Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/16/1990 1711 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington October 16, 1990 I CALL TO ORDER - SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Sargent called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. Members Present: Mayor Sargent, Councilmen Cornell, Hallett, Lemon, Nicholson, Ostrowski. Members Absent: Councilman Wight. II INTERVIEW OF CANDIDATES FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VACANCY The City Council interviewed the following applicants for a vacant position on the Board of Adjustment: Barbara J. Kaufmann, Charles R. Turner, Carl A. Carlson, Frances Burch. The special meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:50 P.M. III CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING Mayor Sargent called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at 7:00 P.M. IV PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mary Ann Unger's DARE students from Monroe Elementary School. Students present were Alaina Henderson and Amanda Darling. V ROLL CALL Members Present: Mayor Sargent, Councilmen Cornell, Hallett, Lemon, Nicholson, Ostrowski. Members Absent: Councilman Wight. Staff Present: Manager Pomeranz, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Upton, S. Brodhun, M. Cleland, B. Collins, B. Coons, L. Glenn, J. Pittis, B. Titus, Y. Ziomkowski, J. Hicks. Public Present: M. Greubel, M. Steele, F. Burch, G. Goldstein, A. Darling, A. Henderson, L. Bell, L. McLean, E. Saar, M. Crawford, Mr. & Mrs. C. May, G. Doyle, M. Hart, P. Anstedt, J. Henderon, D. Darling, J. Nelson, C. Alexander, R. Grimsley, D. Lee. VI APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 2, 1990 Councilman Lemon moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 2, 1990. Councilman Cornell seconded the motion. Reference was made to Item V, Finance, No. 2, Request to Reject Bid for Wire- - Puller/Tensioner and Re-advertise, page 2. The motion made by Councilman Lemon is shown as also being seconded by Councilman Lemon. The City Clerk was directed to check the tape of proceedings in order to determine who made the motion and who actually seconded the motion. [A check of the proceedings indicates that the motion was made by Councilman Nicholson and seconded by Lemon.] The motion was voted on and carried by a majority vote, as amended, with Councilmen Ostrowski and Hallett abstaining. VII FINANCE None. -1- 1712 CITY COUNCILMEETING October 16, 1990 VIII CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Ostrowski moved to accept the items as presented on the Consent Agenda, including (1) Setting public hearing dates for Zoning Code Amendment requests (A) ZCA-90(09)5 - M & R Timber (B) ZCA-90(iO)6 - Davidson; (2) Correspondence from Washington State Liquor Control Board; (3) Vouchers of $243,422.80; and (4) Payroll of 9-30-90 of $259,607.85. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nicholson. Councilman Hallett raised the question that if the Consent Agenda is approved, does it mean the Council is automatically setting hearing dates for Zoning Code Amendment requests. Attorney Knutson responded affirmatively. Councilman Hallett further queried as to whether this indicated Councilmembers were not to discuss these particular issues with members of the public. He had been contacted by an individual and responded that it was not appropriate for him to discuss the matter until after the public hearing is held. Attorney Knutson stated that the position taken by Councilman Hallett was basically correct. With regard to rezones, this would definitely be the correct statement of the law. With regard to amending the text of a zoning code, these matters are normally legislative items and the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine does not apply. Discussion followed with regard to items on the Voucher Approval List, and it was noted that on page 1, Administration, Voucher No. 20598 is to be deleted. Additionally, page 1, Administrative Services, Voucher No. 20542 is to be deleted. Additionally, Manager Pomeranz offered explanation with regard to the October 2, 1990, Voucher Approval List, specifically relating to a payment to the Commissioner of Public Lands in the amount of $734.29. This particular payment represents an annual lease payment to the Department of Natural Resources for property located west of the City Pier, which was the former location of High Tide and Pisces Seafood (the old Owens Brothers Dock). This lease was entered into November 11, 1981, and expires November 11, 1991. The amount of the payment includes the lease amount as well as the leasehold excise tax. After limited discussion, the motion was voted on and carried unanimously. IX ITEMS FROM THE COUNCIL/AUDIENCE TO BE CONSIDERED/PLACED ON THE AGENDA Richard Page, 918 South "G" Street, asked Council to consider setting a public hearing with regard to Item 9 on the agenda. If Council chooses not to conduct a hearing, he asked that he be allowed to speak to the subject. Thomas Mitchell, 209 South Vine Street, Laurie Elmer, 993 Boyd Road, and Richard Hanley, 531 West Fourth Street, each spoke to Council with regard to current negotiations underway at Olympic Memorial Hospital between the R.N.s and management. Issues addressed were pertinent to the R.N. goal of obtaining a prompt and fair settlement in order to avoid a strike. They individually appealed to the public and to the City Council for support. At this time, Council felt it appropriate that testimony on this matter should not be taken at this point of the agenda, but rather, if the nurses were desirous of having the matter discussed further, it be placed on the agenda. There were no further requests for testimony. Craig Whalley, 1000 Mt. Pleasant Road, asked to be allowed to speak to Item 12 on the agenda. Craig Miller, Box 550, indicated a public hearing had been requested for Item 9. He expressed his opinion that a public hearing is not necessary and directed attention to a letter he submitted October 9th, which was directed to City Council but apparently did not reach them. Mr. Miller urged Council to review the letter and place it in consideration. Glen Goldstein, 221 1st Avenue W., Seattle, urged Council to intervene in order to put pressure on Olympic Memorial Hospital so a strike does not result. Mayor Sargent added to the agenda as Item 15, Discussion Concerning Hotel/Motel Tax Proposed Legislation. -2- 1713 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 16, 1990 Councilman Cornell requested that an item on the Information Agenda concerning the Integrated Finance System be placed on the agenda for discussion for inclusion of interested Councilmembers. This will be Item 16. Councilman Hallett requested that an item of Public Works be placed on the agenda as Item 17. X LEGISLATION 1. Proclamations: A. National Red Ribbon Campaign, October 20-28, 1990 Mayor Sargent presented a proclamation establishing the week of October 20-28, 1990, as National Red Ribbon Campaign. Alaina Henderson and Amanda Darling, students at Monroe Elementary School, expressed their appreciation to Council and distributed red ribbons to Councilmembers in honor of the Red Ribbon Campaign. B. Indian Education Week, October 21-27, 1990 Mayor Sargent presented a proclamation establishing the week of October 21-27, 1990, as Indian Education Week. C. Venture Week, October 21-27, 1990 Mayor Sargent presented a proclamation establishing the week of October 21-27, 1990, as Venture Week in Port Angeles. 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Consideration of Initiative 547 - Relating to Growth Management Act of 1990 Mayor Sargent opened the public hearing at 7:29 P.M. Margaret Crawford, P. O. Box 1085, Assistant Director of the Clallam County Economic Development Council, spoke to the City Council and related the fact the Executive Committee of the EDC has voted in opposition to Initiative 547, following a community forum. A telephone poll of all Board members was also conducted, and the Board voted in opposition to Initiative 547. The EDC is concerned about the loss of local control and the broad powers Initiative 547 vests in two growth management review panels. The new State Growth Management Act was enacted for regional coordination and coordination of land use plans. State regulations are a fact of life; however, Ms. Crawford noted that those State policies are developed and administered by people who are ultimately responsible to the State's elected officials. Further, she stated where citizen panels are part of the process an attempt is made to seat representatives of various interest groups. The single-interest membership, combined with the broad policy and budgetary powers and sanction powers, are the basis for the EDC's opposition to Initiative 547. Ms. Crawford noted that specific exclusion of a voice for local government is a serious flaw in Initiative 547, as there remains an expectation, with House Bill 2929, that local government will work out local solutions. She concluded by urging the City Council to take formal action this evening in opposition to 547. Marie Greubel, 315 West 15th Street, expressed her opinion that it is totally inappropriate for the City Council to take a position on Initiative 547. She felt the citizens of Port Angeles had elected the City Council members to carry out the business of running Port Angeles and not to serve as politicians opposing or endorsing State issues. Ms. Greubel continued that time might be better spent by City Councilmembers addressing the matters determined appropriate by the citizens of Port Angeles. Fran Butch, 1036 East First Street, spoke in opposition to Initiative 547, as a representative of the Port Angeles Board of Realtors. The group of realtors is concerned about the loss of local control, as well as the high cost to administer the Initiative. Of further particular concern is the issue of affordable housing. It appears the cost of housing would increase significantly under Initiative 547, and Ms. Butch indicated it is extremely important that -3- 1714 CITY COUNCILMEETING October 16, 1990 Port Angeles be able to provide affordable housing to the younger people, as well as the retired citizens. Initiative 547 does not address the transportation issue, and Ms. Burch urged City Council to continue its support of House Bill 2929 and oppose Initiative 547. Mike Doherty, 617 South "B" Street, indicated he attended the recent forum at which time testimony was received from the public on the merits of House Bill 2929 versus Initiative 547. Mr. Doherty expressed his dismay at the lack of complete information on Initiative 547 and he questioned the process the City is pursuing in addressing this matter. He asked Council how many members had read the complete text of Initiative 547, and was disappointed with the response to his question. The fact that Council is having a public hearing subsequent to publicly stating its opposition to the Initiative, was of extreme concern to Mr. Doherty. Further, he felt some of the Councilmembers were not in a position to take action on this matter, having not read the full text. He felt it inappropriate that Councilmembers would rely on input from other individuals in order to take a vote on the matter. He requested that Council continue this matter to a future meeting, take the opportunity to read the full text, and then take a position on the subject. Craig Whalley, 1000 Mt. Pleasant Road, spoke in support of Initiative 547. He expressed his dismay that City Council is taking a political stand on this matter and questioned as to whether the Council would be willing to take similar political stands on other specific, forthcoming political issues. Patrick Downie, 331 East llth Street, spoke as a former member of the Planning Commission and the planning community at large. He expressed his opposition to Initiative 547. Mr. Downie felt the process of House Bill 2929 should be supported as planning should be based on an intimate local level. It was clear to him that Initiative 547 removes that most important element in the planning process. Mr. Downie submitted it is unreasonable that sixteen appointed individuals, who probably do not reside on the Olympic Peninsula, would have the knowledge, understanding, or contact with the very real concerns of the community. In summary, Mr. Downie urged the City Council to vote in opposition to Initiative 547. Carl Alexander, 1712 West Fifth Street, spoke in support of House Bill 2929 instead of Initiative 547. He expressed his support of the planning process and believes it should be accomplished carefully, on a local basis. House Bill 2929 accomplishes this opportunity in a much better fashion. Mr. Alexander noted the regional review panels would be appointed and given entirely too much power, to the extent of being able to withhold tax revenues and vehicle excise tax from the cities and counties which have been determined inappropriately abiding by the Initiative regulations. Mr. Alexander proceeded to make specific comparisons between House Bill 2929 and Initiative 547, noting the panels on the Initiative are not democratic in their make-up. Additionally, the Growth Management Act presumes that local plans adopted are valid. Mr. Alexander stated Initiative 547 does nothing toward coordinating regional planning between cities and counties in a given area; House Bill 2929 insists that such coordinated efforts take place. Mr. Alexander urged Council to proceed with its intent to vote in opposition to Initiative 547. There being no further testimony, Mayor Sargent closed the public hearing at 8:51 P.M. Mayor Sargent indicated that one of the reasons some Councilmembers have more information than others is because of their involvement in the planning of the implementation of the Growth Management Act. She has attended every meeting on this subject and has subsequently shared the information with the remaining Councilmembers so as to provide them with sufficient information on which to base their decisions. Mayor Sargent felt it particularly important to consider a resolution opposing Initiative 547, due to the direct impact on the citizens of this community, especially concerning the possible increase in taxes. Additionally, Initiative 547 allows the withholding of taxes from this area. It is felt that House Bill 2929 is working very well and should be given an opportunity to prove its effectiveness. If Initiative 547 is passed, it goes into effect immediately and all efforts thus far on House Bill 2929 would be for naught. Councilman Hallett asked the City Attorney if the City Council has taken a position on any legislative matters before, and if so, is Council precluded from taking action and expressing a viewpoint on any such issues. -4- 1715 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 16, 1990 Attorney Knutson responded that the City cannot use City facilities to express support or opposition to initiatives, but the Council can express a collective view via a resolution, as long as the opponents are given an opportunity to express their views. Attorney Knutson further stated there is nothing quasi- judicial about this particular situation, and he added that the Association of Washington Cities had drafted a resolution which has been submitted to all cities and counties in the State for consideration. Councilman Hallett supported Mayor Sargent~s comments as to the method the Councilmembers receive their information. He indicated they must rely on information provided from other resources in order to make the best possible judgment. He further urged Council to support House Bill 2929. 3. Consideration of a Resolution Endorsing the Growth Management Act of 1990 and Opposing Initiative 547 Mayor Sargent read the Resolution by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. 28-90 A RESOLUTION of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, endorsing the thrust of the Growth Management Act of 1990, and opposing Initiative 547. Councilman Hallett moved to pass the Resolution as read by title. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemon. Discussion followed with regard to the forum recently conducted on House Bill 2929 and Initiative 547. Councilman Cornell was in agreement that perhaps better and more thorough information could have been provided to the public on Initiative 547, as it is difficult to ascertain the true impacts to the community should Initiative 547 be passed. He further expressed his view that it would be difficult for him to offer support to Initiative 547, based on the information he has at hand. The motion was voted on and carried unanimously. 4. Consideration of a Resolution Establishing a Multi-Year Regional Planning Strategy for Implementing the Growth Management Act (GMA) Mayor Sargent reviewed the issue as to whether Council should adopt a resolution establishing a multi-year strategy for implementing the Act and allocating financial assistance monies provided by the State for planning activities from July 1, 1990, to June 30, 1991, and further, whether Council should adopt an ordinance establishing a Growth Management Fund for the administration of State grant funds used in planning, as mandated by the Growth Management Act, and creating a new Chapter, 3.29, of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. At this point, Clallam County and the Cities located within the County are mandated to plan in compliance with the Growth Management Act of 1990. The Act provides financial assistance for cities and counties required to plan. In order to receive such allocated funds, the Cities of Sequim, Forks, and Port Angeles, as well as Clallam County, must adopt a multi-year regional strategy. Representatives of all four jurisdictions, including Mayor Sargent, City Manager Pomeranz, and Planning Director Collins, have been meeting since July to work out this cooperative agreement for GMA plan implementation. During the first year, the City can expect to be allocated $44,800 of the $156,329 set aside for Clallam County jurisdictions. The Planning Department has proposed that these funds be used for a new Senior Planner position, with long-range planning duties specifically including GMA-required tasks. Funding, at least at this level, through 1994, is anticipated. Mayor Sargent read the Resolution by title, entitled -5- 1716 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 16, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 29-90 A RESOLUTION of the City of Port Angeles establishing a multi-year strategy for implementing the Growth Management Act of 1990 and allocating financial assistance monies provided by the State of Washington for mandated planning activities from July 1, 1990, to June 30, 1991. Councilman Ostrowski moved that the Resolution be passed as read by title, and further that advertisement of a new Senior Planning position be authorized, subject to release of allocated State funds to the City of Port Angeles and to future State allocations of GMA financial assistance to the Gity. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion. Discussion followed, and Mayor Sargent inquired as to whether these funds would be released if Initiative 547 is passed. Planning Director Collins indicated it was his understanding the State would be allocating at least one-half a year's funds, which may not be enough to support a full-time planning position. If Initiative 547 should pass, the City Council may wish to reconsider the use of the funds, and as such, the matter would be returned to the City Council for consideration. At this time, Councilman Cornell asked whether the two issues should be handled separately. He offered a friendly amendment that consideration of the planning position be deferred until the funds are received and can be considered during the budget process. This amendment was acceptable to Gouncilmen Ostrowski and Nicholson. Accordingly, a vote was taken on the Resolution and the motion carried unanimously. 5. Consideration of an Ordinance Establishing a Growth Management Fund for Administration of State Grant Funds Used in Planning, as Mandated by the Growth Management Act Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2614 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, establishing a Growth Management Fund for the administration of State grant funds used in planning as mandated by the Growth Management Act, and creating a new Chapter 3.29 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. Gouncilman Hallett moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title. Councilman Cornell seconded the motion. In response to a question from Councilman Lemon, Planning Director Collins indicated that any Growth Management Funds would be kept separate from the City's General Fund. Initially funds are submitted to the City of Port Angeles, after which time transfers are made, as the fiscal agent, to the other parties involved. Further, Director Collins indicated the Planning Department staff has copies of pertinent information regarding 2929 and 547. The Planning Department serves somewhat as a library, and he was of the opinion the Department of Community Development is dispensing information regarding the Growth Management Act. Also, much of the information on the Growth Management Act and Initiative 547 is available at the Public Library. Councilman Cornell asked for input from Planning Director Collins with respect to the Senior Planning position. He asked the importance of being able to advertise for two planning positions at one time, in that the Associate Planner's position had recently been vacated. Director Collins indicated that often it would be better to advertise for two positions at once in order to attract good planners to this particular area. This year's funds for the Senior Planner position would not be available after -6- 1717 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 16, 1990 July 1st, and to delay a decision might cost the community some of the resources it might otherwise have received. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Ostrowski, Director Collins indicated the first and only allocation currently made is for the first year only, in the amount of $7.4 million. The Legislature would continue to fund these programs at the same level in the next legislative process, but the City would not know this as a fact accomplished until such time as the Legislature takes final action. However, the initial allocation is the basis on which the City is budgeting and planning on the expenditures of the Fund. The Senior Planning position is directly tied to the funds from the State. It is anticipated that, once advertisement is published for planning positions, it would take approximately 60 days in order to have someone actively working in the position. Councilman Lemon asked if it would be so stated that the Senior Planning position is funded solely by the State funds for purposes of planning under the Growth Management Act. Director Collins indicated the advertisement would be stated accordingly and further, that at such time as the funds are discontinued, the position would follow accordingly. Discussion ensued about the two positions, the Planning Commission's involvement in the planning position job descriptions, and the thrust of this involvement in the budgetary process. Director Collins noted the job description will be made available for review and consideration. At this time, the motion was voted on and carried unanimously. A motion was then made by Councilman Hallett to authorime the advertisement of a new Senior Planning position, subject to the release of allocated State funds to the City of Port Angeles and to future State allocations of GMA financial assistance to the City. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemon, and after limited discussion, the motion was voted on and carried unanimously. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. STREET VACATION REOUEST - STV-90(09)04 - Richard Grimsley, et al., Portion of East Sixth Street: Consideration of a request to vacate that portion of East Sixth Street abutting Lot 10, Block 189, Lots 17 and 18, Block 190, Lot 1 and the east 30 feet of Lot 2, Block 211, and Lot 9, Block 212, TPA Mayor Sargent opened the public hearing at 8:25 P.M. Richard Grimsley, applicant, 1301 East Sixth Street, indicated a previous ordinance had been adopted concerning this particular street vacation; however, Mr. Grimsley has subsequently extracted Lot 11, Block 189, from the original vacation. This is the reason the matter is returning to City Council for consideration. When asked why that particular lot was extracted, Mr. Grimsley responded that access problems had been cited at the most easterly portion of the property. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed at 8:28 P.M. Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2615 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles vacating that portion of East Sixth Street abutting Lot 10, Block 189, abutting Lots 17 and 18, Block 190, abutting Lot 1 and the east 30 feet of Lot 2, Block 211, and abutting Lot 9, Block 212, TPA, and repealing Ordinance No. 2589. Council may set a charge up to one-half of what has been determined to be the fair market value. On this particular Vacation, that amount is $9,394. Discussion followed with Councilmembers inquiring as to why certain staff recommendations were cited in the original vacation and are not reappearing in this particular vacation application. -7- 1718 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 16, 1990 Planning Director Collins noted that staff had recommended denial, after expressing concerns on the second application. However, some of those concerns were not brought forward from the original vacation application and as such, the Planning Commission subsequently recommended approval. Councilman Ostrowski moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title, citing the following conditions, findings and conclusions: Condition: (A) That the property owned by Mr. Hopfner and Mrs. Lee (the east 30 feet of Lot 2, Block 211, and Lot 17, Block 190), be included in the street vacation request, and that Mr. Hopfner submit a written agreement to that effect for the file; Findings: (1) Street Vacation Petition No. STV-90(04)O1 was approved by the City Council through Ordinance No. 2589. This street vacation includes the property under the proposed vacation, and several other adjacent lots. This street vacation was approved subject to the following conditions; (a) An easement to access utility facilities will be provided and a 20-foot non- exclusive easement for ingress and egress shall be formally granted to the City and to the owners of property adjacent to the right-of-way vacated herein by written easements in a form acceptable to the City from the owners of the property adjacent to said street; (b) Ail properties under a single ownership shall be combined through the Zoning Lot Covenant process; (2) The Planning Commission and City Council have determined previously that vacation of a large portion of the Sixth Street right-of-way is in the public interest; (3) Vacation of the subject right-of-way would place the property on the City's tax rolls and be in the public interest; (4) Sixth Street in this location is undeveloped and unnecessary to traffic circulation in the area; (5) The Light Department has indicated that an easement across the vacated Sixth Street and Mr. Grimsley's property will be required for access to maintain power poles in the area; (6) The Fire Department has indicated that a 20-foot access road should be maintained to Lots 17 and 18; (7) Based on the applicant's testimony, the street vacation approved by Ordinance No. 2589 would not be finalized, due to the location of the existing access road; Conclusions: (A) Vacation of this portion of Sixth Street is in the public use and interest and would be a public benefit; and that the dollar amount for the right-of-way be $9,394. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion. The vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously. B. STREET VACATION REQUEST - STV-90(09)05 - Winters, East Second Street: Consideration of a request to vacate that portion of East Second Street abutting Lots 1-8, Block 117, F. G. Richards Subdivision, along with the southern portion of Suburban Lot 13, TPA. Mayor Sargent noted that the applicant for this particular street vacation was not present at the Planning Commission meeting. Accordingly, she opened the public hearing at 8:35 P.M. to continue the hearing to the November 20, 1990, meeting. Councilman Cornell moved to continue the hearing to the November 20, 1990, meeting. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. M ~ ~ ayer e ..... ~ ~ ~^~ ~ public ~-~ ~+ Q:~ P C. STREET VACATION REQUEST STV-90(10)06 - Chartraw, Euclid Street: Consideration of a request to vacate that portion of Euclid Street abutting Lot 1, Block 8, Pennsylvania Park Addition to TPA. Mayor Sargent opened the public hearing at 8'35 P.M. She reported the Planning Commission had conducted a public hearing to consider a request for vacation of a portion of Euclid Street and has subsequently recommended unanimously that the request be denied, citing findings and conclusions, as listed in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed at 8:30 P.M. Councilman Nicholson moved to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and denying the request, citing the following findings and conclusions: Findings: (1) The City maintains an 8-inch PVC sewer line in the Euclid Street right-of-way. The Department of Public Works indicated that the street right-of-way could be used for public access or utility purposes in the future; (2) The Department of Public Works has been attempting to get right-of-way in the area, including Euclid Street, rededicated to the City for street and utility purposes; Conclusions: (A) The proposed street vacation is '8- 1719 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 16, 1990 not in the public use and interest and would not be a public benefit. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. BREAK The City Council took a break at 8:38 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:57 P.M. 7. Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 1990: A. APPEAL OF SHORT PLAT DECISION - SHP-90(07)90 - Hart, 2600 Block of Milwaukee Drive The applicants for the referenced preliminary short plat have appealed Condition A of the approval, requiring the improvement of Milwaukee Drive adjacent to the proposed development. In hearing the appeal, the Planning Commission determined it appropriate to uphold the appeal and amend Condition A that prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall improve that portion of Milwaukee Drive adjacent to the property, as required by Section 16.04.140(e), Port Angeles Municipal Code, and the Department of Public Works; or enter into a non-protest agreement for the improvement of Milwaukee Drive and improve Milwaukee Drive to Department of Public Works gravel road standards. Lengthy discussion ensued, with Councilmembers addressing the effort to require improvements in a consistent fashion throughout the City. The appropriateness of the Planning Commission action concerning a non-protest agreement or improvement to gravel road standards, was questioned. Councilman Hallett expressed the opinion that the action of the Planning Commission appeared to be counter to long-range planning objectives. Planning Director Collins indicated staff had recommended in the decision of the short plat that improvements be made to portions of Milwaukee Drive consistent with the idea that a paved street would be provided prior to final plat. The Planning Department, in association with the Public Works Department, was trying to be consistent with the short plat decision rendered on property immediately across the street from this particular property. That short plat was not appealed. In the lengthy discussion that followed, Councilmembers individually expressed the need to be consistent with requirements for improvements on short plats. Discussion also centered around other specific areas in town where the area has been "grandfathered" and conditions for improvement not established. It would appear that the residents may, at some future date, demand paving in those areas. The consensus is that, particularly in plats, the standards need to be applied consistently. Councilman Cornell asked why the Planning Commission did not establish findings in support of its recommendation. Planning Commission Chairman Leonard responded that the original findings in the short plat were not revised throughout this particular process, so they were not repeated. In response to inquiries from Council, Public Works Director Pittis addressed the subject of the short plat standard and noted that it is difficult to address a developed area which lies within a totally undeveloped region. It is difficult to accomplish improvements on a short plat-by-short plat basis, and these issues, hopefully, are to be addressed via such legislation as the Growth Management Act. Director Pittis further stated his opinion that all property owners will have to participate in the development of that road in one fashion or another. However, the expectation of the public is that when they purchase a lot in an undeveloped area, the City will come in and pave the roadway. The City, however, does not have those types of resources available, so the property owners are then advised of an available process; i.e., the LID process. Other types of resources are surfacing in other areas, such as transportation benefit districts. The intent behind that concept is impact fees would provide for something to progress in that area. This method has already been used in Port Angeles at a fairly successful level on Porter Avenue. Director Pittis stated it is more difficult to provide services to a developed area surrounded by undeveloped property as opposed to starting in a developed area and moving out. It is difficult to maintain standards and still implement the short plats. Discussion then followed, with Councilmembers considering the advantages of an -9- 1720 CITY COUNCILMEETING October 16, 1990 LID in order to obtain necessary improvements in the area. At this time, Planning Director Collins noted options available to the Council in its consideration, such as a no-protest agreement and gravel road improvements; requirements setting the City standards; or determine that it is premature to short plat the property and deny the entire application. Lengthy discussion ensued, with a motion made by Councilman Cornell to deny the appeal of Condition A of the short plat application. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nicholson. Further discussion followed about the equity and fairness of a property owner withstanding the cost of improving the roadway to the public right-of-way. The possibility of creating a fund in order to provide reimbursement was considered as a possibility. However, it was noted that unless there are other short plats in the future, there is no way to move money into such a fund. A vote was taken on the motion, which carried with Councilman Lemon voting "No". Public Works Director Pittis noted that this issue of short plats needs to be re-addressed and dealt with between staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP-90(10)18 - WHEELER, Rhodes Road and Park Knoll Drive: Request to allow a duplex in the RS-9, Residential Single- Family District Mayor Sargent reported that an appeal has been filed in conjunction with this Conditional Use Permit, and as such, the City Council is required to set a public hearing to hear the appeal. Councilman Ostrowski moved to set a public hearing on this matter for November 6, 1990. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemon and carried unanimously. B. REQUEST TO CIRCULATE AN ANNEXATION PETITION - Freeman: Request to circulate an annexation petition for property located south of the current City limits A motion was made by Councilman Nicholson to concur with the Planning Commission recommendation and allow circulation of the annexation petition for property located south of the current City limits. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cornell. Planning Director Collins requested clarification in that this meeting is to be with the petitioners and to set requirements of the petition. It should be noted this would require assumption of the general indebtedness of the City and RS-9 Zoning in the petition, which is the standard petition. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Cornell, Attorney Knutson indicated the petitioners did not have to be present. By consensus the Council agreed on the requirements of the petition. The vote was then taken and the motion carried unanimously. C. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES A motion was made by Councilman Cornell to accept and place on file the Planning Commission minutes of October 10, 1990. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nicholson. Reference was made to Page 4 of the minutes, the last paragraph, wherein Werner Quast indicated there is a drainage problem in the area across Park Knoll Drive where drainage from the entire area to the south flows across Rhodes Road to the ditch and then down to the canyon. The minutes reflect that the City plugged the culvert under Rhodes Road near the property and Park Knoll Drive now floods. Public Works Director Pittis was directed to pursue this matter and obtain pertinent information for a report back to the City Council. The vote was then taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. -10- 1721 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 16, 1990 8. PUBLIC HEARING A. Consideration of a revision to Flood Plain Management Ordinance On September 28, 1990, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) adopted the revised flood plain maps for the area in the City of Port Angeles. As a part of the City's flood insurance program, the City is required to adopt the revised maps and include them by reference in the Flood Plain Management Ordinance. Other changes were made and adopted by the Department of Ecology. These changes eliminated the critical facility category and the requirement that the base flood elevation be raised by one foot. It has been determined that the Ordinance proposed affords sufficient protection. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Department that City Council adopt the revised Ordinance to include the changes listed. Mayor Sargent opened the public hearing at 9:40 P.M. There being no testimony offered, the hearing was closed at 9:41 P.M. Mayor Sargent then read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2616 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles amending regulations for flood plain management, and amending Ordinances 2091, 2445, 2514 and 2524, and Chapter 15.12 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. A motion was made by Councilman Ostrowski to adopt the Ordinance as read by title. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemon and carried unanimously. 9. Consideration of interpretation of Park View Villa buffer conditions Consideration of the Park View Villa buffer conditions was discussed at the October 2, 1990, meeting of the City Council and the matter was tabled to this meeting for further consideration with the full Council present. At this time, a motion was made by Councilman Hallett, seconded by Gouncilman Cornell, to bring the matter off the table from the October 2nd meeting. The vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously. Consideration was given to the request submitted for a public hearing on this issue. The question was raised as to whether new information obtained by the neighbors is a matter that should be brought before the City Council in the form of a public hearing. Attorney Knutson stated that if the Council decides to conduct a public hearing, it would be appropriate to receive additional information as long as it is restricted to this particular issue only. Planning Director Collins indicated that, to his knowledge, this information does not specifically relate to the issue of the City Council's original intent on the buffer. Attorney Knutson stated that the Council could consider the intent of the buffer condition without holding a public hearing if it is of the opinion it has enough information on which to act. At this time, Mayor Sargent reviewed the issue at hand, which is being brought before the City Council for clarification as to whether the developer at Park View Villas had met the buffer conditions as previously set forth by the City. Councilman Cornell reminded Council there is a motion on the floor from the prior meeting, before the tabling motion. He restated the motion as follows: That consistent with the original drawings approved by the City, the last 15 feet of the sidewalk closest to the alley be removed by the developer and the developer be allowed to extend the sidewalk west to the garages with suitable vegetation planted in place of that portion of the sidewalk. The motion had been made by Councilman Cornell and was seconded by Councilman Lemon. However, at this time, Councilman Lemon withdrew his second to the motion. Councilman Nicholson then seconded the motion. 1722 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 16, 1990 Councilman Cornell clarified the intent of his motion in that the original sidewalk would not have made a hole in the buffer. The sidewalk now in place does not allow for a visual screen, and it is Councilman Cornell's opinion that with the last 15 feet being removed and the developer extending the sidewalk west to the garages, that vegetation planted in place of the removed sidewalk would establish the necessary visual screen. Councilman Hallett indicated it was difficult to understand the nature of concern regarding the sidewalk. Planning Director Collins indicated he felt it was an issue of principle, rather than whether or not the sidewalk actually causes problems with the buffer in that area. Lengthy discussion ensued, with Councilmembers discussing the fact that traffic patterns would not change a great deal if this motion were passed, and it was agreed that this issue is, in fact, a matter of principle. Councilman Hallett noted that the temporary certificate of occupancy has expired and Public Works Director Pittis indicated the final certificate has not been issued. Councilman Hallett indicated it was also his impression that the initial intent of the City Council was for a visual screen and he feels the developer did a fine job. He feels that Councilman Cornell's observation is correct and if the hole in the screen is the problem, then perhaps passage of the motion is the means by which that problem can be remedied. Other Councilmembers expressed opinions that the sidewalk is not particularly offensive and does not detract from the natural appearance in the area. Mayor Sargent suggested that perhaps consideration might be given to painting the sidewalk a color, in order to make the sidewalk seem less obtrusive. After lengthy discussion, a vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. At this time a motion was made by Councilman Hallett to complete the agenda before Council. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemon and carried unanimously. 10. Certification of 1991 Property Tax Levy City Manager Pomeranz presented to Council information pertinent to the certification of the 1991 property tax levy. In accordance with RCW 84.52.010, the City is required to annually certify to the County Commissioners the amount of property taxes to be levied. It is then the responsibility of the County Commissioners to levy the corresponding taxes. The City has two levies, the general levy is the amount of property taxes used for general City purposes, the allocation to the Street Fund, the 1985 Debt Service Fund, and the Firemen's Pension Fund. The second levy is used to pay debt service on general obligation bonds (1978 G.O. Bond). In that property tax levies are limited by State law, the City has the option of levying a maximum tax of $3.08 per $1,000 assessed valuation. At the present time, the tax levy is $3.05 per $1,000, and is hereby submitted as an alternative for Council consideration. With a general property tax levy at the maximum level, inclusive of the special levy, the total levy would amount to $2,132,642. The alternative levy, at the current rate, would total $2,101,124. The end result if the higher of the two levies is adopted, would be an increase in funds of approximately $30,000. However, even if Council should maintain the levy at its current level, the City would still realize an increase in funds of $100,000. This amount is in conjunction with an adjustment in valuation of the ITT Rayonier Mill. After limited consideration, it was the consensus of Council that it is inappropriate to raise the tax levy at this time, and Council is strongly desirous of maintaining the present level, in view of other anticipated inflationary factors being realized by the public. Accordingly, a motion was made by Councilman Hallett and seconded byCouncilman Nicholson to maintain the tax levy at $3.05 per $1,000 assessed valuation and to certify the amounts as follows: Regular property tax, $1,930,650; Special -12- 1723 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 16, 1990 levy, $170,474; for a total of $2,101,124. A vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. 11. Selection of Candidate to fill vacancy on the Board of Adjustment The City Council had interviewed applicants to fill the vacancy on the Board of Adjustment, as follows: Barbara J. Kaufmann, Charles R. Turner, Carl A. Carlson, Frances Butch. Mayor Sargent spoke on behalf of the Council in expressing appreciation to each applicant for applying for the position and for showing such interest and dedication to the community. At this time, the Mayor directed Clerk Upton to poll the Council. Councilman Ostrowski cast a vote for Barbara Kaufmann. Councilmen Cornell, Hallett, Lemon and Nicholson cast votes for Charles Turner. Mayor Sargent cast a vote for Carl Carlson. The new member of the Board of Adjustment is therefore Charles Turner. The next special meeting of the City Council will be held on November 6, 1990, at which time applicants for the vacancy on the Planning Commission will be considered. Mayor Sargent indicated that Carl Carlson has expressed interest in that vacancy, as well, and his name should be placed in consideration. 12 Consideration of an amendment to the Off-Street Parking Ordinance Mayor Sargent advised Council this matter is being brought to the Council to consider the Port Angeles Off-Street Parking Code in order to allow the use of a building to be changed without complying with the standards for off-street parking if the business is a member of the Parking and Business Improvement Area. This matter has been brought forward by the Port Angeles Downtown Association, which has requested an amendment to the Code in order to allow existing buildings in the Central Business District to change uses without adding parking, which may be required by the Off-Street Parking Code. If a structure is enlarged, it would have to provide additional parking, according to the Code. Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, revising parking requirements for changes in building use by PBIA members which do not enlarge floor areas, and amending Ordinance 2228 and Chapter 14.40 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. A motion was made by Councilman Ostrowski to adopt the Ordinance as read by title. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hallett. Craig Whalley, 1000 Mt. Pleasant Road, spoke to Council, as owner of the Odyssey Bookstore at 114 West Front Street, and as a member of the Board of the Downtown Association. Mr. Whalley stated his opposition to the change which, he noted, was not adopted unanimously by the Board. He feels this change ignores how the future need for increased parking will be met; and further stated his opinion that the Association is looking for development and is willing to off-set the parking consideration to a later date. Mr. Whalley suggested that proponents give consideration to how future needs will be met; and also the fact that businesses with change of use parking have already been paying and will continue to pay in the future. If there is a direct effect on Armory Square, Mr. Whalley suggested there is a question of appearance of fairness because of individuals who may have voted in favor of this change but who are also tenants or owners of the building. Mr. Whalley indicated that, if this change is adopted, only new construction would pay for parking. He then cited various possible examples which would directly impact the parking scenario, and feels this issue is a question of wise planning. Mr. Whalley felt, at the very least, this matter -13- 1724 CITY COUNCILMEETING October 16, 1990 should be considered first by the Planning Commission before City Council takes action. Tim Haley, President of the Port Angeles Downtown Association, indicated the Board of the Association has debated this issue numerous times and ultimately voted in favor of the change in the ordinance. Mr. Haley indicated the Downtown area is on a positive surge and it is the feeling of the Association that it does not wish to establish stumbling blocks in filling the vacant areas. Various developers have shown an interest in the Downtown area until the time they become aware of the parking issue. The Port Angeles Downtown Association is requesting this change for a period of five years, as the Association would like to encourage filling vacant stores. It is important to make a positive commitment to our City Downtown area becoming an active center; this change would help achieve that goal. When asked how the Association would handle a business coming into town with increased traffic patterns, Mr. Haley responded it would be good to have a problem of that nature. The City is at 45% occupancy of the total parking spaces and PADA is not asking that new business not provide new spaces, but rather, asking that existing businesses not be required to get new spaces just because of a change in the use. Councilman Hallett inquired as to the possibility of using the variance procedure to handle the uniqueness of some of the parking situations. Mr. Haley indicated that in fact the variance process is available; however, it addresses issues more of a City-wide nature and does not necessarily address itself to the uniqueness of the parking situations in the Downtown area. This, therefore, is the reason a special ordinance is in place so that unique matters and PBIA can be handled appropriately, as compared to the remainder of the town. Jim Haguewood, 705 Christman Place, and part owner of Haguewood's Restaurant, spoke to the Council with regard to an occupancy study recently conducted by the Parking Committee. In the fall of 1985, the occupancy was at 67.8%. During the May-June, 1990, time frame, occupancy had decreased to 49.6%. There has been an obvious reduction in the use of parking space in the Downtown area for 165 businesses. It was clarified that new business pays an assessment of $600 per space over a five-year period of time, or they can provide the actual parking. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Ostrowski, Mr. Haguewood indicated the occupancy figures submitted represent a study conducted only on those seven lots managed by the Association. Lengthy discussion followed, with regard to the intent of the Parking Ordinance and the interpretation of how it affects vacant buildings which may change use following a given period of time. Discussion also followed with regard to non-conforming use. Attorney Knutson indicated that after one year, if the building is still vacant, then the "grandfather" status is lost under the Zoning Code. Mr. Whalley indicated he agrees the utilization of the parking spaces is down; however, he questioned the accuracy of the percentages quoted on utilization. He questioned the time the surveys were conducted in terms of high traffic flow and low traffic patterns. Discussion then centered around about whether or not the $600 per space is a realistic figure. It was generally agreed that $600 is a low amount, in terms of long-range planning in replacing those spaces. Larry Leonard, 1030 Olympus, indicated he feels this change would be unfair, as the Downtown is asking for different consideration than the remainder of the City. Mr. Haguewood pointed out, however, that the Central Business District is different and no business has special parking for its own business in the Downtown area. Discussion then followed with regard to the fact that some Councilmembers felt the need for more information and perhaps a public hearing on the matter. Councilman Cornell felt it might be appropriate to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for further consideration. He indicated his opposition to -14- 1725 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 16, 1990 the passage of this change, as the abundance of parking is due to the fact that this change has not been in place. He indicated the Harbortowne Mall could have used this, had it been available, and the Mall could have been constructed without additional parking. He referenced the Antique Mall and the fact that the owner of that Mall is paying into the Association and the result has been the displacement of employees from other businesses. Councilman Cornell felt an obvious result of this change would be that other businesses would suffer if it goes into effect. Attorney Knutson clarified the fact that there is an agreement presently between the business owner of the Antique Mall and the Downtown Association that does allow some leeway. If the Council should decide to change the Ordinance by November 1st, then the Antique Mall business owner will not have to put in parking, nor will he have to pay for the spaces After further consideration, a vote was taken on the motion. Voting in favor were Councilmen Ostrowski and Lemon. Voting in opposition to the motion were Councilmen Nicholson, Hallett, and Cornell. The motion failed. Councilman Hallett then moved that the matter of the change in the Off-Street Parking Ordinance be referred to the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ostrowski. Discussion followed as to the appropriateness of referring such a matter to the Planning Commission. However, the Councilmembers felt it is important to obtain more input on this matter before a decision is made. Council concurred this is a long-range planning issue for the Downtown area and it is extremely important that it be handled appropriately. A vote was then taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. 13. Request to consider the naming of three City Parks Over a period of the past three years, the Parks Department has been involved in the construction of three parks. The Parks Board, after receiving public input, submitted a recommendation that the parks be named as follows: Ediz Hook Park East (picnic area) - Harborview Park. Ediz Hook Park West (launch area) Sail and Paddle Park. Multi-purpose field (Lincoln Park) Volunteer Field. A motion was made by Councilman Nicholson and seconded by Council Lemon to adopt the above park names as presented. The motion carried unanimously. 14. Request to schedule a UAC (Utility Advisory Committee) meeting A request for a Utility Advisory Committee meeting has been submitted to discuss the possible repeal of the in-lieu of tax and the subsequent implementation of a City Utility Tax. Additionally, the UAC will be asked to consider the possibility of offering a special rate or modification of the existing general service rate schedule to deal with the special circumstances associated with local churches. The meeting has been set for Tuesday, October 30, 1990, at 4:00 P.M. 15. Request for a Letter in Opposition to Proposed Legislation for Hotel/Motel Tax Mayor Sargent presented to Council information pertinent to proposed legislation of the House Finance Committee which would eliminate local control of - hotel/motel taxes. Mayor Sargent referenced a letter from the Tourism and Convention Association of Clallam County requesting a letter of opposition to Representative Wang's proposed legislation regarding the hotel/motel tax moneys. These changes are being proposed in order to increase hotel/motel taxes and then collect the tax moneys to be retained at the State level with the State determining the projects to be funded. The end result would be that the City would lose its tax revenues for the promotion of tourism in the area. Accordingly, Councilman Nicholson moved that the letter be prepared for the signature of each Councilmember, to be sent to Representative Wang. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hallett and carried unanimously. 16. Information on Integrated Finance System Consultants The Integrated Finance System Subcommittee of the Data Processing Steering Committee is the staff group which has been given the responsibility of 1726 CITY COUNCILMEETING October 16, 1990 coordinating acquisition of an Integrated Finance System for the City. As such, Councilmembers have expressed an interest in participating in the deliberations of the selection of the consultant for the Integrated Finance System. After discussion, it was agreed that the Councilmembers who have expressed the most interest in this particular matter and are the most desirous of participating are Councilmen Cornell, Hallett, and Wight. At this time, as an added item of Council interest, Mayor Sargent indicated previous discussion at the Council level centered around the Memorial Committee discussing Council awards and recognitions. However, the Memorial Committee has not been functioning as the issue of memorials had been assigned to the Parks Board. As such, at some future date the Council will need to place on its agenda consideration and discussion of Council awards and recognitions. 17. Possible Development of the Unimproved Area of Columbus and Oak Streets Councilman Hallett had been contacted by a citizen regarding the unimproved status of the above-referenced area. The Public Works Director will compile information on this matter and respond to the citizen with copies to Council in the upcoming Information Packet. BREAK The meeting recessed for a break at 11:14 P.M. and reconvened at approximately 11:30 P.M. XI CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/LATE ITEMS None. XII ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Sargent adjourned the meeting to executive session at approximately 11:31 P.M. to discuss matters of litigation, labor negotiations, and property sales, for approximately one-half hour to 45 minutes. XIII RETURN TO OPEN SESSION The Council returned to open session at approximately 11:57 P.M. XIV ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:00 midnight. CC.180 -16-