Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/20/19912060 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington August 20, 1991 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Sargent called thc special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to SPECIAL MEETING: order at 6:09 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Sargent, Councilmen Cornell, Hallett, Nicholson, Ostrowski and Wight. Members Absent: Councilman Lemon. Staff Present: Manager Pomeranz, Attorney Knutson, Acting Clerk McFarland, S. Brodhun, M. Cleland, B. Collins, L. Glenn, K. Godbey, J. Pittis, B. Titus, K. Ridout, S. Hursh, G. Kenworthy, J. Hicks. Public Present: L. Colby, G. Braun, L. Beil, M. Brittenham, S. Oliver, K. Williams. B. Haselton, D. Christensen, D. Somers, G. & D. Miller, G. Pettit. RETURN TO OPEN The meeting returned to open session at 7:13 P.M. SESSION: CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Sargent called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to REGULAR MEETING: order at 7:25 P.M. PLEDGE OF The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Sargent. ALLEGIANCE: CORRECTION TO Mayor Sargent announced the need for correction to the minutes of the July 16th CITY COUNCIL City Council meeting, relating to the Shoreline Management Permit, SMA- MINUTES OF JULY 16, 91(05)117, Austin - Railroad Avenue extended. The minutes reflect Condition B 1991: to say: "The proposed fence along Peabody right-of-way shall not be constructed.", and should be corrected to read: "... may be constructed, per modified fence plan, Exhibit 'A'." And secondly, the minutes included Condition E, being: "Rock wall shall not be constructed unless and until a development plan has been approved for the remainder of the site.", and the minutes should be corrected to note that this particular condition was not intended to be part of the motion. Councilman Cornell moved to correct the minutes of the July 16th meeting to correct Condition B of Shoreline Management Permit, SMA-91(05)117, Austin - Railroad Avenue extended, to read as follows: "The proposed fence along Peabody right-of-way may be constructed, per modified fence plan, Exhibit 'A'.", and to remove Condition E. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion, which carried by a majority vote, with Councilman Hallett abstaining. APPROVAL OF Mayor Sargent noted the correction to the August 6th minutes prepared by the MINUTES OF Planning Director. Councilman Ostrowski moved that the minutes of the August REGULAR MEETING 6th meeting be approved as corrected and placed on file. Councilman Hallett OF AUGUST 6, 1991: seconded the motion. Mayor Sargent offered a correction to page 13, second paragraph from the bottom, referring to a letter received from Jim Borte. Also, on page 14, Councilman Wight said he had received a one and one-half page letter from Congressman Swift which he would put in the next information packet, and the Mayor had not yet received it. Councilman Wight indicated he no longer had the letter in his possession. Manager Pomeranz advised Council he would make certain the letter is included in the next Council packet. Councilman Wight posed a question regarding page 7, paragraph 1, where he asked when the County was required to submit Urban Growth designations to the State. Director Collins responded it was rather complicated, and he noted the Planning Department had been told the specific adoption of the Urban Growth Areas by the County would not happen for at least two years. He asked Director Collins if that was true. Director Collins said what he had indicated came from discussions with the County Planner some time ago. The County would not be 2061 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 1991 APPROVAL OF adopting the Urban Growth Areas until they adopted the Comprehensive Plan, MINUTES: which was due by July 1, 1993. Councilman Wight expressed concern with the (Cont'd) length of time and felt there should be some indication that the City and County were working together before that. The City has processes which are part of the Urban Growth legislation which cannot wait two years. Councilman Wight also cited the bottom of page 7, next to the last paragraph, regarding a motion to amend a motion, where Councilman Ostrowski seconded and was stated to have voted against the amendment. Councilman Cornell also said he was quoted as being the second person who voted in favor of that amendment, and he did not. Mayor Sargent suggested listening to the tape to determine what had actually occurred. Councilman Wight referenced the bottom of page 8, next to the last paragraph, where it reads: "Councilman Wight sympathized with Dr. Schueler's concerns, but noted the City is prevented by law from subsidizing rate classes." It was intended that the statement reflect the City Light utility is prevented by law from subsidizing rate classes. He asked that the minutes so reflect this correction. On call for the question, the motion to approve the minutes of the August 6, 1991, meeting, as corrected, carried unanimously. FINANCE: 1. Progress payment to Olympic Electric for 5th and Peabody signal Councilman Ostrowski moved to pay Olympic Electric the sum of $25,334.79 with retainage of $1,333.41, for the 5th and Peabody signal. Councilman Cornell seconded the motion. Councilman Ostrowski asked when the lights would be activated. Public Works Director Pittis responded the lights will go into operation next week, in a flash mode for three days and then routine operation. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of acddents. Director Pittis indicated that service announcements will be in the media announcing the operation. The "stop ahead" signs will remain. Since there are presently four-way stops at the intersection, no major problems are anticipated. On call for the question the motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Cornell moved to accept the items contained on the Consent Agenda, including: (1) Correspondence from Washington State Liquor Control Board; (2) Request for approval of Civil Service Interview Board members; (3) Request to call for bids on watermain replacement project; (4) Payroll for 8-4-91 of $285,955.09; and (5) Vouchers of $547,108.57. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion. After limited discussion and on call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. ITEMS FROM THE Mayor Sargent added a proclamation from thc DAV to the Agenda as Item lA. COUNCIL/AUDIENCE TO BE CONSIDERED/ Councilman Hallett had a general question regarding records of business owners PLACED ON THE to determine a process whereby the City knows who owns what business in town. AGENDA: This item was added to the Agenda as No. 13. LEGISLATION: Proclamation United 1. Proclamation recognizing September 9, 1991 as UNITED WAY DAY in the Way Day State of Washington: Mayor Sargent read a Proclamation recognizing September 9, 1991, as UNITED WAY DAY in Port Angeles and urged all citizens to preserve the long tradition of caring for one another by volunteering and contributing to United Way. Proclamation- la. Proclamation recognizing August 26 - September 7, 1991 as Disabled Disabled American American Veterans Forget-Me-Not Week: Veterans Week Mayor Sargent read a Proclamation recognizing Disabled American Veterans Forget-Me-Not Week August 26th to September 7th in Port Angeles and urged the support of all citizens and organizations for that week. -2- 2062 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 1991 LEGISLATION: 2. Consideration of Public Nuisances (Public Com~nent): (Cont'd) Staff provided Council with a revised Exhibit "A" list of public nuisances. Mayor Consideration of Public Sargent inquired as to whether there was any public comment pertinent to these Nuisances - Resolution properties. There being no public comment, Mayor Sargent read the Resolution No. 32-91 by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. 32-91 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, declaring the existence of a public nuisance and requiring the elimination of such nuisance. Councilman Ostrowski moved to pass the Resolution as read by title. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Issuance of LID 211 3. Adopt Ordinance for Issuance of LID 211 Bonds: Bonds - Ordinance No. 2647 Mayor Sargent reviewed the background of the financing of the improvements in LID 211 and the need for the issuance of the bonds. Councilman Hallett asked if interest rates were available and Fred Eoff of Piper, Jaffray and Hopwood responded the interest rate would be 7.002%. Councilman Hallett noted the document included the name of a former Council member to which Mr. Eoff apologized to Councilman Cornell for not having made the name change. Mr. Eoff explained the background of the financing of the LID and noted that if delinquencies occur, the LID Guaranty Fund of the City will cover. He has no knowledge of any LID in the City of Port Angeles ever going through default. Councilman Cornell questioned the listing of the appraised value of the land in the LID area as $5,000,000. Mr. Eoff said the appraisal is probably on the low side, as it was completed in late 1989. Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2647 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of Port Angeles, Washington, authorizing the issuance and sale of Local Improvement District No. 211 bonds in the principal amount of $1,020,927.63; providing the form, terms, conditions, and covenants of said bonds; providing for the sale thereof; and providing for the disposition of the proceeds of the sale. Councilman Ostrowski moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title, and authorize publication by summary. Councilman Corneli seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Councilman Ostrowski moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the purchase agreement with Piper, Jaffray, and Hopwood. Councilman Cornell seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4. Public Hearings ZoningCodeAmendment A. Zoning Code Amendment - ZCA 91(06)04 - Clallam County Emergency ZCA 91(06)04 - Housingv LI, Light Industrial District, City-wide: Ordinance No. 2648 Councilman Wight asked the City Attorney about the apparent conflict between the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval and the recommendations of the Real Estate Committee. Attorney Knutson felt there was no problem, as the matter before Council is an amendment to the Zoning Code which applies generally without any specific project. The Real Estate Committee considered a specific project, but that should not properly be a consideration of the Council on this Zoning Code Amendment. Mayor Sargent opened the public hearing at 8:17 P.M. 2063 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 1991 LEGISLATION: Peter McConnell, 1012 West 15th Street, a Section 8 housing manager advised (Cont'd) Council there is a greater problem in emergency housing than appears on the surface. The situation can only get worse without assistance. Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 91(06)04 - Sandy Oliver, 2602-1/2 West 18th Street, Executive Director of Clallam County Ordinance No. 2648 Emergency Housing Center, shared the views of the Center on the request being (Cont'd) made that a conditional use be added to the Light Industrial Zone District which would allow emergency shelter facilities on a temporary basis, subject to finding that the residential use would not be subject to excessive noise and other hazards associated with nearby industrial uses. The major reason to amend the Zoning Code to include emergency shelter in the Light Industrial District is to enable Clallam County Emergency Housing Center to apply for a conditional use permit on an annual renewal basis to build adjacent to Serenity House on land which has been leased for eight years and is vacant. This land cannot be used by expansion of Serenity House, as it has been rezoned to Light Industrial. Allowing emergency housing in the Light Industrial District will allow the Clallam County Emergency Housing Center to operate three facilities, all adjacent to one another; i.e., Serenity House, Diversified Industries Greenhouse, and the planned Evergreen Family Center which will house seven homeless families and provide on-site day care. This will not only increase the capability of housing homeless families but will allow comprehensive provision of services between all facilities. The Port Commissioners have unanimously given their consent for the requested Zoning Code Amendment and have given the Center a long-term lease for the property. She asked the City Council to make the property available for use as a 24-hour residential emergency shelter by families by amending the Light Industrial Zoning Code to include these services. Margaret Brittenham, 1857 Edgewood Drive, coordinator of the emergency shelter grant program for St. Vincent's, indicated they have four units as transitional housing and are well aware of the need for family shelter. It is a continuing and urgent problem and Ms. Brittenham supported what Ms. Oliver said and urged the approval of the zoning change which would permit the family center. Mayor Sargent closed the public hearing at 8:27 P.M and read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2648 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles amending Section 17.32.040 of Ordinance No. 2329 as most recently amended by Ordinance No. 2551, by adding temporary emergency residential uses as a conditional use in the Light Industrial District. Councilman Hallett moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title and authorized publication in summary form, citing the following findings and conclusions: FINDINGS: 1. The stated purpose of the Light Industrial Zone District is to "preserve land for industrial uses in a planned, park-like setting, in close proximity to airports and highways"; 2. The bulk of the LI-zoned lands is located around the Airport, with smaller clusters of LI-zoned land located at Boulevard and "C" Streets, in the vicinity of Tumwater and Valley Streets on the Downtown waterfront; 3. Residential uses are not normally considered to be compatible with industrial uses; 4. The proposed use will be allowed only on a temporary basis and only if the use would not be adversely impacted by noise and other nuisances or hazards which may occur in industrial areas; 5. In the event of incompatibility between an approved residential use and industrial uses, the Conditional Use Permit shall become void, and the residential use will be required to cease operation; CONCLUSIONS: A. The potential for land use conflict is minimized by the limitations placed on the Conditional Use; B. The Zoning Code Amendment is in the public use and interest; C. The amendment is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan; D. The amendment is consistent with the intent of the LI Zoning District. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion. Councilman Hallett asked Planning Director Collins about the type of housing and if it would return to Council by way of a conditional use permit. Director Collins said it would only return to Council if a conditional use permit was appealed. He also corrected a word in the Ordinance in the new portion of the section. Mayor Sargent reminded Council this is not a site-specific amendment and the conditional use permit is for a period of one year and would have to be renewed at the end of that period. In the ensuing discussion on CUP renewals, Director -4- 2064 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 1991 LEGISLATION: Collins indicated the Zoning Code allows for the renewal of conditional use (Cont'd) permits. Zoning Code Amendment On call for the question the motion carried unanimously. ZCA 91(06)04 - Ordinance No. 2648 (Coned) Amendment to B. Consideration of amendment to downtown sign code (Ordinance 2152): Downtown Sign Code - Ordinance No. 2649 Councilman Cornell requested clarification in that the proposed ordinance would not regulate the wording of non-commercial signs, but the size of those signs is still limited under the remainder of the ordinance. Therefore, readerboards are acceptable as long as they are within the size limits of what is allowed for a business. Attorney Knutson agreed this was his understanding. Planning Director Collins noted the distinction made between commercial and non-commercial signs. If the sign was dearly non-commercial, such as at Morse Creek, the regulations would not apply. It has been the Planning Department's understanding that if a commercial sign occasionally carries a community message, that sign's size would be regulated, including the area with the community service message. Councilman Cornell asked if he applied a sign to the wall of his building, 10 feet high and 100 feet long saying "No New Taxes", would that come under the amendment. Director Collins said the Sign Code does not regulate non-commercial speech. Mayor Sargent asked Councilman Cornell if he had a conflict of interest in this matter. Councilman Cornell responded he did not believe he did. Attorney Knutson said throughout this process the City has accepted input from any number of individuals and groups, and suggested Councilman Cornell might disclose his interest in one group which has had input into this process. Councilman Cornell said he has a business which is affected; his signage for the business is affected by the ordinance; and he is a member of the board of the Downtown Association which has from time to time taken a stand on the ordinance but has not decided to take a stand on this particular amendment. Councilman Wight said he was a member of the Planning Commission at the time the first drafts of the revised Sign Code were presented to the Council. He had been working as an advisory board member on the ordinance referred to the Commission by Council at that time. Mayor Sargent opened the public hearing at 8:40 P.M. Ken Williams, 2504 South Oak Street, felt the information provided by staff was totally incorrect. The issue as to the unconstitutionality of the Sign Code relating to its restriction on First Amendment rights was first raised in a lawsuit filed in 1986 on behalf of Haguewood's Restaurant, Inc. That lawsuit was dismissed when in 1989 the City Council found that maintaining certain signs which serve tourist- related functions and larger facilities within the downtown was wise and grandfathered certain signs, mooting Haguewood's lawsuit. Those issues were specifically raised and the present litigation which raises those issues again is an exact copy of the prior litigation which was dismissed when the grandfather clause was removed in a 1990 ordinance. Staff says no attempt to enforce regulation of speech under the Sign Code has ever taken place. The Code regulates the content of signs very narrowly. Signs within the downtown may only contain the name of the business establishment and services rendered on those premises. The Sign Code does not and will not be relieved of its constitutional infirmity by the proposed amendment. The Sign Code is permeated with requirements for permits. The exemptions in the Sign Code are very limited and do not relate to free speech signs. The proposed amendment does not do what staff wants it to do. He suggested returning the amendment to staff and keep the Sign Code as presently set forth. He contended the original Sign Code has violated the civil rights of the citizens by restricting free speech protection granted by both Federal and State Constitutions. He introduced the possibility of loss of Federal funding for highways if his client's sign is forcibly removed. He contended the City had not conducted the necessary studies before enacting the original Sign Code. Councilman Nicholson considered Mr. Williams' statement to be in opposition to this particular ordinance and he asked if the opinions stated by Mr. Williams are the same to be used in his argument before the judge. Mr. Williams responded an argument on summary judgment will be held on Friday as to the constitutional validity on the face of the ordinance. Councilman Nicholson pointed out that the dispute is one of a difference of legal opinion. -5- 2065 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 1991 LEGISLATION: Attorney Knutson, to set the record straight on items addressed by Mr. Williams, (Cont'd) said he does l~°t:agre~' that'.the ordinance is unconstitutional on its face. This amendment would clarify and specify that it has never been the intent of the Amendment to Downtown Sign Code to regulate non-commercial speech. Mr. Williams is Downtown Sign Code - incorrect when he says the City has attempted to enforce the ordinance to regulate Ordinance No. 2649 non-commercial speech. Both the Planning Department and the Building Division (Cont'd) have said there have never been any such attempts to enforce the ordinance. His complaints in court never used the words "freedom of speech" or "First Amendment". This issue was first raised in a brief filed a month ago. The City has now taken the opportunity to try to avoid any means Mr. Williams might otherwise have for what we think would be improperly obtaining attorney's fees to make sure it is clear this ordinance was never intended to regulate non- commercial speech. With regard to the other alleged problems with the ordinance, as Mr. Williams has indicated, those issues will be addressed this Friday before the court. The City is taking the position that the statute to which he refers concerning the Federal Highway Act does not apply. There is case law before the State of Washington which concurs with that position. The State Department of Transportation also concurs there is no problem with the City's ordinance in this instance. The only intent of this particular ordinance is to address the one narrow issue with regard to non-commercial speech. There is no other way the ordinance regulates non-commercial speech. Councilman Hallett noted that Mr. Williams alluded to a reason for the grandfathering of the previous ordinance. He made an interpretation that was done for reasons which did not enter into the discussion and were not specifically cited as reasons for the grandfather clause. His interpretation of why the original ordinance was rescinded is just that - his interpretation. Mr. Williams asked to respond to Councilman Hallett's comments. He read a paragraph in the ordinance amending the original sign code and said it was contained in the sign code, although the paragraph cited was only one of the "whereasM paragraphs. Councilman Nicholson voiced confusion as to when the sign ordinance was originally adopted in 1981; it was adopted at the request of the Downtown Association basically stating there would be a grandfather danse which would allow those signs already in existence, non-conforming to the ordinance, five years in order to be in conformity. Attorney Knutson said originally it was seven years, but it was shortened to five years. Councilman Cornell said the original ordinance had a grandfather clause of six months. It was the In:st amendment about a year later that extended it to five years. Councilman Nicholson noted that, during that period of time, almost all of the signs in the City did conform except, perhaps, five or six that did not. Even subsequent to that, there was a reluctance of only a very small number of sign owners to conform. After the period of time had expired, no action was taken by the City to force those non-conforming signs to conform. Attorney Knutson responded the City did start an enforcement process by notifying the non-conforming sign owners that they were going to have to remove their signs. Councilman Nicholson said although the ordinance had not been challenged to that point, Council amended the ordinance to say that those people who were non-conforming and had never obeyed the law and never conformed, did not have to, and then put in some language that said the reason they didn't have to was some of the signs had some of the values to which Mr. Williams alluded. This is the aspect of the ordinance that this Council amended. He contended what Mr. Williams was referring to had no relevance in any direction. Attorney Knutson added this issue has been raised by Mr. Williams in his briefs; it has been responded to by Attorney Knutson. Councilman Nicholson commented he had read all of the briefs submitted both by Mr. Williams and by City Attorney Knutson, and it was his considered opinion that the City Attorney's arguments and citations and interpretation of the law is far superior. Mayor Sargent closed the public hearing at 9:04 P.M. and read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2649 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, revising the section of the downtown sign ordinance that deals with the content of signs and amending Section 6 of Ordinance 2152 and PAMC 14.36.060. Councilman Nicholson moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title and to publish the full text. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion. -6- 2066 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 1991 . ~ LEGISLATION: Councilman Cornell expressed e size i~,i~-in that the amendment (Cont'd) appears to cover "content" of signs and not the size of signs. If the City continues to regulate the size of signs which are non-commercial, is free speech being Amendment to abridged? Attorney Knutson responded that the U. S. Supreme Court has said Downtown Sign Code - that sign regulations can be valid. Councilman Cornell said the Scenic Highways Ordinance No. 2649 Act, limits free speech in the sense that the sign at the bottom of Morse Creek has (Cont'd) some limits on what can be stated. Apparently, there are limitations which can be placed on free speech and still fall within the law. Attorney Knutson agreed. Councilman Wight, speaking to the motion, said it would appear sufficient evidence has been presented by both Mr. Williams and the City Attorney that the Sign Code may have abridged First Amendment rights, albeit from his perspective, inadvertently. He was one of many who worked on the Sign Code more than once, with a great deal of exasperation during the process. He is not sure the amendment will completely remedy the situation, but it appears it is a "no foul" remedy. If the City has been abridging someone's First Amendment rights illegally, it wasn't intended, and it is up to the City Council to try and fix it. The amendment should be passed as an indication of good faith to not abridge people's rights, now that the issue has been brought to Council's attention. Councilman Hallett echoed Councilman Wight's concerns. The Council's attempt is certainly not to abridge anybody's right to free speech. There has been more than a decade of opportunity to provide any amount of input that could enhance something that would be, in the opinion of the plaintiff in the current court case, in the interests of the community. It is unfortunate such opportunities were not pursued and instead, there has been an attempt to extract funds from the City as opposed to working collectively to solve the problem. The City appears to be doing all it can to be fair and equitable, and if the City unintentionally said something which could be construed as the taking of First Amendment rights, the last thing to do is leave the language in the Ordinance. T~he City A. tto,4rney has been correct to bring this to Council's attention. 't* ~ ~ On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. BREAK Mayor Sargent recessed the meeting for a break at 9:12 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M. Planning Commission A. Shoreline Management Permit - SMA-91(08)119- Port of Port.Angeles: 939 Minutes of August 14, Marine Drive 1991 The Planning Commission had recommended approval of a Shoreline Shoreline Management Management Permit to allow the fill of an existing log pond, converting the area Permit - SMA 91(08)119 to dry-land handling and storage of logs, located in the M-2, Heavy Industrial District. Councilman Nicholson moved to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the Shoreline Management Permit, SMA 91(08)119, subject to the following conditions, and citing the following findings and conclusions: CONDITIONS: (A) Comply with the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers, Departments of Ecology and Fisheries, and any agencies with jurisdiction; (B) Submit to the Department of Public Works for review and approval routes for any truck delivery of fill material; FINDINGS: 1. The approval is for fill of a 4.3 acre pond located at the K-Ply Mill facilities, 439 West Marine Drive; 2. The pond has received Substantial Development Permits for partial filling of the pond in 1977 and in 1985; 3. The total amount of Fill needed is estimated at 130,000 cubic yards of material; 4. The fill area is located in an existing industrially developed site and will be used for storage and handling -: of logs; 5. The property is designated Heavy Industrial (M-2) by the Port Angeles Zoning Code; 6. The project is subject to review by the Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and requires a hydraulics permit from the Department of Fisheries; 7. The Shoreline Master Program, Comprehensive Plan, and Zoning Ordinance have been reviewed with respect to this proposal; 8. The Port of Port Angeles assumed lead agency status for the purposes of SEPA and issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal; CONCLUSIONS: A. The proposal is consistent with respect to the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, specifically General Regulations C.1, C.4, C.5, and Use Activities F.12.a-f; B. The proposal is consistent with the policies and regulations of the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; C. This proposal will not be detrimental to the shoreline. Councilman Wight seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2067 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 1991 LEGISLATION: B. Shoreline Management Permit - SMA-91(08)120 - Daishowa America Co., (Cont'd) Ltd., Mill site on Marine Drive Shoreline Management This is a proposal to develop and improve with asphalt an 85-car employee parking Permit - SMA 91(08)120 area west of Marine Drive, with a foot bridge over an existing canal leading from the parking area to the Mill site, located in the M-2, Heavy Industrial District. The Planning Commission has recommend granting of this permit. Councilman Ostrowski moved to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve a Shoreline Management Permit to Dalshowa America to develop and improve with asphalt an 85-car employee parking area, subject to the following conditions and citing the following findings and conclusions: CONDITIONS: (A) The parking lot shall include at least one tree for each 10 spaces, located within the parking areas. Trees shall be of a type approved by the City, at 2-inch caliper at planting time, and planted in planting areas with minimum width of 10 feet; (B) The parking lot shall be graded to flow into catch basins prior to discharge to grassy swales; (C) Catch basins shall have an oil separator "T"; (D) Submit bridge details for review and approval by the City Engineer; FINDINGS: 1. The proposal is for construction of an 85-car parking lot and pedestrian bridge, as contained on one sheet set of plans titled "Employee Parking Lot and Lot Bridge"; 2. The subject property is identified as Heavy Industrial (M-2) by the Port Angeles Zoning Code; 3. The Shoreline Master Program requires that aesthetic considerations be actively promoted with development (General Regulation No. 7); 4. The Shoreline Master Program encourages, but does not require, parking be located away from the waterfront industrial areas. The proposed parking lot does not front on the Harbor nor the Strait of Juan de Fuca, but does front on a lagoon located on the base of Ediz Hook; 5. The Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, Chapter 15.08 PAMC, requires that the Planning Commission provide notice and conduct a public hearing on shoreline permit applications; 6. The City of Port Angeles SEPA Responsible Official has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal; CONCLUSIONS: A. The proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with the policies and regulations of the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program; B. The proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with the policies and regulations of the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; C. The proposal, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the shorelines. Councilman Wight seconded the motion. Councilman Wight spoke to the motion, noting there was a recommendation for some landscaping. There was a line of questioning during the testimony with regard to some aesthetics in landscaping, and the applicant's representative, Mr. Reed, responded with an affirmative that there would probably be some landscaping or aesthetics provided, whether or not it was a condition of approval. Councilman Wight then offered a friendly amendment to the motion to add a Condition D to read as follows: Landscaping consistent with the standards of the LI Zone, where possible, without further reducing the number of parking spaces. Councilman Ostrowski accepted the amendment. Councilman Hallett asked Planning Director Collins about the statements in the Department Report regarding the trees and tree sizes, and locations within the parking areas exclusive of any perimeter landscaping. Therefore, trees should be in the parking area, as well as landscaping around the parking lot. Director Collins agreed, mentioning the suggested language was taken from the LI District, which describes a standard for landscaping for industrial-type development. In the M-2 District, in which this property is located, there is no such standard. Councilman Hallett asked whether the language should refer to the landscape standard that applies in the LI Zone as a good reference point. Director Collins indicated the Planning Commission did not think trees were the most appropriate type of landscaping. Discussion followed concerning the possibility that different interpretations may be applied to the language pertinent to the landscaping. Councilman Cornell suggested a friendly amendment to use the landscaping language contained in the LI District standards. Mayor Sargent suggested landscaping consistent with the standards in the LI Zone. Councilman Hallett inquired as to whether the number of parking spaces would be impacted to which Dean Reed, Engineering Manager at Daishowa, responded landscaping would reduce available space in the parking lot. He pointed out it is an existing parking lot and the proposal is to enhance it for the use of employees who are being displaced from existing parking by what will soon be construction of the Waterfront Trail through the facility. An additional 45 spaces will be required and it is proposed to pave the parking lot, provide reasonable drainage and light, and provide a foot bridge for safe access across the existing ditch. -8- 2068 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 1991 LEGISLATION: Attorney Knutson cautioned Mr. Reed to restrict his comments strictly to (Cont'd) answering the question posed. Mr. Reed said placing the trees within the existing parking area, as opposed to the buffer zone which is surrounding, will eliminate Shoreline Management parking spots. In response to a question from Councilman Hallett as to how many Permit - SMA 91(08)120 spaces would be eliminated, Mr. Reed responded ten, at a minimum. (Cont'd) Councilman Nicholson asked Mr. Reed what the proposed landscaping would be. Mr. Reed said the drawing describes the area. Mr. Reed said the grass seeded buffer zone around the parking lot was part of surface water mitigation required by the Department of Fisheries. It is a 20-foot buffer zone around the entire area, and will provide ample opportunity for other landscaping effects. The Department of Fisheries has pointed out the need for an additional grass lined swale on the north side of the truck scale, which eliminated 15 parking spaces. Between the perimeter zone and the half-circle area adjacent to the truck scale, there will be ample grounds available for landscaping. Councilman Hallett noted the total number of parking spaces available at this time, without trees, would be 70, rather than 85. Mr. Reed said one of the conditions of the permit is compliance with the need for surface water treatment. Mayor Sargent asked Director Collins if the number of parking spaces cited in the fmdings of the Planning Commission should be changed from an 85-car parking lot to 70. Director Collins said the applicant had told the Planning Commission it would defer to the requirements of the Department of Fisheries, which would effectively reduce the number of parking spaces to 70. Director Collins noted the applicant had indicated additional parking, beyond the 70 spaces shown on the plan, might be obtained by restriping the spaces, so they left in 85 spaces. Councilman Cornell asked Director Collins if the requirement for landscaping was not only to comply with the aesthetics requirement in the Shoreline Master Program, but to make it more attractive to the Waterfront Trail. Director Collins agreed. Councilman Cornell suggested the possibility of eliminating reference to trees and just make it landscaping on the road side of the parking area which would include trees. Would that make it sufficient buffering between the parking lot and the Waterfront Trail? Director Collins said the only landscaping proposed is the grass filter strip requested by the Department of Fisheries. It would be necessary to review Councilman Cornell's proposal with the Department of Public Works to determine how it would affect safety and circulation in the parking lot. Councilman Hallett suggested the language of landscaping in conformance with the Light Industrial without further reducing the number of parking spaces. It is desirous to have landscaping wherever possible, without infringing on the parking lot. Director Collins said there could be a condition not to take away any more of the parking spaces and provide a landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. Councilman Cornell asked Mr. Reed if this would be acceptable and he stated his objection to requiring something in the M-2 District which is not required by the Code. Mayor Sargent pointed out that Finding No. 1 specifically states an 85-car parking lot, and asked Director Collins if that should be changed. It was agreed to leave Finding No. 1 as it came from the Planning Commission. Councilman Ostrowski amended his motion to add Condition D to read as follows: Landscaping consistent with the standards of the LI Zone, where practicable, without further reducing the number of parking spaces. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. Shoreline Management C. SHORELINE MANAGEMENTPERMIT- SMA-91(08)121- DAISHOWA Permit - SMA 91(08)121 AMERICA CO., LTD., Mill site on Marine Drive Mayor Sargent reviewed the proposal to install a series of improvements to the storm water drainage system for the Mill's east yard, located in the M-2, Heavy Industrial District. Councihnan Hallett moved to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for Daishowa America Co., Ltd., to install a series of improvements to the storm water drainage system for the Mill's east yard, subject to the following A. Obtain a right-of-way permit from Public Works for any work to occur within the Marine Drive right-of-way; B. Provide an oil separator "T" in the last catch basin before the sump pump on the downstream end; FINDINGS: 1. The approval is for modification of the east yard storm water collection system as -9- 2069 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 1991 LEGISLATION: depicted on the plan titled "East Yard Storm Water Collection"; 2. The proposed (Cont'd) modifications 'will not change the intensity of the use; 3. The property is designated I-[e~f'i~nd~/sirlhl~(M-2) by the Port Angeles Zoning Code; 4. The Shoreline Management Shoreline Master Program, Comprehensive Plan, and Zoning Ordinance have been Permit - SMA 91(08)121 reviewed with respect to this proposal; 5. The City of Port Angeles SEPA (Cont'd) Responsible Official has issued aDetermination of Non-Significance for the proposal; GON(~LUSIONS: A. The proposal is consistent with respect to the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, specifically General Regulation C.1 and C.4, and Natural Systems Element E.2; B. The proposal is consistent with the policies and regulations of the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; C. The proposal will not be detrimental to the shoreline. Councilman Wight seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Rezone Request- D. REZONE REQUEST- REZ-91(08)03 OLYMPIC MEMORIAL REZ 91(08)03 HOSPITAL, 824 Caroline Street Mayor Sargent reviewed the request to rezone property presently zoned RS-7, Residential Single-Family, to OC, Office Commercial, and noted the need to set a public hearing for September 3rd. Councilman Corneli moved to set a public hearing on REZ-91(08)03 for Olympic Memorial Hospital for September 3, 1991. Councilman Wight seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Subdivision E. FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - CITY LIGHTS, Viewcrest Avenue Approval - City Lights Viewcrest Avenue Councilman Ostrowsld moved to set a public meeting on September 3, 1991, to consider the final subdivision approval for City Lights. Councilman Cornell seconded the motion. Councilman Nicholson asked the difference between a public hearing and a public meeting. Attorney Knutson responded the State Subdivision Statute says in the case of preliminary plats the City Council has to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation at a public meeting. The recommendation is to be received at one meeting and set for deliberation at another meeting. In the case of final plat approval, the statute does not go into that amount of detail, but the Planning Department decided to pursue the mechanism, primarily because all of the documents in the final signed form are not presently available for Council to grant the approval. It will be ready at the next meeting. On call for the question the motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission F. Planning Commission Minutes of August 14, 1991 Minutes of August 14, 1991 Councilman Hallett moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission minutes of the August 14, 1991, meeting. Councilman Wight seconded the motion. Councilman Wight offered a correction to the minutes , page 8, where Mr. Philpott made a motion pertinent to CUP-91(08)13. The minutes do not reflect a second to the motion and a subsequent vote on the motion. Mr. Leonard seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. On call for the question, the motion to accept the minutes, as cOrrected, carried unanimously. CoUncilman Wight offered commentaries on the work performed by the CCURB Committee, in that the committee members working on the growth management issues, as well as the Planning Commission, have been doing a great deal of work on the City's behalf. The data prepared by the committee on the Urban Growth Area boundaries was very good data and he wanted to acknowledge those efforts. Mayor Sargent added that many comments had been made at the various public hearings regarding appreciation for the work done. The other committees are still working, and letters of appreciation will be sent to all the members of all the committees when the work has been accomplished. Councilman Cornell felt it appropriate to send the letters now. Requested Relief 6. Consideration of Relief from Provisions of Ordinance No. 2166 Ordinance No. 2166 Attorney Knutson advised Council that this matter has been resolved and should be removed from the agenda. -10- 2070 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 1991 LEGISLATION: 7. Request to award bid for clean-up and disposal of PCB-contaminated (Cont'd) material and 2nd and Valley substation. Award Bid for City Light had been authorized to call for bids for the removal of the PCB- Cleanup/Disposal contaminated soil at the 2nd and Valley Substation. Four bids were received, with of PCB Contaminated the lowest one being from Burlington Environmental. There were no local Material bidders, probably because of the large insurance coverage necessary and some of the other requirements in which there is no local experience or expertise. The contract does not include the cost to backfill the site. This will be done by a local contractor from the small works roster and will probably cost about $15,000. Councilman Hallett moved to award the bid for the PCB cleanup]disposal at the 2nd and Valley substation to the lowest responsible bidder, Burlington Environmental, in the amount of $133,412.02, including tax, and authorize the Light Department Director to sign the contract. Councilman Wight seconded the motion. Discussion followed concerning the procedure to be utilized in removing the contaminated soil. City Light Director Titus responded to an inquiry concerning the disposition of the material removed which will be disposed of at a hazardous waste landfill in Oregon. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. Agreement with 8. Consideration of Agreement with Olympic Memorial Hospital for Water Olympic Memorial Main: Hospital - Watermain Mayor Sargent reviewed the construction work taking place at the Hospital and the proposal to replace the existing six-inch asbestos-cement water line with a six- inch ductile iron main. The City would pay 50% of the replacement cost, up to a maximum of $40,000, and the Hospital would pay the inspection costs up to $2,000, in addition to their 50% and all amounts beyond the City maximum. Director of Public Works Pittis said he understood the agreement has not been presented to the Attorney's office for review, but the major items of interest are those in the memo which have to do with our commitment, as well as the Hospital's. With the construction underway, the existing pipeline will be exposed and replacement will guarantee the future of the line, which is the primary source of water for the Hospital. Councilman Cornell inquired as to where the $40,000 comes from to which Director Pittis responded it would come from the Water rates reserves, unbudgeted reserves of the utility. Councilman Ostrowski moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with the Hospital, once it arrives and is approved by the City Attorney. Councilman Wight seconded the motion. Councilman Wight discussed the funding, asking if it would be appropriate to replenish the fund in the 1992 budget, or if it can be otherwise assimilated. Director Pittls said it could be assimilated; although the rate make-up can be reviewed later this year, if desired. Councilman Cornell suggested that future budgets provide a contingency fund, assuming funding emergencies will occur. On call for the question the motion carried unanimously. Agreement with 9. Consideration of agreement with Port Angeles BMX Association for use of - Port Angeles BMX a portion of Lbtcoln Park: Association Mayor Sargent reviewed the request of the newly formed BMX Bicycle Association to utilize a portion of Lincoln Park for the purpose of operating a BMX American Bicycle Association-sanctioned track. The Parks and Recreation Department worked with a group of parents and youths in 1989 who wished to organize a club and use City property for skateboarding and riding BMX bikes. A certain area in Lincoln Park was designated; however, due to liability concerns and the high group insurance costs for skateboarding, the idea was dropped. The park was subsequently approached by Glen Miller who inquired about the possibility of building a BMX track at Lincoln Park. This is a nonprofit group, known as Port Angeles BMX Association, which received sanctioning from the ABA and has acquired insurance acceptable to the City Attorney's office. The proposed track would be in the area previously identified by the Parks -11- 2071 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 1991 LEGISLATION: Department. A top priority goal of both the City Council and the Parks Board is (Cont'd) development of youth programs. Agreement with Councilman Hallett moved that Council issue a permit, and the Mayor be Port Angeles BMX authorized to sign an agreement between the City and the Port Angeles BMX Association Association for the establishment of a sanctioned bicycle track at Lincoln Park. (Cont'd) Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion. coUncilman Nicholson asked Glen Miller, 348 East Park, to address the Council. Before Mr. Miller approached the microphone, Councilman Cornell inquired of the City Attorney as to the legality of the matter. The concern was whether or not the City can have a piece of property, access to which is limited to individuals belonging to a private club. Attorney Knutson said that certain areas of City parks are restricted to participants from specific organizations at certain times. In this particular situation, it would make a recreational opportunity available based on membership in a club for the purpose of making sure that the City's liability exposure is being protected. It was also pointed out that membership in the BMX Association is open to anyone without any discrimination. Councilman Nicholson asked Glen Miller the cost to be able to participate in this group. Glen Miller, 348 East Park, said the cost of a membership in the American Bicycle Association is $35 per year. There is a temporary, 30-day, membership available at a cost of $5, which is deducted from the annual dues if the individual joins the Association. Councilman Wight asked if the Parks and Recreation Department could work with the Association to open and supervise the facility during certain times when the BMX Association does not want to use it. Parks Director Brodhun responded that such use is a possibility, but we will need to make sure that it will not void the Association's insurance. Mr. Miller responded that had been discussed at the Park Board, and he personally would not have objections to the track being opened on occasion for other use. In his opinion, precautions can be taken by the Association to preclude exposure to liability for use of the track at Parks- supervised activities. On call for the question the motion carried unanimously. Statewide 10. Resolution in support of statewide enhanced 9-1-1: Enhanced 9-1-1 - Mayor Sargent announced that this issue will be on the ballot in the November Resolution election. The legislation is important for our area. The telephone start-up costs No. 33-91 have been waived. This is not just a local issue. Mayor Sargent read the Resolution by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. 33-91 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, supporting statewide implementation of Enhanced 911 and encouraging voters approval of Referendum 42 in the fall general election. Councilman Hallett moved to pass the Resolution as read by title. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion. Councilman Nicholson reported on witnessing a demonstration of the Enhanced 9-1-1, and he remarked on the completeness of the information displayed on the computer screen when the telephone is answered. Police Chief Cleland indicated the information will be provided by the Police Department's data base. Councilman Hallett asked Chief Cleland what benefit the legislation would be toward getting the system enhanced in our community. Chief Cleland replied it will provide a financial base for both implementation and on-going expenses. Councilman Hallett noted that the City had planned to go ahead with this on its own, and Chief Cleland said the process would have required a favorable vote in a local election. Councilman Hallett asked what happens if the referendum does not pass. Chief Cleland responded that the City would not be able to implement the Enhanced 9-1-1 without passage of the referendum. Councilman Cornell asked about the advisability of placing an initiative on the local ballot, as well as the state referendum, so thc voters could cast a vote for the State referendum as well as the local ini~iz~tivc. Chief Cleland considered it possible to offer an independent le~3~ to accomplish the same purpose. -12- 2O72 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 1991 LEGISLATION: Mayor Sargent asked for public comment. (Cont'd) Leonard Bell, 3721 Park Knoll, as Chairman of the local Medic I Advisory Board, Statewide Enhanced advised Council the Advisory Board has had this matter on its agenda for the last 9-1-1 - (Cont'd) several years. The Board has been very supportive of the Enhanced 9-1-1 program and would appreciate any effort the City Council can give to make E 9-1-1 a reality in Port Angeles. A vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Councilman Wight asked that staff report back at the next meeting with regard to what types of efforts can be taken to ensure that voters are aware the failure of the referendum could make local implementation impossible. Remove/Upgrade 11. Consideration of professional services contract to remove and upgrade the · Fuel Facilities at existing fuel facilities at the Corporation Yard and the Landfill: Corporation Yard & Landfill Mayor Sargent reported that, during the budget process, it was mentioned that additional work would be needed to remove and replace the fuel facilities at the Corporation Yard and the Landfill. Underground storage tank regulations were published in late 1988 and since that time, the City has removed all unnecessary tanks and permanently closed three of the former sites. Regulations require that the facilities at the Corporation Yard must be closed or revamped in order to continue to operate beyond December 31, 1998. In order to operate in 1992, we will need to provide for significant monitoring and testing at the facility on a monthly basis and have the tanks professionally tested for tightness annually. The cost of the work would be approximately $12,535, with the funds coming from the Equipment Services budget and should be able to be accomplished within the existing 1991 appropriations. Public Works Director Pittis responded to an inquiry from Councilman Cornell noting the work requires a State-certification to design as well as inspect the removal; none of the City's staff is certified. The services acquired would include the professional inspection of removal of the existing tanks. The intention is to remove the tanks at the Corporation Yard and the one tank at the Landfill and install new facilities, using the expertise of the proposed contractor. Discussion followed with Director Pittis advising Council the proposed contract does not enter the construction phase. The purpose is to obtain a design and an estimate of when the "fix" is going to be. The matter will be returned to Council for a decision. Councilman Hallett moved to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Shannon and Wilson in an amount not to exceed $12,535. Councilman Wight seconded the motion. After limited discussion, a vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Senior Center 12. Senior Center Bond Election: Bond Election Mayor Sargent announced the City is presently considering two sites: one at 7th and Peabody and the Lincoln School property. The Council has previously discussed this matter. Councilman Nicholson moved to refer this matter to the Committee. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion. Councilman Nicholson reported a Committee has been established to put together all details on the proposed Senior Center, in order to get a bond issue on the November ballot. He mentioned a number of Council Members and private - individuals who are already on the Committee, with the prospect being to add several members of the Senior Center Committee. He asked Council if they would be willing to have the Committee make either a choice or a recommendation on the site and then return to the Council. Councilman Wight suggested the Committee should return to Council with a specific recommendation. The Council might consider holding a special meeting, knowing time is short to get this ready for the November election. Councilman Nicholson indicated the Committee would have a specific recommendation for the next Council meeting. This recommendation would include not only the location, but the size, estimated cost, and use of the building. These factors are dependent, at least partially, upon the selected site, because there may be things that can be done at one site but not the other. All of the information to be used in the public presentation for support for the bond issue will be included at that time. -13- 2073 CITY COUNCIL MEETING :' ~ ';' ~ ~'~ August 20, 1991 LEGISLATION: On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. (Cont'd) Councilman Wight asked that the record reflect his concerns about receiving feed- Senior Center back from the public on the possible sites and the required transportation. Bond Election Councilman Nicholson opined there are advantages and disadvantages to both suggested locations. It is his hope that, by the end of the meeting to be held on Thursday noon, the Committee will be able to make a definite recommendation. Councilman Ostrowski inquired as to whether the architect would be able to complete some schematic drawings by the next Council meeting. Manager Pomeranz replied the architects have already finished a great deal of that work. Business 13. Busb~ess Ownership: Ownership Councilman Hallett reported he received a telephone call from an individual who - had some problems with a particular business and could not ascertain the owner of that business. The City Clerk advised the individual that the particular business was unregulated in Port Angeles and no records were kept of all the business owners in the community. Councilman Cornell felt it was not the City's job to disseminate this type of information. However, Councilman Hallett felt it might be important for a person to know who to contact if there was a major problem with a business establishment. Manager Pomeranz said he would speak with the City Clerk and report back to Council. Councilman Wight suggested conferring with the Chamber of Commerce. INFORMATION Mayor Sargent noted the WFOA award received by the City for distinguished AGENDA: budget presentation. Councilman Hallett asked how many times the City had received this award, and was advised this was a la'st. Manager Pomeranz indicated the City had also applied to the National Finance Officers' Association for a budget award and expect to hear from them within the next several weeks. Councilman Hallett reminded Council the City Manager had just celebrated his first anniversary with the City. CITY COUNCIL Mayor Sargent reported the Vern Burton Community Center upgrade proceeding; COMMITTEE she had several copies of the architect's report for anyone interested. REPORTS/LATE ITEMS Mayor Sargent reported on the meeting held on the Elwha Dams. Councilman Wight, following up on the Elwha River Dams problem, pointed out that Mayor Sargent and Dorothy Duncan served as the City/County spokespersons at that meeting and summarized the concerns very nicely. Manager Pomeranz served as the moderator for the session and did a very professional job. One of the staff people from Washington commented he had never seen a diverse community group like this come to the table with an organized, consolidated, and business-like approach to a problem like this. He was suitably impressed. Manager Pomeranz added that we had a concrete proposal, which was the result of a lot of effort of various staff members, particularly Public Works Director Pittis. Councilman Ostrowski noted the action being done on the Library lot. However, he asked what was "near future"? Will additional shoring or pile driving be needed there? Director Pittis said the area would be filled. By "near future", we are on schedule. Councilman Ostrowski said the work done has already improved the area tremendously. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:13 p.m. CC.228 -14-