Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/06/1991 2046 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington August 6, 1991 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Sargent called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order SPECIAL MEETING: at 6:06 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Sargent, Councilmen Comell, Nicholson, and Wight. Councilman Ostrowski arrived at 6:07 p.m., Councilman Lemon arrived at 6:11 p.m., and Councilman Hallett arrived at 6:11 p.m. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Manager Pomeranz, Attorney Knutson, Deputy Clerk McFarland, M. Campbell, M. Cleland, B. Collins, K. Godbey, J. Pittis, B. Titus, D. Sawyer, Y. Ziomkowski, G. Leaf, G. Kenworthy, R. Coons, K. Ridout, and S. Skaggs. Public Present: A. Porter, T. French, I. Jabs, M. Wirfs, L. Jenson. H. Laugallies, J. Laugallies, L. Jenson, G. Anderson, S. Anderson, G. Braun, W. & V. Hamilton, M. Dougherty, B. Offermann, D. Secord, J. Dailey, J. Hinshaw, J. Newlin, R. Cockrill, H. Hren, G. Hren, J. Taylor, D. Christenson, P. Crane, G. Crane, F. Dak, J. Dak, J. Elder, R. Cochran, J. Dobrowsky, J. Pollow, M. Brittenham, G. Brittenharn, L. Riensche, B. & P. Coates, J. Michalczik, M. Hannah, P. Hannah, D. Charles, D. Sturm, J. Irvine, C. Elofson, S. Downs, C. May, M. Richmond, B. Haselton, F. Deckebach, C. Bennett, S. Oliver, L. Celestine, A. Adkins, D. Somers, A. Charles, E. Veltkamp, G. Doyle, L. Doyle, G. Cook, B. Cook, D. Bettger, B. Ewing, G. Allen, H. Cameron, L. Schueler, G. Wayne, G. Pettit, P. Blanchard, G. Casady PUBLIC HEARING: I. Consideration of Urban Growth Area Boundaries (Planning Commission Minutes of Special Meeting of July 31, 1991) URBAN GROWTH AREA BOUNDARIES Mayor Sargent stated the purpose of this special meeting was to determine an Urban Growth Boundary and Principles for the City of Port Angeles in accordance with the Growth Management Act of 1990. The idea of the Urban Growth Area is part of a comprehensive planning process to reduce the effect of urban sprawl. No annexation or provision of City services can be provided to areas outside the Urban Growth Area. Only resource lands and other rural uses will be allowed in areas outside the UGA. The Urban Growth Area designation will not change the application of county zoning regulations nor State annexation procedures. The City will be expected to plan for the provision of urban services to all the areas within the UGA. Mayor Sargent stated there had been previous public meetings on the Urban Growth Boundaries and this would be the last one. The Council appointed a citizens' committee who recommended a 20-year boundary which has been before the Planning Commission. The citizens' committee had been divided in its vote in certain areas. (Colored maps were on the wall indicating the proposed areas.) Planning Director Collins described the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Citizens' Committee. The original proposed 20-year boundaries were from the top of the west rim of Morse Creek Canyon to the top of the east rim of the Elwha River Canyon. That area is still the 20-year line as recommended by the Planning Commission. The Citizens' Committee proposed 10-year area which was from the western rim of Morse Creek Canyon, along the BPA power line to the western edge of the Ennis Creek ravine, and up the ravine south across an area of RR3 zoning, and west following the current differentiation in zoning in the County between rural and urban-residential, RR3 and UR1. It then follows the city limits around the Old Mill Road area including a small area to the east of the Valley Creek ravine, which is not currently in the City. It then follows the city limits along -1- 2047 August 6, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: Highway 101 and proceeds south and west along the commercially and manufacturing designated areas in the County until it returns to Highway 101 some URBAN GROWTH distance to the west, follows the eastern edge of the Dry Creek ravine to the existing AREA BOUNDARIES city limits and then proceeds west and north all the way around to the Strait. (Cont'd) Director Collins stated the Planning Commission and the Citizens' Committee agreed on the 10-year boundary; therefore, the recommendation is the same for both. Director Collins described the Citizens' Committee 20-year growth area as north of Scrivner Road in the Mt. Pleasant Road, Monroe Road, and Mt. Angeles Road area and as mainly manufacturing zoned land and some RR3 land in the Benson Road area and the area along Dry Creek north of Hwy. 101. The area in dispute for the Citizens' Committee was the area south of Hwy. 101 and west of the manufacturing zoned property, approximately at Cameron Road. The committee was undecided, on a four-to-four vote, as to whether to keep this in the 20-year line or have the 20-year - line follow Hwy. 101. Councilman Cornell stated the next major step after a boundary is selected is for the City has to start working on a plan as to how the City will service those areas in terms of sewer, water, power, etc. He then questioned Director Collins as to whether this plan would be for the 10-year boundary area or for the 20-year boundary. Director Collins responded that he thought the plan had to be for the 20-year boundary, but that it could be a phased or staged so that the City would not have to provide those services to beyond the 10-year line for the first 10 years if that was the policy. The State's Growth Management Act requires a 20-year line and service plan for that entire area but it does not prohibit establishing a phasing or 10-year line. Councilman Ostrowski inquired as to how this would be financed to which Director Collins replied that the decision would be made by the City Council. The possibilities Director Collins listed were: developer fees, LIDs, general obligations bonds, general tax revenues. Any resources the City had available to finance capital improvements would then be agreed upon through the budget process. The capital facilities plan would include a financing plan. Mayor Sargent asked Director Collins to comment on how long it would be before the boundary line could be revised, how often it could be reviewed, and how easy or difficult it would be to accomplish. Director Collins indicated the Growth Management Act requires that the Urban Growth Boundaries be reviewed at least every ten years. Therefore, if for no other reason than ten years after the boundaries have been established by the Act, they would have the be reviewed again. There is no requirement to change the boundaries; however, a planning and review process must be undertaken to determine if the boundaries are adequate. The area must be large enough to accommodate the 20-year projected growth based on State's Office of Fiscal Management's projection for 20 years. The Act also prohibits review or changes to the contents of plans more than once a year. Therefore, the line could not be changed more than once a year. It is the expectation that once the boundaries are submitted to the County, the City would review them at the time a new comprehensive plan consistent with the Growth Management Act is adopted which is scheduled before July 1, 1993. Mayor Sargent clarified that the City must present its boundaries to the County by August 21, 1991. Councilman Wight reviewed his understanding of the Capital Plan requirements in that there can be no development of any property within the UGA until such a time as the funding plan is implemented. It is a plan that is enabled with accounting of revenue and that development of a service infrastructure is guaranteed as a prerequisite to any development. Director Collins affirmed that this was correct. · Councilman Wight's point was that annexation could be prohibited if there was not a viable capital improvement plan to service any area in consideration. Mayor Sargent opened the public hearing at 6:21 p.m. Herman Laugallies, 1868 Dry Creek Road, posed several questions after citing the many pleas that had been made by citizens to have their property excluded from the proposed growth area. Mr. Laugallies stated that the population growth projected by the Planning Commission is approximately 12 %; he then questioned the percentage of land currently undeveloped within the City limits. Director Collins replied 15 to 20 %. Mr. Laugallies then questioned why the UGA needed to be a doubling of the size of the City. Mr. Laugallies stated that the way things had been presented at previous meetings it appeared that the UGA was being used to justify the size of the new secondary sewage treatment plant and questioned whether this was correct. Councilman Wight stated that the size was predicated by a recommendation of State personnel. Mr. Laugallies questioned the division of authority once the UGA 2O48 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 6, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: boundaries were adopted, would the County have authority until annexation. Councilman Wight replied in the affirmative, that we only propose the boundaries URBAN GROWTH but that the County must accept them. Mr. Laugallies stated that because a reduction AREA BOUNDARIES in the UGA could adversely affect people whose property had previously been (Cont'd) designated in the UGA and would therefore be strongly contended, it would be better to start out with a smaller area, especially when there is a yearly option to review and revise the boundaries. Director Collins stated that the minimum requirement of the Growth Management Act required that there has to be enough area to accommodate the 20-year growth. He felt that all recommendations put forth would meet that requirement. Councilman Cornell questioned whether that included the 10- year line becoming the 20-year line. Director Collins replied that it would. Mr. Laugallies then questioned why the City seemed to be pushing for such a large area and whether the members of planning groups would achieve personal gain from such a large area. Mr. Laugallies pointed out that the County committee consists of a developer, a financial investment advisor, a realtor, lawyers, and property owners of land in that area all of whom stand to gain if their land increases in value. Mayor Sargent stated that the County will probably be holding a public hearing after the City's plan is submitted to them, and that would be the time to address this concern. Mr. Laugallies questioned why, when the Council had sent the UGA plan back to the CCURB committee with direction to reduce its size, there was no significant change. In reply to this question, Mayor Sargent read a letter from Cindy Souders, Chairperson of the CCURB committee supporting the 20-year boundaries. Mr. Laugallies questioned why the east boundary, i.e., Morse Creek, had not been changed. Councilman Wight stated that Morse Creek was a provident natural boundary. Mr. Laugallies summarized that all he had heard in reply to this question did not justify the proposed UGA. He urged Council to accept and forward to the County the boundaries proposed by the citizens most affected by the UGA. Robert Coates, 1852 Edgewood Drive, stated that he feels the Dry Creek proposal set specific boundaries and gave specific reasons why these boundaries were picked. Paul Crane, 1404 S. Cherry, asked if this plan was dictated by law or if this was just a projection of the Council. Mayor Sargent responded the City was mandated by the Growth Management Act of 1990 to propose the boundaries. Mr. Crane asked how the UGA would affect the normal citizen of Port Angeles. Mayor Sargent stated that her perception was that the smaller the boundaries, the higher the density and prices would go up. Councilman Comell clarified that this did not mean the cost of services as much as the cost of property. Mr. Crane stated that he felt many of the people present would like their sons and daughters to be able to live in this area and that they were being priced out of this area. Gordon Cook, 27 Key Road, stated that he agreed with the first speaker. Mr. Cook said he felt the larger boundaries would encourage urban growth rather than detract from it. He felt the 10-year plan proposed enough growth for 20 years and recommended that Council look at the 10-year plan as the 20-year plan. Dave Secord, Box 975 Scrivner Road, expressed concern about the pollution he saw in Peabody Creek within the City limits and felt that the City should be aware that septic tanks are not creating the pollution. Mayor Sargent stated that the critical and wetland areas would be protected; certain laws would be drawn to protect these areas. Rosemary Cockrill, 1162 Marsden Road, wanted to know why the City needed a 200 % land increase for a projected 10 % population increase. Quoting from planning documents, Ms. Cockrill recommended that Council endorse a greatly reduced UGA until a new comprehensive plan, with citizen input, has been adopted. She endorsed the citizen groups' recommendations. Colin Bennett, 3108 S. Peabody, urged Council to consider a boundary large enough to take in commercial and industrial land so the younger citizens will not have to move away to f'md work. He recommended adoption of the Planning Commission's boundaries as he felt industrial development will occur at the west end of the City close to the airport. Cindy Kelly, 1530 Edgewood Drive, was present representing the Dry Creek Water Association and read a formal statement from the Association opposing the western boundary being at the Elwha River and stating that the Dry Creek area should be excluded because it has its own water system as does the Black Diamond area which was excluded for that reason. Jeanne Laugallies, 1868 Dry Creek Road, asked that Council adopt the boundaries recommended by the citizens from the areas concerned. -3- 2049 August 6, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: Jerry McLaughlin, 969 W. Scrivner Road, recommended adoption of lines along what the neighborhood groups had proposed. URBAN GROWTH AREA BOUNDARIES Gerald Allen, 959 E. Scrivner Road, cited a road that is staked out behind his (Cont'd) property for the Grandview Addition which runs through a wetland and the proposed lines follow that line. He asked that the City choose the present city limits as the UGA boundaries. David Charles, Lower Elwha Reservation, directed his comments to the fact that the Planning Commission 20-year growth lines include the Lower Elwha Reservation in their western boundaries. He cited a case that the City of Auburn lost where their boundaries included a Mulkelshut reservation. He felt that both the 10-year and the 20-year boundaries were too much. Juamta Dobrowksy, 1736B Lower Elwha Road, representing the Dry Creek Grange read a formal statement from the Grange which stated that the Grange formally opposed the western boundary near the Elwha River and recommended that the western boundary stay at its present location. Don Bettgar, 1022 S. Cherry, stated that he would like to see the Four Seasons property in the growth area. He foresees more development to the east than the west and felt this area could use City services more than in the west. Jams Bock, 701 Brown Road, wanted the Council to take another look at the section line above Monroe School which was proposed by the neighborhood group. Vicki Wagner, 328 Cameron Road, questioned whether her property now designated "open space" would change if it was included in the UGA. Director Collins stated that it would not change; however, the tax rate could possibly change if annexed into the City. She urged Council to adopt smaller boundaries to maintain the rural communities. Debbie Kelly, 13 Key Road, stated her agreement with previous speakers and requested that Council adopt a downsized growth recommendation. James Henshaw, Box 975 Scrivner Road, stated that none of the residents in his area wanted to be in the proposed UGA and wanted to know if that carried any weight with the Council. Julie Bondy, 221 E. 1 lth Street, urged Council to request an extension on setting the boundaries from the State, then to plan the utilities before they set the boundaries for growth. She feels the infrastructure should come first. Marie Wrifs, 948 Tiller Road, stated her agreement with Mr. Henshaw. Her property will be half in and half out of the UGA because she is at the end of Tiller Road and does not want to be in the UGA. Orville Campbell, 820 Milwaukee Drive, supported the large area recommended by the Phmning Commission because of his concern about a smaller area escalating property prices and, therefore, property taxes. Jerry Newell, 716 Strait View Drive, agreed with Ms. Bondy that infrastructure planning should be conducted concurrent with the UGA planning. However, he endorsed a larger growth area to accommodate growth in a meaningful way rather than restrict it. Rene Cochran, 978 W. Scrivner Road, thanked the CCURB committee for the slight changes but felt that the changes were not significant. She wants the UGA to be a tool to preserve rural life. In response to Ms. Cochran's question, Director Collins responded that normal development for the outlying area is one house per acre. Ms. Cochran strongly advocated smaller boundaries. Larry Leonard, Member of City Planning Commission, explained that one of the reasons for the larger proposed area is to allow the industrial and commercial development at the west end of the City. He stated that a good portion of the Dry Creek Area is already zoned for urban development. He urged Council to support the Planning Commission recommendation. Barbara Offermaun, 145 Benson Road, felt the Planning Commission had given little or no consideration to the citizen's input at the July 31st Planning Commission meeting. She stated that the residents of Benson Road wish to remain outside the 20- year growth limits. 2050 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 6, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: Margaret Crawford, 2619 S. Race, member of both the CCURB and the City's Growth Management Advisory Committee cited a lack of guidance in the Growth URBAN GROWTH Management Act. Ms. Crawford stated that in the last decade 85 % of the growth in AREA BOUNDARIES our area has been in unincorporated areas. She agreed with Ms. Bondy that utility (Cont'd) planning should be first. Ms. Crawford stated that the Growth Management Advisory Committee would have a booth at the fair. Don Hammond, Cameron Road, warned that Port Angeles could be leaving them- selves open to becoming like Seattle by setting their boundaries for growth too large. Mr. Hammond urged no growth. Mayor Sargent closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. and thanked the audience for taking part in the public process and assured them that their testimony would be considered by the Council when making its decision. .-~ CALL TO ORDER Mayor Sargent called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order REGULAR MEETING at 8:12 p.m. PLEDGE OF The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Sargent. ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF Councilman Wight requested that the decision on urban growth boundaries, scheduled MINUTES as Item 7 on the Legislation agenda, be moved to become Item 2. The schedule was so revised. Councilman Wight moved to approved the minutes of the special meeting of July 15, the regular meeting of July 16, and the special meeting of July 22, 1991. Councilman Cornell seconded the motion. Mayor Sargent offered corrections to the minutes of July 15. On Page 1, Paragraph 1, Financial Management Policies, the last line should read Mexcess' not 'access"; Paragraph 5, 'each department will be given at base ~ should read "each department will be given a base". On Page 2, fifth paragraph from the bottom of the page, ~self-insurance find~ should read Mself-insurance fund". On the minutes of July 22, Page 2, middle of the page, "within the next several weeks' should read 'within the next several days~. Councilman Ostrowski corrected Page 12 of the July 16 minutes to indicate that he had been called by the architect in question, but was not home at the time so he did not speak to him. Councilman Comell offered a correction to the July 22 minutes, Page 2, above the sixth paragraph from the bottom, to indicate the he had expressed an appearance of fairness concern because of being a member of the PADA board and excused himself from the deliberations. Also, third paragraph from the bottom, where it stated the question carded unanimously, it should be noted that it was ~with Councilman Comell abstaining." Councilman Wight noted Page 4 of the July 15 minutes should be changed from "questioned the need' to "advocated the advisability of trying to obtain~. A vote was taken on the motion approving the minutes as corrected. The motion carried by a majority vote with Councilman Hallett abstaining due to absence from the first two meetings. FINANCE: Councilman Ostrowski moved to approve Progress Payment No. 11 to Del Hur Industries for the landfill improvement project, which includes Change Order No. 3, in the amount of $171,853.88, with $8,358.66 to retainage. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion. Mayor Sargent clarified this as the amount to be paid, not the amount of the change order. The change order was in the amount of $24,756.74. Public Works Director Pittis stated this project should be complete within the next two weeks and there were no further change orders anticipated. There is, however, a need to start designing a cell to the south as the current cell is filling up and there is a need to increase recycling. More expenditures are anticipated. Mayor Sargent asked if there would be a report forthcoming on the recycling program. Director Pittis responded the Council would receive monthly reports on the progress of the recycling program. -5- 2051 August 6, 1991 FINANCE A vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. (Cont'd) CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Hallett moved to accept the items on the Consent Agenda, as follows: (1) Call for bids to reline sewer lines and E Street Reservoir outlet pipe; (2) Correspondence from Washington State Liquor Control Board; (3) Payroll period ending 7-07-91 of $350,968.75 and Payroll period ending 7-21-91 of $315,810.91; (4) Vouchers of $4,046,937.47; and (5) Concept Administrators Health Claims for June of $46,354.22 and July of $36,362.44. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion. Mayor Sargent cited the history of the 73-year-old E Street reservoir. There has been $274,879 spent on this reservoir, with the State contribution being $100,000 of that amount. Mayor Sargent queried as to whether this proposal will handle the leakage to which Director Pittis stated the engineering staff felt very confident that this measure would reduce the leakage to 5 % which is normal in a system such as this. Director Pittis also stated that elimination of the reservoir had been considered, but the resource was critical for supplying water needs and fire fighting needs on the waterfront. Prompted by an expenditure to an individual in the Fire Department, Councilman Lemon requested a copy of the policy concerning personal vehicle usage. Councilmen Comell and Wight questioned why the City had received Liquor Control Board correspondence for a function at Lariat Hall which is outside the city limits. Attorney Knutson indicated staff would clarify this with the State. A vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. ITEMS FROM THE Members of the Derby Day Royalty, Amber Pittis, Princess; Tammy Simon, AUDIENCE: Princess; and Sonya Smith, Duchess, presented Council with personalized buttons from the Derby Days Festival and invited Council to participate in the dunk tank at the Fair. LEGISLATION: I. Yard and Neighborhood of the Month Awards - August 1991 Yard and Neighborhood Mayor Sargent presented the Yard of the Month Awards for August, 1991, to: of the Month Award: Phyllis Mangano, 1039 West 6th; Ruth Lund, 619 Vashon; Barbara Bridgeford, 1023 Georgiana; Spencer & Barbara Thompsen, 1833 E. Lauridsen; and Jim & Terry MacDonald, 922 Laurel. The Neighborhood Yard of the Month Award for August was awarded to the 200 Block of Hawthorn Place. Recipients were: Harold & Charlotte Ridalls, 201 Hawthorn Place; Jerry & Diane Davis, 202 Hawthorn Place; Bob & Linda Bougie, 203 Hawthorn Place; Andy & Miriam Crandall, 204 Hawthorn Place; Jerry & Laura Clarke, 206 Hawthorn Place; Cliff & Zelma Perdew, 207 Hawthorn Place; Roger & Nancy Rudolph, 210 Hawthorn Place; Prosper & Sheila Ostrowski, 213 Hawthorn Place; Tim & Denise Allison, 218 Hawthorn Place; Michael & Glynda Schaad, 219 Hawthorn Place; Mrs. Mary Hams, 224 Hawthorn Place; Gary & Shem edom, 225 Hawthorn Place; Larry & Linda Brisbin, 230 Hawthorn Place; Ed & Trixanne Donahue, 231 Hawthorn Place; and Mrs. Robert Seaman, 237 Hawthorn Place. Planning Commission 2. Planning Commission Minutes of Special Meeting of July 31, 1991 Minutes of July 31, 1991 Urban Growth Mayor Sargent recommended delay of the decision by Council until August 20th in · - Boundaries order to give members of Council more time to study the maps and examine the testi- mony received at this meeting. Councilman Ostrowski moved that Council accept the Mayor's recommendation. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion. Councilman Hallett questioned whether there had been any new information received at this meeting or whether there was new information forthcoming which could affect the decision that might be made. He further questioned Planning Director Collins about the feasibility of requesting an extension in order to conduct utilities planning and whether Director Collins felt that was necessary. Director Collins responded that he did not feel that kind of information would be available until development of the comprehensive plan and possibly the development of the capital facilities planning and development regulations in 1994. Councilman Hallett then received clarification as to what the County's procedures would be upon receiving the City's recommendation. Councilman Wight questioned Director Collins as to whether the urban growth 2052 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 6, 1991 LEGISLATION: boundaries submitted to the County had to be accepted by the County, or if modified, submitted back to the City, or arbitrated by a State official. Director Collins stated Urban Growth the County was not obligated to send the plan back to the City; the County could Boundaries accept or amend the plan. If the City did not like the County proposal, the City (Cont'd) could seek mediation through the State. Councilman Wight asked when the County was required to submit the urban growth area designations to the State and Director Collins responded this was rather complicated but the basic requirement was July 1, 1993. Director Collins noted the Planning Department had been told that specific adoption of the urban growth recommendations by the County would not happen for at least two years. Councilman Hallett asked how the City's adoption of UGA boundaries would affect joint City/County planning. Director Collins stated that H.B. 2929 and Amendments 1025 call for a joint planning process to occur within the urban growth area. Councilman Hallett asked if it was expected that the County would hold people developing within the urban growth boundaries to the same standards the City would if this area were within the City limits. Director Collins answered that this was the expectation; there would be mutual agreement upon standards which the County would then enforce until annexation. Councilman Comell indicated the testimony reinforced what had already been said before. Councilman Wight indicated his agreement with this view, and noted the issue needed to be addressed without delay. A vote was taken on the motion with Councilman Ostrowski voting in support of the motion and the remainder of Council voting in opposition. The motion, therefore, failed. Councilman Comell stated his support for the neighborhood concept expressed by the testimony, noting the public reluctance to change the neighborhood environment. He also pointed out that the urban growth boundaries could be expanded quite easily and, therefore, he moved to submit to the County the recommended 2J}-year growth boundary which was submitted to Council by the CCURB and Hauning Commission as the 10-year boundary. Councilman lLallett seconded the motion. Councilman Hallett cited the testimony as indicating the neighborhoods in question have shown that they want to decide what their neighborhoods look like. He stated his respect for the desire of the residents to maintain their rural setting, but indicated that over a period of time these things will change if for no other reason than normal life cycles. Councilman Hallett supports a rational growth area, more or less along the lines suggested by Councilman Comell, and he would be comfortable with that. He indicated his support included the comprehensive planning and feasibility studies, and that the City does not take a selfish view of the surrounding area. Councilman Lemon stated his support for the citizens who have testified. Councilman Lemon stated he felt the proposed 20-year boundaries would create urban sprawl. Councilman Lemon urged expanding the eastern boundaries to the section line along Buchanan Road, just east of Deer Park Road. Councilman Wight felt that making the urban growth boundaries too small puts the burden on the County to down zone, i.e., commercial to rural, and erodes the tax base which affects their ability to provide services. But, because it will probably be easier to expand boundaries rather than reduce them, he could support this motion with the understanding that it be reviewed again in the next few years. Councilman Cornell stated his understanding of a 10-year line, that no urban growth would happen outside this line in the first ten years. He was apprehensive about having to plan for services for the larger 20-year area even though he did not feel there was a realistic expectation of expanding that far. The smaller area would generate a more realistic plan. Mayor Sargent stated that if anything was expanded outside the proposed boundary, she would favor taking in the area east of Morse Creek because that area is already starting to develop. Councilman Lemon offered an amendment to expand the east boundary of the urban growth area to the section llne along Buchanan Road, the east section line of Section 8 and Section 17. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion to amend. Councilman Nicholson opposed the amendment because he feels this goes opposite the intent of the law to prevent urban sprawl. Councilman Lemon stated that this area was already urban because it has already been reduced to half and quarter acre lots and there are already businesses in existence, i.e., the cinema and the restaurant. Councilman Ostrowski stated his opposition to the amendment because of the draw -7- 2053 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 6, 1991 LEGISLATION: on staff to plan for services in these areas. Councilman Wight stated his opposition to the amendmont because ho supports the CCURB Committee's boundary and Urban Growth because the citizens of that area were never solicited for input to the urban growth (Cont'd) A motion amend with Councilmen Lemon and ~ vote was taken on the voting in favor of the amendment and the remaining Councilmembers voting in opposition. The motion, therefore, failed. A vote was taken on the main motion which carried unanimously. Critical Areas Study A. Approve a request to the State delaying adoption of the minimum guideline regulation. The County desires an extension of six months, but Planning Director Collins indicated the City did not need that much time, perhaps three or four months. There is no recommendation from the Growth Management Advisory Committee yet, so it would be very difficult to meet the September 1 deadline. Councilman Lemon moved to approved the request for delay. Councilman Cornell seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Councilman Lemon moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission minutes of the Special Meeting of July 31, 1991. Councilman Wight seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Employee Assistance 3. Consideration of Employee Assistance Program contract renewal. Contract Renewal Mayor Sargent stated this contract was initiated three years ago through the collective bargaining process and has been used by employees and their families. Marschoff, Bart and Associates have not adjusted their fee over the last three years of the program but are now requesting a rate increase to $1.61 per month per employee. Councilman Ostrowski moved to approved the contract extension and rate increase and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement extending the services. Councilman Cornell seconded the motion. Councilman Comell questioned whether this was on a month-to-month basis and could they request another increase in one month. Attorney Knutson clarified that it would take another contract amendment, approved by Council, to effect another increase but they could submit such a request at any time. A vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Proclamation of Japan 4. Proclamation recognizing Japan America Youth Exchange Days America Youth Week Mayor Sargent read a proclamation declaring July 28, 1991 - August 20, 1991 as Japan America Youth Exchange Days and urged all citizens to welcome these special guests. Councilman Nicholson moved to adopt the proclamation. Councilman Wight seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed electric rate revision. Proposed Electric Rate Revision City Light Director Titus stated this was precipitated by an announced rate increase from Bonneville of approximately 3 % in October of this year. The process involved projecting expenditures for the next two years and completing a cost of service study which indicated a need for a 3.14 % increase over the next two years. The consultant who conducted the cost of service study and the UAC recommended a tax-based allocation method for paying for the cost of street lighting. This provides for a rate increase for residential, general service, industrial service and nonprofit tax-exempt, while general service demand, primary service, and municipal water pumping would have decreases. The goal is to reach a full cost of service billing structure. Mayor Sargent opened the public hearing at 9:57 p.m. Dr. Larry Schueler, 135 Oak Crest Avenue, expressed concern because those people least prepared to pay higher rates, those on fixed incomes, seem to be receiving the largest increase. Councilman Wight sympathized with Dr. Schueler's concerns but A n oted the Cityfis prevented by..la~, from subsidizing rate classes. Mayor Sargen~the ~g at 10:01 p.m. -8- 2054 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 6, 1991 LEGISLATION: 6. Consideration of Electric Rate Increase. Electric Rate Revision Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance by title, entitled (Cont'd) - ORDINANCE NO. 2646 ORDINANCE No. 2646 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES altering the rates for the sale of electricity; amending Section 3 of Ordinance 2608; amending Section 9 of Ordinance 2054 as most recently amended by Section 10 of Ordinance 2637; amending Section 3 of Ordinance 2608 as most recently amended by Section 2 of Ordinance 2637; amending Section 11 of Ordinance 2054 as most recently amended by Section 5 of Ordinance 2608; amending Section 2 of Ordinance 2173 as most recently amended by Section 6 of Ordinance 2608; amending Section 6 of Ordinance 2273 as most recently amended by Section 6 of Ordinance 2608; and amending Sections 13.12.030, 13.12.040, 13.12.041, 13.12.042, 13.12.060, 13.12.071, and 13.12.073 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. Councilman Hallett moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title. The motion was seconded by Councilman Wight and carried unanimously. Presentation by Port 7. Presentation by Port Angeles Salmon Club and Port of Port Angeles for the Ediz Angeles Salmon Club Hook Launch Ramp and Port of Port Angeles Jerry Hendricks, Port of Port Angeles, stated that there is currently a three-party arrangement between the City, Salmon Club, and the Port on the boat launch. The Port and the Salmon Club propose that the City assume responsibility for the improvements on the launch ramp and then lease these responsibilities back to the Salmon Club. Councilman Nicholson questioned what would happen if performance was not satisfactory - would the property revert to the Port? Mr. Hendricks stated that this had not been addressed, but he would take the matter back to the Port for consideration. The second portion of the proposal is a trade for property adjacent to the Boat Haven. The proposal is to trade use of property approximately 18 feet wide adjacent to the ship yard in order to control water runoff in that area. Public Works Director Pittis stated this would not have any adverse affects on the Waterfront Trail, but would mean moving the trail slightly closer to the street which would be offset by curbing for safety. The curb would be paid for by the Port because it is an addition to the plans for the trail. Tom Bond, President of the Port Angeles Salmon Club, stated the willingness of the Salmon Club to assume the responsibility for the boat launch ramp. He cited the Club's financial status and fiscal ability to provide for the ramp upkeep. He indicated the Salmon Club would support Option Three, but could accept with Option Four. Councilman Cornell restated the proposition in that the City would take over and own the boat ramps but would turn the operation and maintenance over to the Salmon Club. Councilman Nicholson stated he had no concerns that the Salmon Club could perform to the agreement and he moved to adopt Option Three. Mayor Sargent asked if this would have to be taken back to the Port Commissioners after the Council's decision. Mr. Hendricks responded he was authorized to put an agreement together around Option Three; however, Option Four would require he take it back to the Commissioners. Councilman Wight seconded the motion. City Manager Pomeranz recommended Option Four as it offered the most protection to the City. Councilman Lemon stated he was also more comfortable with Option Four. Councilman Nicholson then changed his motion to Option Four: The City of Port Angeles could take over boat launch facilities. The Salmon Club would operate and manage such facilities entirely at the Club's expense, ff the Salmon Club fails to satisfy the City of Port Angeles, the ownership would revert to the Port of Port Angeles. Councilman Ostrowski stated his support for Option Four. Councilman Wight accepted the change in the motion. A vote was taken on the -9- 2055 CITY (X)UNCIL MEETING August 6, 1991 LEGISLATION: motion which carried unanimously. Port Angeles Salmon Mayor Sargent recessed the meeting for a break at 10:20 p.m.. The meeting Club and Port of reconvened at 10:40 p.m. Port Angeles Planning Commission $. Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 1991 Minutes of July 24, 1991 A. Zoning Code Amendment - ZCA 91 (06)04 - Clallam County Emergency Housing Zoning Code Center: City-grute. Amendment ZCA 91(06)04 Mayor Sargent stated the need to set a public hearing on a request for consideration of a zoning code amendment to allow temporary emergency housing by conditional use permit in the Light Industrial district. Councilman Cornell moved to set a public hearing for August 20, 1991. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Olympic Estates PRD B. Planned Residential Development - Olympic Estates - PRD 91 (07)02, Eckard PRD 91(07)02 Avenue east of Wabash Street. Mayor Sargent stated this was a proposal for a 4-unit Planned Residential Development in the RS-9 Single-Family District. Councilman Cornell questioned the open space area which was stated as being 43 %. Mr. George Cassidy, Seattle Resident, pointed out all of the open space on a larger map, which comprised 43 % of the lot. Councilman Cornell asked if a private lane shown on the back of the property would service these units. Mr. Cassidy answered it would not. Councilman Corneli moved to approve the Planned Residential Development citing the following conditions, findings, and conclusions: CONDITIONS: (A.) Development and final plat shall be substantially in accord with the four-page set of plans titled "Olympic Estates~, dated received on June 5, 1991, by the Planning Department, except as may be modified by conditions stated herein. (B.) Prior to final PRD and plat approval, Eckard Avenue shall be improved to City standards, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, and paving along the frontage of the PRD, or the applicant shall enter into a non-protest agreement for the formation of an L.I.D. for the purpose of installation of the required improvements. All work shall be inspected and approved by the Department of Public Works. (C.) Prior to final PRD and plat approval, the applicant shall provide a storm water drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval: a.) Roof leaders/footings should drain to the pond; b.) Culverts shall be installed underneath the driveways; c.) Install or clean out a drainage ditch on the south side of Eckard Avenue from the west margin of the site to Wabash Street. d.) The outlet control on the pond shall not exceed the predevelopment conditions. (D.) The one-way circular drive shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide and have an all-weather surface. (E.) A fire hydrant capable of delivering 1,000 gallons per minute shall be within 250 feet of any home; or an alternative would be to sprinkler the homes and have a fire hydrant within 500 feet of any home. (F.) A sign on Eckard Avenue at the entrance of the driveway is required, indicating the four addresses of the homes. (G.) Comply with all State and local Building and Fire Codes. (H.) Submit for final PRD approval a detailed landscape plan which shows trees to be preserved, and number, type, quantity, and location of new materials. The plan shall clearly demonstrate that the 30 % common usable open space is usable and accessible. (I.) The project may not be constructed in phases. (J.) Electrical utilities serving the houses shall be placed underground. FINDINGS: (1.) The approval is for four detached single-family dwelling units on four lots ranging in area from 6,246 square feet to 7,115 square feet, and a common area lot of 19,990 square feet on a 1.15-acre parcel of land. (20 The Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Port Angeles have been reviewed with respect to the proposed Planned Residential Development and plat. (3.) The property is zoned single-family residential (RS-9). (4.) The proposed density of the project is 3.48 dwelling units per acre. (5.) The development plans of record (Sheets A1 - A4) were filed with the City on June 5, 1991. (6.) The Planning Commission's recommendation of preliminary PRD approval is based upon compliance with Sections 17.70.050 and .120 of the Zoning Ordinance. CONCLUSIONS: (A.) The proposed PRD is consistent with the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan, and specifically, the following Goals, Policies, and Objectives: GOALS A community where development and use of the land are done in a manner that is compatible with the environment, the characteristics of the use and the users. A community of viable neighborhoods and variety of opportunities for personal -10- 2056 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 6, 1991 LEGISLATION: interaction, fulfillment and enjoyment, attractive to people of all ages, characteristics and interests. Residential Policies Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 19; Urban Design Olympic Estates Policy No. 2; Open Space Policy No. 3; Land Use Objectives Nos. 1 and 3. (B.) PRD (Cont'd) The proposed density of 3.48 dwelling units per acre meets the allowances contained in Section 17.70.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. (C.) The common open space provided by the PRD exceeds the required minimum of 30% and is compatible with, and appropriate for the urban context in which it is located. The usability and accessibility of the common open space will be reviewed and approved at the time of final PRD approval. (D.) The proposed development, as conditioned, creates a residential environment of higher quality than that normally achieved by traditional residential development. (E.) The proposed development will be compatible with the suburban residential environment in which it would be located. (F.) The project would be adequately served by the existing Eckard Avenue. The PRD has been conditioned to ensure the portion of Eckard Avenue along the PRD frontage is improved to the standards contained in the Subdivision Ordinance. (G.) The proposal is smaller than four acres and therefore may not be constructed in phases. (H.) The development contains less than four acres; therefore, there must be special circumstances in order to fulfill the intent of the PRD Ordinance. The applicant has stated an intent to preserve much of the wooded character of the site and to preserve the low-lying wetland in the form of a pond. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion. Councilman Wight clarified this would be approval of the preliminary site plan. A vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Police Chief Cleland reported on the incident with the classic car club about which the Planning Commission had received a letter. Chief Cleland stated the State Patrol is conducting an internal investigation into the matter but no results would be available for at least 30 days. Councilman Cornell stated that the Planning Commission would defer to Council on this matter. Councilman Wight moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 1991. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Local Area Network 9. Request authorization from Information Systems Steering Committee to advertise Call for Bids for proposals for city-wide local area network. Mayor Sargent stated this was a request to authorize advertising for proposals for an initial city-wide network which has been budgeted as part of the Automation Plan. Councilman Hallett moved to authorize advertising for an initial City-wide network to include cabling, hardware, software, and installation and support services. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion which carried unanimously. City's Financial 10. Resolution adopting the City's Financial Management Policy. Manag~nent Policy - RESOLUTION NO. Mayor Sargent read the Resolution by title, entitled 29-91 RESOLUTION NO. 29-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES adopting the City's Financial Management Policy. Councilman Nicholson moved to pass the Resolution as read by title. Councilman Cornell seconded the motion which carried unanimously. City's Investment Policy 11. Resolution adopting the City's Investment Policy. RESOLUTION NO. 30-91 Mayor Sargent read the Resolution by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. 30-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE City of Port Angeles adopting the City's Investment Policy. Mayor Sargent stated the Investment Policy was adopted in 1986 and changes made in 1987. Councilman Ostrowski moved to pass the Resolution as lead by title. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion. Councilman Comell asked if we did, indeed, have a code of ethics. City Manager -11- 2057 CITY COUNCIL ~G August 6, 1991 LEGISLATION: Pomeranz stated that we did not have a City Code of Ethics, and City Attorney Knutson indicated ther~ ,wore~ State statutes which have been incorporated by City's Investment reference in the Personnel Policies which would qualify as a Code of Ethics. Policy (Cont'd) Discussion followed concerning the rating of the top 25 national banks which Manager Ziomkowski indicated involves size and amount of assets. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Wight, Manager Ziomkowski indicated the City can legally invest with local banks which are part of larger organizations, as qualified under Public Deposit Protection. The City, by charter, can only do business with banks in Washington State. Councilman Hallett stated that, in 1986, investments in South Africa had been a matter addressed by the City; he inquired if this statement was still in the policy. Ms. Godbey and Ms. Ziomkowsld stated that the policy had been completely rewritten and that, because the City complies with Federal standards, this statement was eliminated. Council asked that a general language statement be put back into the policy with the intent being that human rights and moral issues must be a consideration before investing. Councilman Comell asked if the Personnel Policies included some method of making certain staff was abreast of financial matters. Manager Pomeranz indicated the City's Investment Policy would be submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for certification. Also, he stated that a policy statement regarding personnel training could be added. A vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Request for out-of-state 12. Request for out-of-state travel - Integrated Finance System site visits travel Mayor Sargent noted the request was part of the Integrated Finance System acquisition, which had been included in the budget. The request was to send Finance Director Godbey, City Light Director Titus, and Information Systems Manager Danks to Monrovia, Lancaster, and Clovis, California to evaluate the software of two of the proposed systems at an approximate cost of $2,500.00. Councilman Nicholson moved to approve the out-of-state travel. Councilman Cornell seconded the motion which carried unanimously. PADA Request for staff 13. Request from Port Angeles Downtown Association for City staff to investigate to investigate legalities legalities regarding air lease and ground easements on City parking lot. Mayor Sargent read a request from the Downtown Association stating its support of the concept for an air lease and ground easements for the construction of a motel on property legally described as Tidelands East, Block One, West 40 Feet of South 100 Feet of West 45 Feet of Lot 2. The Association feels it will benefit the City and have minin~al impact. Councilman Nicholson stated that he believed this was already being done; therefore, he moved to direct staff to investigate the legalities of air lease and ground easements on City parking lot property. Councilman Cornell removed himself from the discussion and vote due to appearance of fairness. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion. Councilman Wight stated that a member of the Downtown Association urged Council to carefully consider the types of conditions to be imposed, as the City would not want to enter into agreements and then have the project fail. Councilman Nicholson accepted that statement as a friendly amendment, that Staff should protect the City's interests. A vote was taken on the motion which carried by a majority vote, with Councilman Cornell abstaining. Councilman Cornell then rejoined the Council. Public Nuisances - 14. Consideration of Resolution of Public Nuisances RESOLUTION NO. 31-91 Mayor Sargent asked about the information received at the last meeting that there was City-owned property which needed to be cleared. Public Works Director Pittis stated that staff had investigated and the City did not own any property in that area. Staff provided Council with a revised Exhibit "A" list of public nuisances. Mayor Sargent inquired as to whether there was any public comment pertinent to these properties. There being no public comment, Mayor Sargent read the Resolution by title, entitled -12- 2058 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 6, 1991 LEGISLATION: RESOLUTION NO. 31-91 Public Nuisances A RESOLUTION OF THE City Council of the City of Port (Cont'd) Angeles, Washington, declaring the existence of a public nuisance and requiring the elimination of such nuisance. Councilman Ostrowski moved to pass the Resolution as read by rifle. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cornell. A vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Request for easements 15. Request for easements on Lower Elwha right-of-way for Earl Parke and the Dry Creek Water Association. Earl Parke Council considered the request for an easement along City-owned property for ingress and egress to private property in Section 2, Township 30 North, Range 7 West. A previous easement had been granted in 1988 to CIP Incorporated for access to seven home sites. Another property owner has requested use of the corridor as a means of ingress and egress to serve his five-acre parcel. Councilman Ostrowski moved to approve the request for an easement along this corridor subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the easement. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Dry Creek Water Cot~ideration of easement for the Dry Creek Water Association. Association The Dry Creek Water Association has agreed to the conditions set forth by the City for the easement. Councilman Ostrowski moved to grant the easement to the Dry Creek Water Association in Section 2, Township 30 North, 7 West, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the July 12, 1991 letter. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Call For Bids For 16. Authorize the call for bids for Animal Shelter Services. Animal Shelter Services Council considered whether the City should call for bids for the provision of Animal Shelter Services for the year, 1992. Although the City has contracted with the Humane Society for the past several years, there appears to be interest by other agencies in providing such services. Councilman Hallett asked what other types of agencies are interested. City Manager Pomeranz stated that there was at least one other private individual interested in providing this service. Councilman Nicholson moved to call for bids for providing Animal Shelter Services for the year, 1992. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion which carried unanimously. INFORMATION Mayor Sargent questioned Public Works Director Pittis as to what the cost was going AGENDA to be for the storm water drain permits. Mr. Pittis responded that discharge permits were needed for the landfill, the wastewater treatment plant, and the corporation yard, but that the cost was not known because it could vary depending on the requirements. The landfill and treatment plant are in group applications with a number of similar facilities. How to apply for the corporation yard permit is still being worked on, but cost is not known. Mayor Sargent extended congratulations to the Police Department on their 70 + seat belt program. Police Chief Cleland stated that 70 + percent seat belt usage was a goal by 1992. City employees have shown 90% seat belt usage. Chief Cleland stated the City employees actually earned this award and that they are doing a great job. Mayor Sargent received a letter from Jim ~airperson for 'Yes to Youth~, commending John Hicks of the Parks and Recreation Department for his outstanding work in the position of co-chairman. The City has received a petition regarding the La Vista PRD. Mayor Sargent asked Council if, in view of the petition, they wished to hold a public heating. Councilman Comell excused himself from discussion due to appearance of fairness. Attorney Knutson stated that if the Council wished to reconsider, because of the petition, it must put the question of reconsideration on the next agenda so the project proponents could again address whether or not there should be a public hearing. Mayor Sargent questioned whether it would return to Council for final approval. -13- 2059 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 6, 1991 INFORMATION Attorney Knutson answered that it would. There was no interest in reconsidering. AGENDA: (Cont'd) LATE ITEMS/ Councilman Wight reported that the County Health Advisory Committee had met that COMMITTEE day and that County Health Officer Dr. Locke wished to make a presentation to the REPORTS UAC regarding water fluoridation and its merits. Councilman Wight has asked staff to arrange that at the nearest opportunity. Councilman Wight received a one and one-half page letter from Congressman Swift on the Elwha Dams which he will have put in the next information packet for Council. Mayor Sargent stated that Congressman Swift's office had called the City today regarding a visit by one of Senator Bradley's staff members. Councilman Nicholson announced that the Exchange Club wants to present a new flag to the Fire Department at the second meeting in September. Councilman Nicholson would like their representatives to lead the Pledge of Allegiance at that meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 11:35 P.M. for the purpose of discussing litigation and real estate. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 A.M. Cler~ - / .... M ~ cc .226 -14-