposal is a commercial enterprise, which serves a transient clientele. 11 19. The proposal is a commercial enterprise, which is a private, for profit, business that is not affiliated with any government agency 12 20. The proposal is a commercial enterprise, which is not like typical commercial uses such 13 as home occupations and district (local) shopping listed in the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential Policy C-1 as legitimate components 14 of a residential district. 15 21. The proposed treatment center is not subordinate to the residential uses of the zoning district but intends to treat patients drawn from throughout the northwestem United States 16 rather than primarily from the neighboring residents. 17 22. The proposed treatment center does not provide dwelling units and is not a residential use. 18 23. The Port Angeles Police Department and a number of area residents expressed public safety concerns about the proposed treatment center. These concerns were supported by 19 limited evidence of public safety problems in similar facilities elsewhere. 20 24. The public record for the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit CUP 00-03 includes CUP 00-03 excerpts of the Planning Commission minutes for April 21 12, May 10, May 24, and May 31 meetings, staff reports for CUP 00-03 dated from April 5 - May 31, 2000, application materials dated received March 12, 2000, and supplemental 22 reports dated received through May 2, 2000, and public comment letters dated received from April 3 - May 24, 2000. 23 25. The Planning Commission's decision to approve CUP 00-03 included 15 conditions, 42 24 findings, and 11 conclusions and was made on May 31, 2000. 25 26. The Planning Commission's condition #10, which attempted to restrict patients from 26 3 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION PORT ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY 27 321 East Fifth Street / POBox 1150 Port Angeles WA 98362-0217 28 Phone: 360-417-4576 / Fax: 360-417-4529 Craig D. Knutson WSBA #?54o Dennis C. Dickson WSBA #17652 4260 1 driving to the proposed facility, is unenforceable and insufficient to mitigate the traffic impacts on the immediately surrounding senior housing area. 2 27. The Planning Commission's Condition #11, which attempted to ensure that a significant 3 number of local area clients would use the proposed facility, is unenforceable and insufficient to mitigate the regional nature of the commercial use. 4 28. Highland Courte LLC, the applicant, appealed the Planning Commission's decision on 5 June 7, 2000. 6 29. The Families and Independent Residents of the Highland Neighborhood, the neighborhood group, (FAIR) appealed the Planning Commission's decision on June 14, 2000. 7 30. The staff report dated August 1, 2000, responded to both appeals and seven appeal issues. 8 31. Per the Washington State Regulatory Reform Act, the Port Angeles Municipal Code 9 provides for appeal of actions taken by the Planning Commission following an open record public hearing, to be reviewed by the City Council at a closed record hearing. 10 32. Appeals of this type must be considered within sixty days of the appeal filing date unless 11 the parties agree to an extension. 12 CONCLUSIONS 13 14 1. The City Council bases its decision on the record of the Planning Commission, the appeal arguments made at the August 1, 2000 City Council closed record hearing on the appeals 15 of the applicant and the neighborhood group, and the 32 Findings set forth above. The Council excludes from its consideration Attachments 1 and 8 of FAIR's appeal brief, 16 because these documents were not in the Planning Commission's record. The Council includes in its consideration the remaining Attachments to FAIR's brief for the following 17 reasons: 18 a) Attachment 2 is an ordinance of the City Council, of which the Council is entitled to take official notice and which is relevant to this proceeding. 19 b) Attachments 3, 5, 6, and 7 were part of the Planning Commission's record and were not 20 objected to by any of the parties. 21 c) Attachment 4 was in the Planning Department's file, and at least the Deputy Police Chiefs cover memo was presented to the Planning Commission. The entire document, 22 including the attachments to the Deputy Police Chiefs cover memo, should be considered by the City Council in order for the Council to have a full and complete 23 understanding of the Deputy Police Chiefs input on the public safety issue, which is relevant to this appeal. 24 2. The proposed treatment center is distinguished from a group home, a nursing home, an 25 assisted living facility, and an Alzheimer's care unit, which are principal dwellings for 26 4 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION PORT ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY 27 321 East Fifth Street / POBox 1150 Port Angeles WA 98362-0217 28 Phone: 360-417-4576 / Fax: 360-417-4529 Craig D. Knutson WSBA #7540 Dennis C. Dickson WSBA #17652 4261 1 their clients and which provide residential services as defined by the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan. 2 3. Per PAMC 17.96.050, a conditional use permit to Highland Courte LLC for a private 3 chemical dependency treatment center should not be approved because of the following characteristics of the intended use as related to the specific site, which would defeat the 4 purpose of the Zoning Code by introducing incompatible, detrimental or hazardous conditions: 5 a. The proposal is a commercial enterprise, which does not primarily serve the 6 residential zoning district and the senior housing development in particular. 7 b. The proposal is a commercial enterprise, which serves a transient clientele. 8 c. The proposal is a commercial enterprise, which is a private, for profit, business that is not affiliated with any government agency. 9 d. The proposed is a commercial enterprise, which is not like typical commercial uses 10 such as home occupations and district (local) shopping listed in the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential Policy C-1 as legitimate 11 components of a residential zoning district. 12 e. The proposed treatment center is not subordinate to the residential uses of the zoning district but intends to treat patients drawn from throughout the northwestern United 13 States rather than primarily from the neighboring residents. 14 f. The proposed treatment center does not provide dwelling units and is not a residential use. 15 4. Based on the factors set forth in Conclusion 3 and on the unique and special character of 16 the senior housing developments in the area, the conversion of the previous nursing home and Alzheimer's unit to an adult drug and alcohol treatment center is not compatible with 17 existing and potentially allowable uses in the zoning district. 18 5. Under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and other applicable laws and court decisions, the City may condition or deny a CUP for a drug rehabilitation facility based 19 on specific, documented reasons, as long as the decision is not based on unsubstantiated community fears. 20 6. The City Council recognizes the public safety concems of the Port Angeles Police 21 Department and the area residents regarding the proposed drug treatment center. However, due to the limited evidence in the record in support of these concerns, the 22 Council's decision is not based on these concerns. Rather, the Council's decision is based on the documented evidence, as set forth in the above Findings, of the intrusion 23 of a regional, non-senior, commercial development into a local, senior, residential development in the RHD zoning district. 24 25 26 5 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION PORT ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY 27 321 East Fifth Street / POBox 1150 Port Angeles WA 98362-0217 28 Phone: 360-417-4576 / Fax: 360-417-4529 Craig D. Knutson WSBA #7540 Dennis C. Dickson WSBA #17652 4262 1 DECISION 2 3 In consideration of the above Findings and Conclusions, the City Council of Port Angeles hereby denies the appeal of Highland Courte LL C and approves the appeal of the Families and 4 Independent Residents of the Highland Neighborhood which requested that CUP 00-03 be denied. 5 Dated this 3rd day of August, 2000. 6 City Council of Port Angeles 7 _~,. 8 Cathleen McKeown, Deputy Mayor 9 Attest: ~~:~ 10 Sas[ia Galuska, Deputy City Clerk G:kEXC HANGEL&TTORNEY~H IGHL AND.WPD 11 August 3, 2000 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 6 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION PORT ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY 27 321 East Fifth Street / POBox 1150 Port Angeles WA 98362-0217 28 Phone: 360-417-4576 / Fax: 360-417-4529 Craig D. Knutson WSBA #7540 Dennis C. Dickson WSBA #17652