Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/04/19881148 I CALL TO ORDER Mayor McPhee called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at 7:00 PM. II SWEARING IN OF NEW COUNCILMEMBER CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington October 4, 1988 Mayor McPhee advised the Council and the people chosen John Hordyk to fill the vacant seat of Hesla, effective immediately. Clerk Maike administered the oath of office to Councilman Hordyk was seated with the Council. Councilman Hordyk will serve until after the 1989 III PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by the Honor Society from the Port Angeles High School, Ryan Kilmer President, members Jerry Oakes, Jeannie Raines, and Shelly Turner. IV ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Councilman Sargent. Staff Present: Public Present: VI FINANCE of Port Angeles that he has former Councilmember Allen John Hordyk and thereafter general election results. Mayor McPhee, Councilmen Gabriel, Hallett, Hordyk, Lemon, Stamon. Manager Flodstrom, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Maike, Carr, M. Cleland, R. Orton, S. Brodhun, L. Glenn, Pittis, D. Wolfe, P. Breitbach, 0. Miller, J. Hicks, Hardy, J. Caverly, S. Kenyon. F. P. Feeley, C. Golik, M. Payne, D. Rhyne, Gallison, M. Fangen, Mrs. Ruthruff, D. B. Stephens, Ross, B. B. Smith, A. C. Alexander, D. Smith, Treat, Mr. Mrs. S. Sistek, Mr. Mrs. P. Filler, Billingsley, R. Kilmer, K. L. Rose, E. Candell, Burch, R. Taylor, G. Doyle, M. Keller, J. VanOss, Brodhun, L. T. Beil, M. McConnell, L. Lee, C. Aden, McWilliams, R. Grough, R. Phillips, C. D. Haniske, French, P. Weiseth, C. Bennett, L. Sunny, D. Rudolph. P. J. S. G. L. R. F. F. A. A. V. V APPROVAL OF MINUTES of Regular Meeting of September 20th and Special Meeting of September 28, 1988 Councilman Gabriel moved to accept and place on file the minutes of the regular meeting of September 20, 1988. Councilm4h Lemon seconded and the motion carried 5 0 with Councilman Hordyk abstaining, since he was not present. Councilman Lemon moved to accept and place on file the minutes of the special meeting of September 28, 1988. Councilman Gabriel seconded and the motion carried 5 0 with Councilman Hordyk abstaining, since he was not present. 1. Reauest for Final Payment of S63.710.30 or Pool Roof Repair Yo Schmitt's Sheet Metal and Roofing Councilman Hallett moved to approve and a.copt the work performed and authorize contractor payment in the amount of "67 71 ).'0 plus retained percentage when the 30 -day lien file period has .lapsed and releases are received from the Departments of Labor Industries and Reven_uc Councilman Lemon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. -1- 1149 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 4, 1988 2. Request for Progress Payment No. 1 for Golf Course Road Proiect of 5100,313.64 to Lakeside Industries Councilman Stamon moved to authorize payment for progress payment No. 1 to Lakeside Industries for Golf Course Road project for $100,313.64. Councilman Gabriel seconded. Councilman Hordyk questioned Public Works Director Pittis if the sales tax amount of $255.18 was the correct figure, and if so, why, as it was not 7.8% of $105,338.13. Public Works Director Pittis replied there is only a very small percentage of the contract to which sales tax applies because it is a road project; therefore, the majority of the elements are not taxable. Councilman Lemon pointed out that the City currently has completed 25% of the project and the revised contract amount reflects an almost $20,000 difference. He asked Director Pittis for an explanation. Director Pittis replied the difference is because of unanticipated problems during the project, primarily storm drain work, and until excavation has begun, the Department can only estimate what may happen. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. 3. Request for Consideration of Consultant's Agreement for Survey Services for Golf Course Road Proiect Councilman Hordyk moved to authorize the Mayor to execute an engineering contract with Polaris Engineering Surveying, Inc., in the amount not to exceed $9,000. Councilman Stamon seconded. Councilman Hordyk questioned Director Pittis as to why the project engineer was not able to accomplish this job. Director Pittis replied the City no longer has a survey crew and therefore uses contract survey crews to do the bulk of the work. Councilman Hordyk asked if Polaris was the only engineering firm contacted. Director Pittis stated no, the Department considered all interested firms, but this particular firm is capable and has the time to complete the project. Councilman Hordyk questioned whether the Department anticipated any delays on the project. Director Pittis replied no. Councilman Lemon questioned Director Pittis why this issue was not addressed when the bid was awarded. Director Pittis stated there are a number of reasons, one of which is the City was without a City Engineer for three or four months; the other is vacations and the project schedule that the contractor has provided to the City, of which the City has no knowledge until they are presented with that schedule. The Department can try to anticipate some of those needs. They had hoped to do it with their own crews; however, were not able to do so. Mayor McPhee stated he had received a call on this issue which had informed him that the grade stakings had to be pulled out and re -done. He asked Director Pittis if that was correct. Director Pittis replied there have been a number of things which have had to be re -done on this project, primarily due to the contractor. However, he has no knowledge of the grading stakes having to be pulled out. Mayor McPhee questioned whether this $9,000 request was included in the $20,000 increase. Director Pittis replied no, the $9,000 is engineering and the $20,000 is project increased costs. Mayor McPhee also stated this person whom he had spoken to also had brought up the golf cart path which had apparently been on the right -of -way. Director Pittis replied the Department had received a call from a person who was concerned the golf cart path was to be moved back onto golf course property. Director Pittis stated it was not unusual for the City to try to work with property owners with property adjacent to projects. The Depart- ment has also moved some trees which were in the right -of -way. That has been the policy in the past; however, if the Council wishes to change that policy, then the Department would do so. -2- 1150 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 4, 1988 Mayor McPhee stated to the Council he has objections to paying for the moving of a golf cart path which is on public property. Councilman Hallett asked Mayor McPhee if the issue of the golf cart path was germane to the survey services request, or was it a separate issue. Mayor McPhee stated he was not sure as to the extent of involvement of the project; however, he was told by an unnamed person that Polaris was brought in because the grade stakes were incorrectly done and also Polaris was already working; and asked Director Pittis if that was true. Director Pittis replied they may be doing a few projects, but not the majority of the work. Further, the Department does not have the manpower because of previous cuts in staff, to go out and accomplish the work in a timely manner. Therefore, if the Department needs to get something done, they ask people in the industry to assist them. That is why they are making this request. Mayor McPhee questioned why Northwestern Territories, Inc., could not have been used to do this project, as they are already working. Director Pittis replied the City attempts, whenever possible, to spread the projects around the community. Mayor McPhee stated he seemed to believe it would be a little less expensive to use the firm that is already there, rather than bring in another one, and was opposed to the motion. On call for the question, the motion carried, with Mayor McPhee voting "No VII CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Lemon moved to act upon Item 1, Request permission to call for bids for underground high voltage power cable, as a separate issue from the Consent Agenda. Councilman Gabriel seconded and the motion carried. Council then addressed the issue of the purchase of cable. Councilman Lemon questioned City Light Director Orton where the Department would utilize that amount of cable, stating the Department has approximately 6,000 feet in stock and only 2,000 feet committed. He questioned what has been done in the past eight years which has required this amount, and did Director Orton anticipate any projects in the future to use this amount. Light Director Orton replied the Department used 9,000 feet of this cable on the Golf Course Road project, stating one project can use the supply fairly quickly. Two thousand feet has been committed and the balance of the inventory will be used for the Gund Plaza project. He pointed out that this is a fairly common wire size for undergrounding and a standard inventory item. Following lengthy discussion, Councilman Stamon moved to authorize staff to call for bids for the purchase of approximately 13,000 feet of #4/0 aluminum underground high voltage power cable. Councilman Gabriel seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Stamon moved to accept the items presented on the Consent Agenda, including (1) Correspondence from Washington State'+Liquor Control Board; (2) Vouchers of $388,577.99; and (3) Payroll of 9 -23 -88 of $238,665.91. Councilman Gabriel seconded. After some discussion of the items, the question was called and the motion carried unanimously. VIII ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA Mayor McPhee posed a question to Attorney Knutson, stating some issues on the agenda from the Planning Commission are controversial. Is Council able to accept comment on the issues? Attorney Knutson stated generally not; however, there are some items the Planning Commission minutes and the Council agenda reflect which do have public hearings. The items the Planning Commission considered can either be approved by the City Council without a public hearing or the Council does not take formal action. The only action of the Council is to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission unless there is an appeal filed. In the case of home occupa- tions, the procedure in the Zoning Code for people who are opposed to the decision of the Planning Commission is to appeal to the City Council within -3- 1151 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 4, 1988 ten days of the Planning Commission's decision. The appeal must be sub- mitted in writing to the City Clerk. Councilman Lemon commented that Section 17.86.105 of the Zoning Code states in part that an appeal of the Planning Commission decision can be made by City staff or the City Council. Attorney Knutson stated that was correct. Carl Alexander, 1712 West Fifth Street, requested that he be allowed to address Item 5 on the Agenda regarding the ordinance regulating adult entertainment. Russell Treat, 2184 West Fourth Street, questioned Councilman Stamon as to when the idea of the new City Hall was first conceived. Councilman Stamon replied it came before Council early in the summer of 1985. Mr. Treat stated he attended a meeting at that time and was told by ex- Councilmember Quast and Councilman Stamon that the main reason the City had to have a new City Hall facility was the State was demanding the City provide wheelchair access and it would be impossible to do that in the old City Hall. However, in the newspaper article in the Peninsula Daily News, one of the goals and objectives listed was the City spend more money to improve access for wheel chairs within City Hall. He asked why this issue was not addressed in the building plans. Councilman Stamon responded, stating she believed she had said to Mr. Treat that it was one of the issues. However, she did not recall ever saying there was no way the old City Hall could be remodeled; however, it was not cost effective to do so. Further, the goal discussed is in reference to handicap access not only to City Hall, the physical building, but also to the corridor around City Hall, defined by approximately First through Eighth and Lincoln through Peabody Streets. She stated that City Hall is designed to be handicap accessible and meets State Code; however, it does not provide a barrier free environment and was not designed to do so. Mayor McPhee stated this is an issue that is on the Council's current goals and objectives. Ray Taylor, representing the Washington Federation of Retirees, spoke in reference to the handicap parking accessibility issue throughout the City of Port Angeles, stating the City has not taken any action on this issue. He stressed the importance of this issue as it is a State law, and the only thing the organization is asking is shall the City address the issue or not address the issue, and if the City cannot, then the organization shall find other means. He stated an oath of office has been taken by all of the Councilmembers and in that oath of office is a statement to uphold the laws of the State of Washington as well as the laws of the City. He pointed out he has brought this issue before the Council three times previously and has received different opinions. Councilman Stamon responded, stating the issue has been addressed in the goal of handicapped accessibility within the City Hall area corridor. She stated she has spoken to the Chief of Police on this issue and a memo had been sent to Mr. Taylor regarding the City's position with respect to the ability to enforce handicap accessibility standards. She agreed that this is an important issue, stating it has not gone away, but the City does have somewhat limited abilities as to what it can enforce. Council discussed this issue at length. IX LEGISLATION 1. Public Hearines A. Consideration of Ordinance Amending ZoninE Code to Allow Adult Care Facilities in Residential Districts Mayor McPhee opened the public hearing at 7:52 P.M. Paul Filler, 2131 West Fourth Street, requested that Council consider bringing this issue to a citizen's vote. -4- 1152 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 4, 1988 Barbara Smith, 620 Milwaukee Drive, read a prepared statement for the Council. In part, some of the highlighted issues were that buying a home is the largest dollar investment in most people's lives; that it will require a struggle between one -third and one -half of their life span. It is an investment which should never be taken lightly and it must be continuously and jealously guarded, not only by those who have made the investment, but also by those who have been invested with safeguarding the investments of the community homeowners. She felt that the issue before the Council this evening was a breach of trust and if this issue was acted upon, her quality of life would be degraded. Also, the notification process was an invalid procedure and suggested other options that Council may consider in the future. Mabel Fangen, 339 Viewcrest, stated facility is detrimental in some of especially around the school system land available for this type of consider this issue carefully. the traffic alone with this type of the areas where they might be built, where there is a proposed use of the facility. She stated Council should Glen Gallison, 332 Viewcrest, voiced his concern with the zoning change, in that it will be a major impact on any neighborhood where there is now space of up to five acres of land. They will then become a target for developers who are looking for space to provide these types of facilities. In the past, this would have required a rezone, which would have assured good public input and consideration of all the impacts. He stated he felt very uneasy about how this has occurred; he did not believe justice was being served and felt this to be a very serious matter, as it affects property values. He was opposed to the ordinance. Chris Brown, 3207 Maple Street, stated one full block above the High School has no sidewalks and the Port Angeles school buses go up and down the streets and stop on Viewcrest and Peabody to let off and pick up children, both mornings and afternoons, as well as activities at the Lighthouse Christian Center and High School track during the week and on the weekends. She was concerned with the safety of the children in the area. She pointed out there is no proper parking in the area and hoped that Council would give this issue much more consideration. Colin Bennett, 3108 South Peabody Street, stated he has been a former member of the Planning Commission and during his time of serving on the Commission, it was their goal to protect the neighborhoods. He stated he realized the proposed ordinance was for the whole City and not just for one neighborhood, but he was sure if in general the citizens knew of what was being proposed, there would have been a larger crowd. He hoped that Council would take a long, hard look at the issue and turn it down. Ardis McWilliams, 904 Seamount Drive, stated she was in agreement with the comments made by the public so far, and that a home is something which is sought after by everyone; therefore, Council should be very careful to protect what we have; that multiple housing may be a way to make money, but it is not the way to make a real city. She felt this issue should go before a vote of the people. She stated she did not feel the people of the City of Port Angeles were getting all the information on` issue and how could the citizens make proper decisions when the information is not provided. Keith Whalen, 3203 Maple Street, stated he was a recent new resident to the City of Port Angeles and one of the reasons they had chosen to live here in Port Angeles was the image of the "All American City Rand McNally has placed Port Angeles within the top ten places in the nation to retire to, and he suspects this would increase greatly, or at least add considerably, to the economy; however, if people find out that they cannot buy a house in an area that is strictly single family or residential, a great number of people will seriously consider moving elsewhere. Chester Golik, 527 South and currently building a area was chosen because single- family zoning. multiple family dwellings for these zones and urged Liberty Street, stated he is also a new resident house within the Cresthaven area. He stated that of the covenants and the restrictions and the However, this proposed ordinance would allow throughout the City,. He stated there is a place Council to not make a blanket rule. -5- 1153 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 4, 1988 Jack LaRue, 130 Viewcrest, stated he was in shock to find action of this nature by the Planning Commission, and because of this action, the Planning Commission has earned from him a very wathful eye. He has worked very hard on his home and does not appreciate such action coming along to detract from the value of his home. Under the existing Zoning Ordinance there are areas where facilities of this type can be built without any trouble whatsoever. Finally, he asked what is wrong with the present Zoning Code where each case of this nature is supported by its own merits? Carl Alexander, 1712 West Fifth Street, spoke in favor of the ordinance, stating it puts greater restrictions on certain types of housing uses. He pointed out that we have an increasing elderly population within our area and it is not going to lessen. His understanding of why this ordinance is being developed is because it allows developments which do not fit the standards of the current Zoning Code with more control. A Conditional Use Permit is required and additional land is necessary for the larger facilities. Mary Jo Porter, 4515 North 37th Street, Tacoma, Washington, stated she did not want to speak for or against the ordinance, as it was a decision that needed to be made by the City of Port Angeles. However, she did want to stand up and defend the Planning Commission. She stated she was a developer who works on this kind of project and she has been working with the Planning Commission as an informal consultant. The issue considered by the Planning Commission, which brought them to this decision, is the fact that there is an increase in the elderly population. Ms. Porter stated that as people become elderly, for one reason or another they are not able to live by themselves. This type of facility would offer them the opportunity to live and be self- supporting, while still residing in a controlled environment. The Planning Commission's feeling in developing this ordinance was to allow those people to still live within the residential -type of areas where they have lived most of their lives, and this issue has been discussed by the Planning Commission for the past seven months. Tim Haley, 1738 West Ninth Street, spoke about some of the positive aspects of the ordinance as opposed to the negative. He believed it should go back to the Planning Commission for further information. However, he did propose some additional changes to the ordinance: In congregate care areas, they could propose that the 2,000 square -foot additional area be dropped to 1,000 additional square feet; and on the nursing home section, it be lowered from 1,500 square feet to 1,000 square feet for each additional unit. Mr. Haley stated he had done some research in regard to this type of business in other areas throughout our state and provided some statistics on lot coverage requirements from those cities. Currently the City of Sequim allows nursing homes and congregate care facilities to have a maximum lot coverage of 35 There is no minimum lot coverage. In Bremerton, the minimum lot coverage is 2,700 square feet with a lot coverage of 55 In the City of Tacoma, the minimum lot area is 5,000 square feet with no minimum lot coverage. These would, be areas with which the City of Port Angeles would be competing in regard to this type of business. He believed if the City passed the ordinance, as it is proposed, it would discourage development, whether in residential or in any other zones, to the point where developers and people involved in this industry would locate in other areas. He provided Council and the audience with further statistics regarding our current ordinance and present facilities within the City of Port Angeles. In conclusion, he gave reasons why the Planning Commission could recommend dropping the square footage recommended: (1) An overall benefit to the City and its economy by bringing in this type of facility; (2) The tax base is broadened; (3) Twice as many retirees within the next 15 years; (4) A larger employment base of non technical staff, support services, and a location with a central connection. In conclusion, he stated Council has a decision to make to either refer the issue back to the Planning Commission for further review, to vote for our future generation, or to vote to discourage development. Karen Jensen, 3114 South Peabody Street, stated she believed all of us have a concern for the elderly. However, she did not feel that was the issue. The issue is people are addressing the Council to state they do not want rezones which allow Conditional Use Permits in single family zones. She asked that Council refer the issue back to the Planning Commission to establish zoned areas where this type of industry is permissible and which would alleviate the establishment of congregate care facilities at random -6- 1154 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 4, 1988 throughout the City. She did not want the integrity of the single family dwellings changed. Russell Treat, 2184 West Fourth Street, stated it was a sad day for the people of the City of Port Angeles when a developer from another City can come in and coerce the Planning Commission into trying to change the ordinance, stating the Council is elected by the people to represent them. Council could not represent the people if they did not know how they felt about the issue. He felt this should go before a vote of the people. Ann Sistek, 2143 West Fourth Street, a new resident to the City of Port Angeles, stated she had searched long and hard for the house she decided to buy and she would hate to see the zoning changed to allow this type of facility in a single family zone. She urged Council to leave the zoning as it currently is. Colin Bennett, 3108 South Peabody, stated the proposed ordinance addresses many different areas and offered a suggestion. If Council should approve this ordinance, with respect to congregate care or facilities of that size, they only be allowed in RMF Zones rather than RS -7 or RS -9 Zones. He stated he has no objections to four elderly people living in a single- family residence, as he felt the impact would be minor. However, the placing of a large facility in a residential zone would have many detrimental impacts. Betty Stephens, 404 Viewcrest, stated she believed Council needed to take into consideration the places where these facilities should be allowed. She urged Council to further investigate the proposed ordinance. There being no further public comment, Mayor McPhee closed the public hearing at 8:42 P.M. Mayor McPhee read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles providing for the State licensed group homes, nursing homes, and boarding homes in residential districts, and amending Ordinance Nos. 1709 and 2385. Councilman Stamon stated she believed the issue before Council tonight seems to have a lack of communication between the public and the Planning Com- mission. That is not the fault of the members of the Planning Commission, however. Council definitely needs to look at the procedure for notifica- tion, particularly when considering changes of City -wide significance. The issue the Council has before it is, for all intents and purposes, a de facto rezone of the entire City, stating for the record the reason the Planning Commission undertook the consideration was at the request of a proponent for a project in the Viewcrest area. Councilman Stamon moved that Council remand the issue back to the Planning Commission, with the comments received, to allow 'the public an additional opportunity to come to the Planning Commission after better notification, and ask the Planning Commission to address this issue as part of its review of the Comprehensive Plan which they will be undertaking, possibly identi- fying specific zones where these types of uses could be permitted outright. Councilman Hallett seconded. Councilman Hallett stated it is interesting to note that in looking at conditional uses within the City, art galleries, museums, churches, day care centers, pre schools, duplexes, currently group homes and hospices, home occupations, libraries, nursing and convalescent homes, parks and recreation facilities, public utility structures, public and private schools, radio and television stations, are all conditional uses allowed under the existing Zoning Code. If there are concerns about possible change in the wording which would allow State- licensed group homes, nursing homes and hospices, and congregate care centers, then Council should possibly revisit the Ordinance as it already exists, because of those named uses. Furthermore, if someone applied, those could be approved in the community as a con- ditional use. Obviously though, they would need to be discussed on the merits of the issues. The proposed changes sound significant, but already -7- 1155 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 4, 1988 there are a number of conditional uses which are permitted; therefore, remanding it back to the Planning Commission may help address the other conditional uses. He urged people to let their feelings be known on those conditions, as well. Councilman Lemon, expanding on Councilman Hallett's comments, stated this is one of the issues that brought him to the City Council asking the public if they were aware that in the RS -7 and RS -9 zones a mobile home can be allowed; that it is a permanent use that does not need to come before the Council; and all it needs to meet is the 1978 HUD requirements. He urged the public to participate in the upcoming discussion of this issue with the Planning Commission. Councilman Hallett, directing a question to Planner Carr, asked if there are things the City could do better in respect to notification. Planner Carr stated block ads are one solution; half -page ads; posting in high traffic areas; and in this particular case, posting in areas where there are large parcels of vacant property. There are other notification methods the Planning Department could look into which would exceed the required notification methods. Councilman Hallett questioned Planner Carr on the concerns voiced on the modification of the Zoning Code regarding lot coverage, asking if there is room for work in that area which might alleviate some of those concerns. Planner Carr stated he believed the Commission would welcome any information which would help them reach a decision, not only on the use, but the densities. Mayor McPhee questioned Planner Carr, asking, in his opinion, does the proposed Ordinance protect the homeowners more than the current Zoning Ordinance from incursions into the neighborhood; or does it make the homeowner more vulnerable. Planner Carr stated it provides more procedures and more regulations for these types of uses, which could afford more protection, but it also opens up greater areas of the City to the uses. Therefore, it is mixed. There are uses which are not currently covered which would be addressed in the proposed Ordinance. Mayor McPhee questioned Planner Carr if he had heard any new questions from the public that he may not have heard during the Planning Commission meetings. Planner Carr stated there was almost no public comment at the Planning Commission. There was, however, testimony from experts in the industry but there was very little comments from homeowners or renters in the City. He stated he believed it was the intent of the Planning Commis- sion to write legislation which creates the type of community which the citizens would desire and it is very valuable to have citizen input, regardless of whether it is new or a repeat of what has been heard before. Councilman Hordyk commented to Planner Carr that his method of posting on utility poles is in violation of the Washington State Safety Codes. Planner Carr stated he was aware of the problem, and in the 1989 1990 budget there is going to be a proposal which will hopefully solve the problem, plus the inadequate notice posting procedure. Councilman Stamon asked what the legal requirements are for posting noti- fications. Planner Carr stated posting in three public places, and pub- lication 10 days in advance of a hearing for a Zoning Code amendment is required. The City's current procedure is to post in at least six public places and to publish one time. Councilman Stamon then asked Attorney Knutson if the City is under any constraints to exceed those requirements, or could the City do anything it chooses in terms of notification. Attorney Knutson stated we only needed to achieve the minimum requirements of the law. Councilman Stamon questioned Planner Carr as to what zones in the City currently allow congregate care and nursing home facilities. Planner Carr stated congregate care facilities are allowed in multi- family districts as a conditional use. She asked if there are presently zones within the City in which they are allowed. Planner Carr stated yes. 1156 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 4, 1988 Councilman Stamon, in speaking to her motion, stated the main concern of the people seems to be a driving concern to protect the integrity of the neighborhoods, and it is a concern that has been addressed countless times. She believed the Ordinance, as proposed, has good intentions; however, the Ordinance falls short of doing what the public is requesting: to protect the integrity of the residential neighborhoods, and she urged support of the motion. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. BREAK Mayor McPhee recessed the meeting for a 15- minute break at 9:00 PM. B. City Council Goals and Obiectives Mayor McPhee opened the public hearing at 9:15 PM. Carl Alexander, 1712 West Fifth Street, stated he was encouraged by the goals and objectives established by the Council this year. However, he did offer some criticism. He suggested in the future, when goals and objectives are put together, that the pages and items be numbered. This would make for quick and easy reference when speaking on a subject. He also reminded Council that the goals and objectives are something that are concrete; they are things that they do, not things that are talked about or considered; and of the goals and objectives listed, there are 27 which have phrases such as "consider "study "discuss "encourage "investigate "look at "work toward and "support Those terms are not proper for goals and objec- tives. A goal and an objective should specifically state what it is that Council wishes to accomplish. Mr. Alexander offered some suggestions to the Council. In regards to the goal of limiting the budget, have each line item in the budget broken down as to what is essential funding and non- essential. This may help when looking at the budget to see where there is extra money that could possibly be cut. Councilman Hallett asked Mr. Alexander to clarify his meaning of "essen- tial" and "non- essential Mr. Alexander stated essential funding would be funding that is necessary for the Department to function. Example given, salaries. Non essential funding would be moneys that the Department could do without, if it had to. Example: a project which could be postponed until a later date. He also suggested combining some of the goals and objectives that have similar interests. Kathryn Holl, 1103 Spruce Street, Chairperson for the Pet Welfare Committee, thanked Councilmembers for considering the goal of pet welfare, but she expressed concern with the placement of the goal as "Medium" prority. She felt this was an important issue that needs to be addressed. The issue can also do with future planning, stating this is a health and safety issue, also people problem, not just a pet problem. After lengthy discussion on the issue, she encouraged Council if they chose not to place this goal as a higher priority or at least set aside the redemption and licensing fees into a separate fund and to begin something in regard to this issue. Richard Perferment, 126 Mountain View Drive, Sequim, on the Board of Directors for the Humane Society, provided support on the information provided by the Pet Welfare Committee. He encouraged the Council to support the concept of the Pet Welfare Committee. Martha Keller, 221 East Ninth Street, stated she believed the proposal of the Pet Welfare Committee should be a higher priority on the list of goals and objectives, as she felt their proposal was realistic and the City should have programs to go along with the Humane Society animal shelter. Gene Biddinger, 1103 Spruce, member of the Pet Welfare group, encouraged Council to move this goal to a higher level priority and asked that Council support the issue, as he felt this is a long -term solution to a problem; it does save money over time; and lastly, he stated there is citizen involve- ment in this issue. He cautioned Council on how they react to this issue because he did not believe Council wanted to give the message to people that if citizens do get involved and work on an issue that there would not be results. Because of the time involved, he believed the issue should be raised to a higher priority. -9- -10- 1157 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 4, 1988 Richard Perferment, president of the local Audubon Society, referring to the goal on the Waterfront Trail, stated the Society has pledged $800 to help support a project on the Waterfront Trail. This would be toward the development of an interpretive sign to go along with the Waterfront Trail. In addition to that, he has put together a group of volunteers to help develop the interpretive signage. He encouraged Council to continue support for the Waterfront Trail project. Dan Smith, 1125 East Second Street, addressed Council regarding the traffic flow in the review and enhancement plan. He believed there was a real problem on First and Front Streets and encouraged the placement of another signal light on Front and First Streets because the traffic during the summertime makes it almost impossible to cross either of those streets. In regard to the goal for the City Pier, he suggested that sand be added to the Hollywood Beach area to enhance the park. In reference to the Eighth Street Bridge program, Mr. Smith suggested building a bridge on Fifth Street and then repairing the Eighth Street bridges, as he believed this would save the Fire Department from building a new station on the West End. He also encouraged the White Creek crossing, but believed the traffic lights on First and Front Streets should be a number one priority. Councilman Stamon questioned staff as to when the Ennis Street lights were scheduled to be installed. Public Works Director Pittis stated it would be discussed during the budget process. Peter Alexander, 1114 East Third Street, addressed the goal of underground ing utility services, stating he was opposed to this goal, the main reasons being there are a great number of disadvantages to underground services and in his opinion, they are not counterbalanced by the aesthetics. Overhead power lines have the advantage of being very repairable. From a two -day outage on an underground system, it would be a 20- minute outage on the overhead system. He stated he felt overhead was more reliable and cost effective. Undergrounding costs approach $40 per foot, which is approxi- mately $12,000 a block. Also, sidewalks may have to be removed at a cost fo $2,000 to $3,000 a block. He cautioned Council on setting a policy that would put into motion a compromise of the system; that the City's current system is one of the lowest loss systems in the State of Washington. He discouraged the undergrounding of main power systems and in doing this, they would be compromising the reliability of the system for everyone who lives in the City of Port Angeles. Also, in regard to the City Light discount for tourist businesses, Mr. Alexander stated it seemed to him that it was giving priority of one business over another and he did not feel it was proper for City government to decide what businesses should and should not be encouraged within the City. He did not feel it was the responsibility of City government to push policies by rate discounts. He stated rates should be, by definition, non discriminatory to any type of business. He suggested the Council clean up some of their ordinances in regard to enforcement policies. Leonard Beil, 3127 Park Knoll Drive, spoke in regard to the goal on planning for major parks; i.e., East Side, Waterfront, and Ediz Hook. There being no further public comment, Mayor 'McPhee closed the public hearing at 9:55 P.M. Councilman Stamon offered a correction to the first page of the High Priority Goals and Objectives: Limit budget allocations to outside agencies. She stated when this goal was discussed, she believed it to be the intent of the Council to include all outside agencies. Councilman Lemon, on the second page of Top Priority Goals, regarding tourism theme for Port Angeles, requested that citizens and other groups be included in that goal. Councilman Hallett, in light of the testimony received from the Pet Welfare Committee, suggested the rewording of the goal from medium priority to top priority. That would be simply to make a decision on the recommendation of the Pet Welfare Citizens Group, not endorsing the recommendation or not considering it, but only to make a decision on the issue next year and to decide as a Council whether or not they want to pursue that goal. He then made that in the form of a motion. Councilman Stamon seconded. 1158 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 4, 1988 Councilman Lemon asked Councilman Hallett to clarify the intent of the motion. Councilman Hallett questioned whether this is a problem the Council needs to address. If it is, then it needs to be addressed and the problem solved. However, if there is not a need and Council has considered the report, then Council will not be forced to make one kind of decision other than an agreement to look at the issue, and he felt Council needed to do that next year. Councilman Lemon asked Councilman Hallett if that also included adding the $32,000 to the budget. Councilman Hallett stated no, it would not be a budget item at this time. It was only a decision based upon their recom- mendation. After lengthy discussion on the issue, the question was called, and the motion failed, with Councilmen Hallett and Stamon voting "Aye and Councilmen Gabriel, Lemon, Hordyk, and Mayor McPhee voting "No Councilman Stamon stated the comments from the public would be taken under consideration. Council will look at the goals during budget time and decide whether to implement or incorporate them in some other way. She then moved to adopt the goals as presented. Councilman Lemon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. It now being past 10:00 PM, Councilman Stamon moved to continue the agenda. Councilman Lemon seconded and the motion carried. C. Consideration of Resolution for Abatement of Overgrown Lots Mayor McPhee opened the public hearing at 10:10 PM. There being no public comment, he then closed the public hearing and read the Resolution by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. 28 -88 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. After some discussion on the issue, Councilman Stamon moved to pass the Resolution as read by title, including Exhibit "A Councilman Hordyk seconded and the motion carried, with Councilman Gabriel voting "No 2. Planning Commission Minutes of September 28. 1988 A. Conditional Use Hearing CUP 88(9)17 McConnell Councilman Stamon moved to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the Conditional Use Permit to operate a massage therapy service in the Arterial Commercial District, in a building presently housing other commercial uses, located at 1020 East Front Street, subject to the following conditions: (1) The applicant shall submit a detailed floor plan of the proposed massage- therapy facility; (2) The proposed use within the existing structure shall meet all Fire Code regulations of the Port Angeles Fire Department and all regulations for the Building Section of the Public Works Department; (3) This permit shall be null and void if not used within one year of approval, or if the use is abandoned for a period of one year; (4) The applicant shall comply with Chapter 5.48 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code regarding massage parlors; and citing the following findings: (A) The project, as conditioned, will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts to the surrounding properties; (B) The commercial use of this property, as conditioned, is compatible with the surrounding commercial properties; (C) This use has been conditioned to ensure that it shall not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and welfare of the general public. Councilman Lemon seconded. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. 1159 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 4, 1988 B. Conditional Use Hearing CUP 88(9)18 Roger and Kelly German Mayor McPhee stated the Commission had made a final decision to deny this application at the September 28th meeting. Any appeals wanting to be made should be filed in writing with the City Clerk within ten days of the date of the hearing date, which would be no later than October 10, 1988. Attorney Knutson stated if there is to be an appeal filed, it would be inappropriate for any member of the Council to begin making comments, one way or the other, on this proposal. The best way to approach the situation under the rules Council must proceed with, including the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, is to wait and see if any appeals are filed within that ten -day period. If the Council should decide, and it is their prerogative to do so, to consider the matter on its own, Council could do that after the ten -day period has elapsed; or the Council could indicate that it wants to consider the issue, even if there is not to be an appeal. Councilman Hallett questioned Attorney Knutson if there was anything different on this conditional use, as opposed to any others. Attorney Knutson stated it is a home occupation conditional use permit; it does have its own procedures that are specified in the Home Occupations Chapter of the Zoning Code; therefore, it is unique. Councilman Hallett questioned how Council would know if an appeal is pending or not pending, and if it comes to the Council, the Council would act on the issue like any other home occupation permit, and that is to accept the findings of the Planning Commission, rule the opposite of the Planning Commission, or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. Attorney Knutson stated that was correct. Councilman Hallett then asked how could they act or not act on the issue if comments are to be inappropriate. Attorney Knutson stated the Zoning Code provides that the Planning Commission make the final decision, unless there is an appeal. If the Council wants to appeal the Planning Commission decision on its own, then the matter could be considered, but if they were to wait and see if an appeal was to be filed, then it would be inappropriate for Council to make comments until that appeal has been filed. Councilman Stamon then clarified Attorney Knutson's statement, saying the Council does not have the ability to approve or disapprove the issue because the Planning Commission has already approved it. Attorney Knutson stated that was correct. The only action necessary by Council at this time is to approved the minutes of the Planning Commission and wait to see if an appeal is filed. Councilman Lemon stated under Section 17.86.105 of the Zoning Code he would like to make the motion to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, subject to the following conditions: (1) The proposed family day care center shall conform to the development standards as set forth in the Home Occupations Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 17.86.040); (2) This Conditional Use Permit allows the applicant to operate a family day care center with a maximum of six children, between the hours of 6 am and 6 pm, Monday through Friday. All indoor and outdoor play areas shall meet all State Department of Health requirements for a family day care center; (3) State and local fire codes shall be complied with, including smoke alarm, fire extinguishers, and approved fire exits. The premises shall be inspected yearly by the Fire Department and shall comply with UFC require- ments; and citing the following findings: (A) This location is physically suited for a family day care center; (B) The proposed use will not result in any significant impacts to the environment; (C) The proposed use is consistent with the City of Port Angeles Residential Polices of the Compre- hensive Plan; (D) A family day care center on this property, as condi- tioned by this permit, should not adversely affect surrounding properties. Councilman Gabriel seconded. Councilman Stamon asked Councilman Lemon if he wanted to appeal it or to decide differently from the Planning Commission. Councilman Lemon stated basically, under the section quoted, the finality is by the Planning Commission recommendation, but a citizen present at the hearing, City staff, or City Council, may appeal, and that is what he is attempting to do. "To consider an appeal, the City Council shall, at a -12- 1160 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 4, 1988 public meeting consider an appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission. The City Council may then approve, deny or approve with modifications, the conditions of the appeal." Councilman Stamon stated she would not be comfortable with reversing the decision of the Planning Commission, particularly because there seems to be some strong interest on the part of the public. Councilman Lemon, on the other hand, felt it was a very appropriate action, with the simple logic that the applicant has met the conditions of the Conditional Use. Mayor McPhee asked Attorney Knutson if Council needed to hold another public hearing on this issue. Attorney Knutson stated under the terms of the Home Occupations Chapter, Council did not need a public hearing, although there is some ambiguity and there is some room for discretion on the Council's part. It states in the Zoning Code that the City Council shall consider the appeal at a public meeting, where elsewhere the term public hearing is used when it clearly means that Council should take public comment. However, in this particular situation, Attorney Knutson said he is aware that written comment has been sent to Councilmembers, either directly or through the City Manager's office, and he felt it was inappropriate for Council to consider any type of comment received after the Planning Commis- sion process unless they were to open it up to a new public hearing, where everyone would have a chance for additional input. He suggested if they were to make a decision based on the Planning Commission findings, that they turn over to staff any written input received after the Planning Commission decision. It would be returned or held in abeyance and Council could indicate before making a deliberation on the matter that they would not be considering any information not submitted to the Planning Commission in writing or at the public hearing of the Planning Commission. Councilman Lemon stated he did receive two letters and asked how was he to tell who they were from. He read them, but he did read the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting first. Councilman Hallett stated he, too, had received letters and numerous phone calls. When he opened the letters and saw what they were about, he did not read any further. On the phone calls, he informed the people that there was not going to be a public hearing held and the Council would discuss the merits or demerits, based on the testimony of the Planning Commission. He asked Attorney Knutson when the Council could look at the information they had received. Could they read it if they decide to hold a public hearing in the interim period? Attorney Knutson stated yes. Councilman Hallett then spoke against the motion, and encouraged Council to hold a public hearing. Councilman Gabriel withdrew his second. There was no other second, so the motion died for lack of a second. Mayor McPhee urged the Councilmembers to listen to the Planning Commission tape of September 28, 1988, and in doing so, Councilmembers may find they do not need another public hearing. Councilman Stamon stated this was a moot point, as an appeal seems to be imminent on this particular issue. Councilman Stamon moved that Council not take action on this issue at this time; to wait to see what type of action is forthcoming from the public. Councilman Hordyk seconded. Councilman Stamon then amended her motion: Council will not take action on this issue at this time. If an appeal is filed in a timely manner, Council will, at the next Council meeting, conduct a public hearing on the appeal. Councilman Stamon explained her intent, stating if Council did not take action on this issue tonight and there is no appeal, then the recommendation of the Planning Commission stands, according to the terms of the Ordinance. If Council indicates they will conduct a public hearing pending an appeal, Council would not have to meet again and go through the whole process, and if there is no public hearing, the only information Council can consider is -13-- what is presently in the Planning Commission minutes. Obviously, she stated, there is further information that people feel has not been brought forth. Councilman Hordyk being the seconder, did not concur with the restated motion. On call for the question, the original motion failed, with Councilmen Stamon, Lemon and Hallett voting "No Councilmen Hordyk, Gabriel and Mayor McPhee voting "Aye Councilman Hallett moved, following an appeal that is filed, the Council will consider this matter at the October 18th City Council meeting and hold a public hearing. Councilman Gabriel seconded and the motion carried, with Mayor McPhee voting "No Council requested that people not bring back repeat information, but to come forth with only new information on this issue. C. Conditional Use Hearing CUP 88(9)19 Colleen Williams Mayor McPhee pointed out to Council that the same rules would prevail on this issue. Councilman Stamon moved if there is an appeal filed the Council will conduct a public hearing on the issue, with the request that the public not reiterate the previous information in the record, but that they confine their remarks to new information. Councilman Hordyk seconded. After discussion between Council and staff on the procedures used to determine the Home Occupation Conditional Use Permit process, the question was called and the motion carried, with Councilman Lemon and Mayor McPhee voting "No D. Acceptance of Minutes Councilman Stamon moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission minutes of September 28, 1988. Councilman Gabriel seconded and the motion carried with Councilman Hordyk voting "No 3. Reauest for Approval of Award from BPA to Operate Energy Smart Design Assistance Program Councilman Stamon moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the Financial Assistance Award from BPA to operate the Energy Smart Design Assistance Program. Councilman Hallett seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 4. Reauest for Approval of Agreement with Clallam County PUD to Operate Energy Smart Design Assistance Program Councilman Hallett moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Clallam County PUD jl for operation of the Energy Smart Design Assis- tance Program as a County -wide effort. Councilman Stamon seconded. Councilman Hallett commended Conservation Manager Sheila Hardy and the Light Department on both of the matters. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. 5. Consideration of Ordinance Regulating Adult Entertainment Mayor McPhee read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2511 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, regulating the location and operation of adult entertainment businesses, requiring a conditional use permit, declaring a public emergency, and establishing a new Chapter 17.67 of the City Zoning Code. -14- 1161 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 4, 1988 1162 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 4, 1988 Carl Alexander, 1712 West Fifth Street, addressed Council on the proposed Ordinance, voicing his concern that the interim ordinance, if adopted, may not be as strict as an ordinance which has been addressed during a public hearing. If Council is to adopt an interim ordinance, then they should make an effort to adopt an ordinance written as strictly as possible, rather than making it too lenient, as he did not want to see a business of this type come into town and be licensed under the basis of an interim or an emer- gency ordinance. He suggested addressing the possibility of the owner of such an establishment to post a bond; also to increase the license fees and fines; and finally, to make it clear that violations are a cause for imme- diate closure of the business, at the discretion of the Police Department. He also felt very strongly that the ordinance should spell out that the owner of the establishment should be held responsible for actions of persons within the establishment, as well as the surrounding grounds. Councilman Stamon asked Attorney Knutson if the City could require a business owner who is licensed under the regulation of the interim ordinance be required to abide by the regulations of a permanent ordinance, if adopted later. Attorney Knutson stated no; however, the Council could require that any employees or managers must comply with whatever business license requirements have been adopted by that time. When the interim ordinance was drafted, the intent was there would be some work done on business license requirements which would have specific procedures, along the lines of the comments made by Mr. Alexander. Following lengthy discussion by Council and staff, Councilman Stamon moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title, with correction to the Chapter number from 17.87 to 17.67, inserting in Section 17.67.080 Operation and Development Standards, a sub section (G) which would prohibit nude or topless female entertainment in an establishment where liquor is served; also inserting in Section 17.67.110 Penalties, sub section (B) inserting and which shall subiect the premises to immediate closure. Councilman Gabriel seconded. Councilman Lemon commented that two items which were Alexander, the posting of the bond and taking care of premises regulating loitering, broken bottles, etc., Attorney Knutson stated we do have other provisions in which would cover the situation of the grounds outside Also, in the process of developing the final ordinance will be looked at and may have other language developed. Mayor McPhee made note of the paragraph drafted by Attorney Knutson on the memo sent to Council regarding this issue: "The attached ordinance has been drafted in an attempt to protect the interests of the citizens of Port Angeles while at the same time safeguarding the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The City Council should carefully consider whether or not these provisions accomplish this goal and so indicate prior to the adoption." He then stated he did believe the Ordinance did accom- plish the protection of those rights. Councilman Stamon then included that paragraph as a preface to her motion. On call for the question, the motion carried unanilously. 6. Proclamation Fire Prevention Week October 9th through 15. 1988 Mayor McPhee proclaimed the week of October 9th through 15th, 1988, as Fire Prevention Week and he called upon the people of Port Angeles to participate in the activities at home, work and school, and to do as the Fire Prevention Week theme for 1988 suggests: A sound you can live with test your smoke detector. 7. Registration of City Logo Report from Councilman Lemon referred to by Mr. the outside of the are not addressed. the City Ordinances the establishment. those suggestions Councilman Lemon stated he had spoken to the Chamber of commerce regarding this issue, and after discussion, the Chamber has decided, because of the money they have invested, they will register the logo themselves. CC.27 8. Set Interview Date and Times for Applicants for Revolving Loan Review Board Positions Councilman Hallett moved to set a special meeting for November 1, 1988, from 5:00 to 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers. Councilman Stamon seconded and the motion carried. X CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /LATE ITEMS Councilman Hordyk requested that Attorney Knutson make an amendment to Ordinance 2367, setting the salaries of elected officials, and requested that he insert in Section 1, sub- section (C), a provision where the individual can accept or refuse at his or her discretion the compensation for the position, as he wished to decline his compensation for the term of the office, and he believed this needed to be covered in the Ordinance. Attorney Knutson stated he would. Councilman Hallett pointed out Item 7 on the Information Agenda, an invita- tion from the Washington State Emergency Management Association, to a conference to be held October 25 -26, 1988, and encouraged members to attend. Councilman Stamon made note of the letter of appreciation to Firefighter Jim Merriwether, stating this is the kind of services that are provided through the employees. She also questioned the letter regarding compliance with the Consent Decree from EPA which addressed the issue of someone dumping sludge, and asked if the City was able to ascertain any information on who that person or persons may be. Attorney Knutson provided the Council with a letter updating the issue. Public Works Director Pittis replied that he would be happy to discuss this issue with Council at a later time. XI ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION There was no need for an executive session. XIII ADJOURNMENT Councilman Lemon moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:23 PM. Councilman Stamon seconded and the motion carried. At; Clerk Mayor -16- Mit 1163 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 4, 1988