HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/18/1988I CALL TO ORDER
II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III ROLL CALL
Members Absent: Councilman Sargent.
Staff Present:
Public Present:
IV APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 1988
V FINANCE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Port Angeles, Washington
October 18, 1988
1164
Mayor McPhee called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to
order at 7:01 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was read by Chris Cornell's second and
third grade Bluebird Troop, members Emily Agness, Vanessa Ball, Beth
Cornell, Emily Evans, Sarah Golian, Tessa Baskins, and Jennifer Nelson.
Members Present: Mayor McPhee, Councilmen Gabriel, Hallett, Hordyk,
Lemon, Stamon.
Manager Flodstrom, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Maike, P.
Carr, M. Cleland, S. Brodhun, R. Orton, L. Glenn, J.
Pittis, D. Wolfe, S. Hursh, C. Thornburg, K. Ridout, G.
Kenworthy.
R. Craver, S. King, M. Fangen, F. Ruthruff, L. Basta, L.
Fuller, F. Burch, M. Merrick, V. Bingham, K. L. Rose,
K. E. Anders, H. Berglund, F. Billingsley, K. Janeck,
B. Allman. A. C. Alexander, K. Wollen, J. Bennett, L.
Beil, R. Gruver, G. Austin, M. Schrader, A. Doyle, L.
Griffith, C. Brown, G. Gilliam, L. Beasler, K. Curto, L.
Sunny, J. Didrickson.
Councilman Hordyk moved to accept and place on file the minutes of the
regular meeting of October 4, 1988. Councilman Lemon seconded and the
motion carried unanimously.
1. Request for Payment of $856.95 to Riddell. Wil hms for Legal
Representation on WPPSS Issues
Councilman Lemon moved to authorize the June 1, 19v,8, paym:'iit in the amount
of $856.95 to Riddell, Williams for legal rep esen:ations vI the WPPSS
issues. Councilman Hordyk seconded and the m 'arriu,l zanimously.
2. Consideration of Bids for LIDs (Alder St, Regent Sti_eet, and Sixth
Street)
Councilman Stamon stated that the Council had beL:- ptt;senrE_ci with a letter
from the apparent low bidder, J B Construction, i!d;catin that in their
opinion, the Council should award the bid even thou, it is above the
Engineer's estimate, basically because it is th, )ustruction company's
belief that the estimate received by Council wh,; the project was first
looked at was incorrect. Councilman Stamon point<J tt that the staff memo
makes reference to an assumption that there is iioc an ability to complete
the project this fall and that there would have to be some sort of main-
tenance pattern placed on the project. However, she did not see, in
reading through the letter submitted by J B Construction any reference to
that particular issue. She then asked staff if there had been any discus-
sion on this particular issue and also if they have gone through some of the
suggestions with J B Construction in reducing the cost of the project.
Public Works Director Pittis, in response to the question on delayh the
project, said there has been no discussion of that issue, as the Department
is dealing with an apparent bidder situation and therefore Uie Department is
reluctant to negotiate on a staff level with an apparent low bidder because
of the bidding statutes. However, the D,Hiitment has discussed the problem
1165
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
of the bid award with the bidder and also the recommendations made by J B
Construction, but the Department concerns are, essentially, there have only
been two bids on the project, and also the time of year the project is being
bid. It was the Department's decision to put the project out to bid because
of the LIDs and the property owners' interest in proceeding as quickly as
possible. This was done, recognizing the chance of time and weather.
Further, Director Pittis stated the Department believed it is in the best
interest of the property owners to rebid the project at a later time,
possibly the first part of 1989.
Councilman Hordyk then moved that the bids be rejected on the grounds that
the project is being paid for by the property owners and the property
owners have a right to know what is being done, and that the assessment is
increased by approximately $2,000 each. Councilman Stamon seconded,
requesting that Council also instruct staff to rebid the project next spring
when the weather is more conducive to this type of project, or at the
appropriate time. Councilman Hordyk concurred.
Councilman Hallett asked Director Pittis when is the optimum time for
bidding work, such as this project. Director Pittis stated toward the end
of the winter season is usually the preferable time.
Mayor McPhee asked why this was bid out at such a late date. Director
Pittis stated the Department felt compelled to bid out the project as
rapidly as possible because of the feelings of the property owners in the
LID project areas.
Mayor McPhee asked what happens next spring, when the project is bid and the
bids come back higher because of inflation or that sort of problem.
Director Pittis stated they would then have to speak to the property owners
about payment and benefits.
Councilman Hallett asked if they were comfortable with the Engineer's
estimate. Director Pittis stated they were.
Mayor McPhee asked if there was anyone representing J B Construction in the
audience to address the issue.
Councilman Stamon requested a point of order and asked Attorney Knutson if
this was appropriate, since this is a situation in which there is a motion
that has not been dealt with regarding a bid. Attorney Knutson stated he
believed it was reasonable to ask questions, as long as the ultimate
decision on the project is based on the bids as submitted, including the
specifications, and no additional information is generated that would give
this bidder a benefit over the other bidder.
Jim Sennett, P. 0. Box 996, Port Angeles, representing J B Construction,
made himself available for questions.
Mayor McPhee asked Mr. Bennett whether there was any information in the
letter which would make Council think twice about-. rejecting the bids. Mr.
Bennett stated he did not believe the Engineer's estimates were as accurate
as they could be; that there are portions of the projects which could be
proceeded upon; and there could be some trimming down of the projects to fit
the budget.
Mayor McPhee stated the Attorney had indicated Council could not accept that
type of situation at this time, but clarified his question, stating the
Council has to go on the information that it receives from the staff. The
information they have states the bids are very high and therefore, they are
recommending rejection of the bids and to rebid the projects in the spring
of 1989 when the bidding climate is more competitive.
Mr. Bennett stated nothing is going to guarantee that the bids will come in
lower in the spring, and he did not believe they would, as he believed the
bid was very realistic. The project as it is has problems as far as its
locations.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
Mayor McPhee pointed out to Director Pittis that the letter from J B
Construction stated that the last two projects which the City bid out
resulted in bids which were 38% under and 36% over the Engineer's estimate,
but those bids were awarded. He questioned as to the uniqueness of this
project or about those other two projects mentioned.
Mr. Bennett stated the bids indicated were the water line replacement, which
was under the estimate, and the Eighth Street Bridge repair.
Director Pittis stated the Eighth Street Bridge repair is a structural job
and both those estimates are based upon previous information received from
other engineering firms. The value of those particular projects are
significantly different. When the Department looks at estimating projects,
they are trying to reach a happy medium, and when five or six bids are
received, some will be over, some will be under, and that is essentially
what is trying to be reached with an estimate of a project.
Councilman Lemon voiced his concern as to whether the property owners had
been approached to see if they would want to absorb the additional cost;
what if they are agreeable and the City rejects the bids and then rebids the
project in the spring and the bid is higher. He asked if there was a
process the Department could follow in approaching the people involved.
Director Pittis stated that is a possibility; however, the bids are only
good for 30 days and the property owners were addressed regarding this
issue based upon the Engineer's estimate and that is what the preliminary
assessment roll is based upon. There is no guarantee regarding the bid
amount in the spring; however, the Department does believe that competition
is the best source of low bids.
Following additional discussion of the issue, the question was called and
the motion carried unanimously.
VI CONSENT AGENDA
Councilman Hordyk moved to accept the items on the Consent Agenda, as
follows: (1) Correspondence from Washington State Liquor Control Board; (2)
Vouchers of $284,738.57; and (3) Payroll of 10 -2 -88 of $249,145.08.
Councilman Lemon seconded.
Following discussion of the items presented, the question was called and the
motion carried unanimously.
VII ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA
1166
Marvin Merrick, 615 West Eighth Street, requested that Council allow him to
speak on Item 4, consideration of an Ordinance amending the Council salary
ordinance.
Leonard Fuller, 420 East llth Street, spoke at length regarding the nuisance
ordinance enforcement by the City. Mr. Fuller stated this was a clear
infringement on his civil liberties. After a lengthy speech, Mayor McPhee
requested Mr. Fuller meet with the City Manager Ad place this item on the
agenda of the next meeting, if he felt so inclined to do so.
Councilman Stamon clarified the point that Mr. Fuller was trying to make,
stating that Mr. Fuller was unhappy with the action that the City has taken
and that he would want the Council and the public to be aware that he is
protesting that action, and further asking that Council take his protest
under consideration. She then instructed Mr. Fuller, if he wished to file a
protest on the action taken, that he should communicate that to the City
Manager in writing.
Councilman Lemon moved to place Item 1 as Item 4, moving Items 2, 3 and 4
ahead on the Agenda. Councilman Gabriel seconded and the motion carried,
with Councilmen Stamon and Hallett voting "No
VIII LEGISLATION
1. Proclamation National Business Women's Week
2. Proclamation Venture Week
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles,
Washington, amending the City Council
Salary Ordinance No. 2367.
-4-
.4
1167
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
Mayor McPhee proclaimed the week of October 16th through 22nd, 1988, as
National Business Women's Week and urged all citizens in Port Angeles, along
with civic and fraternal groups, educational associations, news media, and
other community organizations to join in this salute to working women by
encouraging and promoting the celebration of the achievements of all
business and professional women as they contribute daily to our economic,
civic, and cultural purposes.
Mayor McPhee proclaimed October 16th through 22nd, 1988, as Venture Week and
urged all of our citizens to become aware of the contributions of the
Venture Club to our community.
3. Consideration of Ordinance Amendine City Council Salary Ordinance
Mayor McPhee read the Ordinance by title, entitled
ORDINANCE NO. 2512
Councilman Hallett moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title.
Councilman Lemon seconded.
Marvin Merrick, 615 West Eighth Street, stated that it was commendable that
Councilman Hordyk has decided to waive his benefits for the elected office,
but Mr. Merrick believed it would be more beneficial for the Councilmembers
to give their money to the Senior Center, as opposed to leaving it in the
General Fund. In giving the money to the Senior Center, it would be a
direct benefit to the senior citizens in town. He believed the Senior
Center has a bare bones budget and anything the City could do to help their
senior citizens would be well deserved.
Councilman Hordyk thanked Mr. Merrick for his suggestion, but stated he did
not believe he had the authority to decide where that money should be
placed, stating further that his reason for turning down the salary was that
he believed it was an inappropriate amount; that it was too much money.
Mayor McPhee thanked Councilman Hordyk for his generous gesture. On call
for tie question, the motion carried unanimously.
Council decided to continue Items 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 to the November 1,
1988 meeting.
4. Public Hearings
A. Appeal of German CUP 88(9)18
Mayor McPhee stated the issue is the appeal of the Planning Commission
decision to deny a Conditional Use Permit for a day -care in an RS -9 Single
Family Residential District.
Councilman Lemon informed Council and the audience of a call that he had
received from Attorney Knutson regarding the issue, and he read for the
record a letter submitted by himself stating, in part: "The original issue
on October 4, 1988, was a CUP for two home occupations. After reading the
Commission minutes and viewing the two subject properties, I formed an
opinion to share with the Council. Keep in mind at the Council it was
considered a public meeting and not a public hearing. This item, public
meeting versus public hearing, was defined in the last term Council. Public
meeting is no public input. However, the Council meeting tape of October 4,
1988, spells out my opinion. I did not concur with the decision concerning
the Germans and I concurred with the Williams. That was my opinion. Under
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
1168
Section 17.86.105, the City Council shall, at a public meeting not a
hearing consider an appeal. I have listened to the Planning Commission
tapes and voted to have on the first CUP a public hearing, even though in
the Ordinance, it is still classified as a public meeting, and because I
wanted to uphold the law, which was not clearly defined at the Council
meeting, I am being asked to step down because of an appearance of fairness.
CUP No. 1 regarding German: Former practice of the Council and I can
attest to it because I was a Commission member the Council had the final
authority, being elected representatives and could overturn the Commission's
decision. It was not until we found out through Larry Leonard, the newest
Planning Commission member, that the final decision was the Planning
Commission's. As a City Councilman, I appealed the decision. On this
issue, the Attorney and I differ. Attorney Knutson thought I was repre-
senting as a citizen. But I appealed it as a Councilman and he has
indicated to me that the appeal must be by the whole Council. Looking at
the process in two steps, an appeal takes place first if there is a major
vote at a public meeting we approve /deny, approve with modifications,
conditions of the appeal. CUP No. 2, regarding the Williams', I am asked to
step down because I concurred with the Planning Commission. And if it is
still the discretion of the City Attorney that I step down because of an
appearance of fairness, I will do that to not jeopardize these citizens."
Mayor McPhee asked if Councilman Lemon was requesting a decision from the
City Attorney. Councilman Lemon stated he was.
Attorney Knutson stated it would be his suggestion that Councilman Lemon
offer the issue to the public who is here to testify, pursuant to the public
hearing notice, and if anyone should object to his sitting, based on the
disclosure which Councilman Lemon has made, then Attorney Knutson felt it
would be advisable for him to step down. However, if no objection is made,
then the public will be deemed to have waived their right to object, based
on the appearance of fairness doctrine, and Councilman Lemon could continue
to sit without jeopardizing any decision that the Council may make.
Mayor McPhee posed a question to the audience, asking if anyone objected to
Councilman Lemon being present during the public hearing.
A member of the audience asked Councilman Lemon to explain what it was he
was speaking about. Councilman Lemon, to paraphrase, stated he has been
asked to step down from the two public hearings because of an appearance of
fairness. The member of the audience asked why. Councilman Lemon stated it
was because of the way he voiced himself at the October 4th City Council
meeting. Because of this, he has been asked to step down.
Carl Alexander, 1712 West Fifth Street, asked Councilman Lemon if he had
appealed the German CUP. Councilman Lemon stated yes, he had. He had filed
an appeal because a section of the Home Occupations Ordinance states it can
be appealed by a citizen at the public hearing, a staff member, or the City
Council, and he felt it was in his best interest, as a City Councilman, to
appeal the decision. However, his appeal does not mean that is the
decision of the Council.
Mr. Alexander stated that if it was Councilman Lemon who filed the appeal,
then he was not sure that Councilman Lemon should sit and participate on
these issues.
Mayor McPhee asked Mr. Alexander if he was appealing the decision. Mr.
Alexander stated he was just trying to find out if Councilman Lemon's was
the only appeal filed.
Mayor McPhee stated there were many appeals filed.
Councilman Stamon stated this is the first appeal since Council had dis-
covered in the Ordinance that the Planning Commission is the final acting
body on home occupation permits in residential areas. That is different
from Conditional Use Permits in other areas within the Zoning Code. She
stated that the Planning Commission minutes had come before the City Council
at the last meeting and within those Planning Commission minutes were two
Conditional Use Permits for home occupations within residential areas.
Under the terms of the Ordinance, this is not an issue for the Council to
consider because the decision has been made by the Planning Commission.
-5-
1169
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
However, there was concern expressed about these particular issues and she
felt things were a little confusing at that point. The question then placed
before the Council was whether or not the Council should consider those
items to examine whether or not the Council should overturn or modify in
some way the decision of the Planning Commission; and that, she felt, was
the intent of Councilman Lemon's motion. The Council then decided to not
take action upon those two particular permits but to wait and see if there
were, in fact, appeals filed by members of the public with respect to those
issues. If there were appeals filed, Council directed staff to schedule
those appeals for public hearings this evening. She believed that was the
process that brought the issues before the Council.
Mayor McPhee asked if anyone in the audience had any objection to Councilman
Lemon participating in the discussion.
Hattie Berglund questioned the Council as to whether it was legal for a City
Councilmember to appeal, as a Councilperson, and not separate themselves
from the body. Attorney Knutson stated yes, it was, as long as no one
objects to that process, based upon the appearance of fairness doctrine.
Edith Anders, 3132 Regent Street, asked Councilman Lemon whether or not he
had been approached by Planning Commission member Larry Leonard in regard
to this issue. Councilman Lemon stated no.
Mayor McPhee pointed out that Mr. Leonard's comments were on the Planning
Commission meeting tapes which are available to the Council.
Mrs. Anders requested Councilman Lemon step down.
Councilman Lemon then asked the public if he should step down on the issue
of the Williams CUP, since he did not file an appeal on it.
Mayor McPhee stated if Councilman Lemon only made a written appeal on one
issue, he would understand if Councilman Lemon was requested by the
audience to step down on that issue.
Councilman Hallett stated out of courtesy to Councilman Lemon, regarding
stepping down on both issues, if Mrs. Anders felt it was appropriate for
Councilman Lemon to step down, that matter could be taken care of at this
time.
Mayor McPhee stated the issue would be taken care of during the second
public hearing.
Councilman Lemon commented the reason why he volunteered to step down on
both issues was because he was approached in that manner, and the only
reasoQ he could see stepping down on the second CUP was because he concurred
with the Planning Commission decision and did not vote for a public hearing.
That was the only reason he should step down.
Councilman Lemon left the room at 8:15 P.M. K
Mayor McPhee opened the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. He stated there would
be no limitation on the information brought forth from the public.
Attorney Knutson stated that anything that was not in the minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting should be expressed. This would enable the
Council to consider all the relevant evidence.
Councilman Stamon read for the record the letter submitted by Mary Craver,
302 West llth Street. Some of the concerns expressed by Mrs. Craver in
regard to the conditional use permits were as follows: The Germans have a
child that is ill and her illness requires that her mother remain at home.
The Williams' have two small pre- school children whose parents feel that the
best care their children can receive is for their mother to remain at home.
These two mothers have been contributing for the past several years to the
family income by the small one person business that they operate out of
their home. To deny these families the right to continue in the pursuit of
their livelihoods would not only destroy them financially but also emotion-
ally. She felt the traffic situation was unfounded, as Mrs. Williams
-6-
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
1170
operates only three days a week and there is ample parking and a turn around
space in the yard. In the case of the Germans, the operating of the day
care has taken place for three years without any complaints from the
neighbors. To deny a permit to the Germans to maintain a caring and loving
environment for six little children would not only be devastating for them,
but also for the families who use their facilities. In regard to the use of
the private road, a road maintenance agreement should have been drawn long
before now. She stated she could understand why there are day care facili-
ties and in -home beauty shops operated in the City without Conditional Use
Permits when the permit process becomes so terrifying. The applicants have
been bounced back and forth between the Planning Commission meetings and the
City Council meeting, not understanding the whole process, while their lives
hang in the balance. She felt that the Council must do as they have done in
the past to consider each case on its own merits and to not let petitions
or appeals which are trying to blanket cover their whole neighborhood,
influence their decisions. In closing, she stated it seems to her that
decisions or the lack of them, are being based on the unfounded fears of
emotional neighbors and not on facts. And because the Williams' and the
Germans requests do meet the guidelines set down by the City, she saw no
reason why these permits should be denied and these peoples' lives
Craig Miller, 403 South Peabody, representing the neighbors in the area of
the Germans' Conditional Use Permit, placed on the record an objection to
the public hearing procedure in this instance, stating that the Home
Occupations Chapter of the Zoning Code, Section 17.86.105, clearly states
the City Council shall, at a public meeting, consider an appeal. The Zoning
Code draws a distinction between a public meeting and a public hearing on
several occasions, although Mr. Miller and Attorney Knutson do not agree on
this subject. Mr. Miller, nonetheless, feels that the Code limits the
procedures by which the City Council is authorized to consider an appeal
from the Planning Commission and the procedure which must be followed is
that Council consider it based on the record, not at another public hearing.
However, if the Council wishes to alter the procedure so that they may hold
a public hearing on an appeal, then the Code should be re- written to do so,
as he did not believe it was permissible for the City Council to, by motion
at a Council meeting, over -ride or amend an already existing Code. Mr.
Miller stated he was speaking on behalf of Harold Abbott who was not able to
attend the meeting. He felt the question in this issue is not whether
Conditional Use Permits should or should not be allowed within residential
zones of the City; in regard to this application, the issue is whether this
particular home occupation should be allowed at this location. He believed
there were three items outlined in the Code which the Council should
consider, specifically, access to the property is not adequate. Section
17.86.090(b) of the Code states the home occupation does not significantly
increase local vehicular or pedestrian traffic. There are two other
sections of the Code, Section 17.86.090(c) and (d), which state the City
Council must find the home occupation shall not be injurious or detrimental
to adjoining or abutting properties, and that it shall not endanger the
public health, morals, safety and welfare, and is also in the public
interest. Mr. Miller stated, given the nature of the street, he believed
allowing a public use or a Conditional Use Peritfit does have significant
public health, safety and welfare problems and suggested Council consider
the situation if an emergency vehicle needs to get into one of the houses
that is served by the lane, there may be some kind of traffic problem. In
placing a day care center on that street with that type of risk involved
indicates that under those three sections mentioned, the Council should
exercise its discretion to deny the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Miller
stated he did not believe the conditions of this particular piece of
property justify the proposed use.
Mayor McPhee asked Mr. Miller if the City Council should grant conditional
uses in the areas of the City where there are very narrow streets, on the
basis that a car may break down in the area. Mr. Miller stated that is a
consideration that the City Council is required to consider. Conditional
use means looking at the application and each piece of property to decide
whether the particular use is appropriate for that piece of property, given
all the circumstances.
1171
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
Roger German, 3131 Regent Street, stated he was perplexed that Mr. Miller
was representing the neighborhood, as he had asked his attorney, Ken
Williams, if there would be a conflict of interest, since Mr. German had
spoken to Mr. Miller prior to talking to Mr. Williams, and Mr. German did
feel it was a conflict of interest. Mr. German showed Council a map of the
neighborhood involved with the proposed conditional use, stating there was
sufficient room in case of an emergency, if there was a car stalled on the
street, for an emergency vehicle to pass, and that the road is wide enough
that two cars can pass. Of the neighbors that abut the property on the
west, one house is vacant and the other is owned by the Anders'. To the
north, east, and south are open fields. The approximate distance between
the German's house and the neighbors above them is 300 feet, going to a
distance of 800 feet. The neighborhood is fairly rural and it is an ideal
spot for the safety of children. He expressed the shock he and his wife had
felt toward the reaction of the neighbors and the way the Planning Depart-
ment has handled the application for the CUP. Mr. German gave a synopsis as
to how this issue was brought before the Planning Commission, stating that a
complaint had been registered by Michael Cleland and that the Planning
Department had received a letter of complaint from him. Mr. German stated
that in fact, no letter has ever been filed, as the Planning Department did
not feel they needed a letter submitted by the Chief of Police because they
could get one from him at any time. Mr. German asked if City officials are
exempt from their own requirements. Mr. German stated he felt the condi-
tional use should allow them to follow the State guidelines for day care, as
they have been able to do in the past. He pointed out it takes 10 to 20
seconds to travel the lane and the impact on the private drive would always
be under 7 minutes in a 12 -hour period. The Planning Commission used the
impact on the private drive as the reason to deny the permit. Mr. German
stated a letter has been submitted by his attorney, Ken Williams, stating
that the City has no jurisdiction on private property. Further, the
Department of Social and Health Services is very worried about the outcome
of this permit application, as it can affect other day cares within the
City. DSHS has stated day cares fill up as soon as they are opened and
there is a shortage still. He also stated the State is checking into the
legality of day cares having to have a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. German
stated he and his wife feel that if Council compares the safety and welfare
of children with minor inconveniences to adults, children must take prece-
dence. Children need care, protection, guidance and love, and they try
their best to provide those things so parents can have peace of mind when
they go to work.
Councilman Hallett asked Mr. German about his State permit. Mr. German
stated they presently have a permit issued by the State to operate a one
operator day care that allows six full -time children and generally two part
time, unless children are being taken care of after school for less than
three hours, in which case you can have up to 10 children. This number does
include their own children.
Councilman Hallett stated parking seems to be a primary concern and asked if
there has been any discussion between the Germans and those who are opposing
the use in terms of any possible compromise that may mitigate the situation.
Mr. German stated he has not been approached by any of these neighbors and
there is a small triangular area on his easement which is currently being
used as parking. However, he has been encouraging the parents to pull into
the driveway and to use that triangular area as a turn around.
Councilman Hallett stated in the Planning Commission minutes there was an
indication that the parents are willing to park either on Viewcrest or
Regent and walk their children to the day care. Mr. German stated the
Owens, owners of the duplex, had offered the use of their 30 -foot driveway
as a parking strip and Mr. German had stated as a last resort, this would be
an option they could use; however, there is long grass the children would
have to walk through and it is a distance from the house. He did not
believe it would be in the best interest of the children's safety to do so.
Councilman Gabriel commented that concerns over the maintenance of the road
had been mentioned in the Planning Commission minutes and questioned Mr.
German as to what he provides for maintenance of that road. Mr. German
stated when he moved in, he had a culvert put in and paid for with some
restitution from the neighbors, but not totally, and they worked the
-8-
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
1172
balance of the payments out in exchange for gravel. He has also filled
potholes in the past, has poured cement around mailboxes, and also has done
some grading on the road. Mr. German stated he does his part on the
maintenance. He feels a responsibility for it and he tries to help to keep
the road maintained.
Councilman Gabriel asked Mr. German when the State license was issued. Mr.
German replied it was approximately June or July of 1988.
Councilman Gabriel asked how many children they currently have at the day
care. Mr. German said they stay within the State guidelines and the total
is approximately 12 children who are divided between different days and
different times so that there are not over the number limited by the State.
Mayor McPhee stated he had heard in the tape the mention that there are
State licensed day cares within the City that do not have City permits.
Mr. German replied he believed there are approximately 25 day care facili-
ties licensed through the State within the City limits and only about 3 of
those have Conditional Use Permits, and there are even more day cares that
are not licensed, either through the State or permitted through the City.
Mayor McPhee asked why he though that was, and Mr. German stated it is a big
hassle to go through the permitting process.
Councilman Stamon asked Mr. German if his intent tonight was to ask Council
to authorize a day care within the State guidelines, which would allow him
to have approximately 12 children. Mr. German said, no, it was a maximum of
10 at one time.
Melvin Kossen, 221 Whidby, stated he has a 3 -year old child who attends the
German's day care center. They have been through three unlicensed day cares
and had always wished to have a licensed day care so the child would have
some protection. Mr. Kossen expressed some concerns about how the Planning
Commission meeting took place, as he felt the spokesman at the time of the
Planning Commission meeting and also Mr. Miller's presentation tonight had
an intimidation factor. Mr. Kossen stated the parents involved are very
dedicated to wanting their children to have a place to go and how they will
walk their children in from the closest available parking. The parents
feel strongly that the Germans are a licensed day care through the State and
the CUP program should enhance the State program by making the facility fit
in with the neighborhood, with restrictions. Day care is needed to be
available so parents have a choice. Conditional use permits should not be a
tool to shut down day cares. In closing, he stated it is time for the City
to come out clearly pro family and day cares are where many of our future
leaders and citizens of this City will come from.
Rhonda Twiggs, 3121 Regent Street, spoke in regard to the traffic impact on
the neighborhood. She stated the parents who are dropping their children
off at the day care are making an effort to slow down on the road. She was
concerned about the welfare of her children with the increased traffic flow,
and also mentioned there are some teen -aged children who will be coming of
age and getting their driver's permits within the next three years, which
would also increase the traffic flow on that street. She also read a
statement provided by Rebecca Alman, 3208 -1/2 Maple Street, who is opposed
to the idea of having a day care because if this use was allowed, then other
businesses would be attracted to the area also. She also voiced her concern
of the traffic problems, the crowding and the increased noise level.
Councilman Hallett asked Ms. Twiggs if there was some solution that could
possibly be reached, where the residents who live off the private drive, or
on Regent Street, who are concerned about the traffic problem and those who
would like to see the day care stay, can find a common ground. She said no,
because there still would be the traffic problem.
Mayor McPhee stated his observation of the area is that it is undeveloped
and asked what would Ms. Twiggs do when the area is developed? He felt that
6, 8 or up to 10 children would not mean a large number of cars. However,
if houses were built, there would be a larger amount of permanent traffic.
Council discussed this issue with Mrs. Anders.
1173
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
Mayor McPhee asked Ms. Twiggs if she knew what the traffic count was. Ms.
Twiggs stated the time that the traffic is heaviest is each morning between
6:30 and 9:30, and also in the late afternoons after the children have come
home from school and when the parents have gotten off work.
Edith Anders, 3123 Regent Street, stated the traffic is heaviest between
6:30 and 8:00 A.M. and also between 4:00 and 6:00 P.M. in the afternoon.
Some of the statements that Mrs. Anders made were that the noise from the
children is very disturbing. Her husband is recovering from a recent
operation and needs to have his rest. Also, the people who use the day care
should not have the decision as to what is going to happen in the neighbor-
hood, as they are not going to have to live with the impacts of this
business. She did not feel it was up to the Council to deprive them of
their privacy on their private road, and they were hoping that this was
going to remain a quiet residential district and that the disturbance would
not continue, as there were cars loading and unloading children between the
hours she mentioned. She was also concerned about some of the operational
procedures of the day care.
Councilman Stamon stated Mrs. Anders had mentioned speaking to the Germans
on several occasions, and that Mrs. Anders had stated she thought this was a
temporary business. Councilman Stamon asked Mrs. Anders what caused her to
believe that this was going to be a temporary situation. Mrs. Anders stated
there was never any mention of a day care and they thought they were friends
being taken in.
Laurie Baxter, 715 South Francis States, spoke in support of the day care.
This is where she brings her child and it is like a second family. It is
very comfortable for the children and she expressed concern at having to
tell her child she would not be able to go to the Germans if the day care
was not allowed. Mrs. Baxter did not feel the traffic was an impact on the
private drive, as she has met a car on that stretch of road only twice.
Martha Schmitt, 129 West Park, stated she, as a citizen, objects to the
scrutiny that the German family has had to go through, and stated the
neighbors do not know why every car pulls into the German's driveway. She
has Tupperware parties where cars are parked on the street in a larger
number than the cars that go to the Germans for day care. Mrs. Schmitt goes
to the German house every morning for a school carpool, and she has never
met a car on the road. Mrs. Schmitt spoke in support of the Germans day
care and requested Council consider the loving care being provided by them
to those children.
Mayor McPhee then closed the public hearing at 9:22 P.M.
Councilman Stamon asked Mr. Miller who it was he was authorized to speak
for. Mr. Miller stated it was Mr. Abbott, Mr. Newman, and Mr. Cleland.
Councilman Stamon asked if Mr. Miller had discussed with these people the
possibility of a temporary conditional use permit or a compromise other
than an outright denial of the permit. Mr. Miller stated at this point in
time, the problem is the adequacy of the road and he did not believe the
adequacy of the road could be addressed without reconstruction of the road.
Councilman Stamon asked if the neighbors would be willing to work with the
Germans to resolve the problem of the road, if they could be assured there
would be no great costs involved. Mr. Miller stated that issue has not been
discussed, but he would be willing to discuss it with the neighbors.
Councilman Hallett stated any time the Council is to approve a home occupa-
tion conditional use permit, the degree of support or proposed support and
quality of the operation, does not enter into the permitting process. He
stated it was nice to hear that the Germans do provide a good quality of
care but that is not an issue when deciding when to grant a home occupation
permit. It is to be considered upon the basis of the record and also the
articles from the home occupation Code, particularly Section 17.86.010,
.040, and .080, and in addition to the rest of the sections of the Code,
these are to be the basis for basing the decision. Therefore, he would not
be considering that type of information. What he will be considering are
-10-
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
1174
the three sections of the Code in particular. First of all, under .010, the
purpose of the home occupation is to ensure an occupation undertaken within
a dwelling unit and located in a residential use district, is incidental to
the primary use and is compatible with the residential character of the
neighborhood. In his opinion, the day care does meet that criteria. In the
case of Section .040, development standards, he felt the day care is in
compliance also. In Section .080, the home occupation shall not be involved
with equipment or processes which introduce noise in excess of those nor-
mally found in residential areas. He felt there was some question about
compliance with sub sections (a) and (b): Is the use injurious or detri-
mental to the abutting properties? Councilman Hallett felt that it was not
injurious, but it may be detrimental. He did not believe that the home
occupation endangers the public health, morals, safety or welfare, and,
based on the testimony and the record, he would be willing to entertain a
motion, after hearing from the other members of the Council, for the
approval of the permit for a period not to exceed one year, or maybe even a
lesser period of time, in that there may be some type of dialogue enter-
tained between neighbors in the area and, depending on the time -line of the
approval, if there cannot be satisfactory agreement from parties involved,
the CUP would not be approved. He stated on the balance of the testimony
and the balance of the home occupations articles, and mitigated with the
fact that there has been an operation there, whether it has been officially
legal or not, he felt those things weighed in the balance in favor of
granting the conditional use permit.
Mr. Miller then responded to the question asked earlier by Councilman
Stamon, stating as far as Chief Cleland is concerned, and speculating about
the others involved, the answer is yes, there can be some method worked out
for solving the access problem which the parties would be willing to examine
and if that is successful, this would, in fact, remove their objection.
Councilman Hallett asked Mr. Miller what time -line he felt would be suffi-
cient to accomplish this task. Mr. Miller suggested using the same time-
line as an LID process, which would be approximately 6 to 8 months. This
would be a possibility of implementing the suggestion, but not finishing it.
Councilman Hallett then moved that Council grant the proposed home occupa-
tion permit for Roger and Kelly German, to concur with the Planning Depart-
ment's recommendation, subject to the following conditions: (1) The pro-
posed "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 requirements; (4) If, in the future, the City or other
appropriate regulatory agency finds that the "family day care center as
approved at this site, requires greater on -site parking facilities, the
applicant shall provide such on -site parking, subject to the City's Planning
and Public Works Department approval; (5) If substantive complaints regard-
ing this "family day care center" are received, the authorized hours of
operation may be reduced and /or other control measures required, as deter-
mined by the Planning Commission; 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
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan; (D) A "family day care center" on this
property, as conditioned by this permit, should not adversely affect sur-
rounding properties, and that this Conditional Use Permit be valid for a
period through June 30, 1989. Councilman Stamon seconded for the purpose of
discussion.
Councilman Gabriel offered a friendly amendment under Condition No. 2 that
the words "with a maximum of six children" be stricken and to substitute
"the maximum number to not exceed the State guidelines Councilman Hallett
concurred; however Councilman Stamon did not concur because she believes
Council is attempting to try to find some type of mitigation of the problems
that sharply divide the factions on this particular issue. She believed the
limitation on the number of children less than that presently allowed by the
1175
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
State is important because this would lessen the concerns regarding the
traffic impacts. She felt this was one of the prime measures that has to be
mitigated.
Councilman Stamon stated that Council must treat this issue as if it is a
new situation, coming before the Council for the first time. She questioned
Mrs. Anders in regard to her concern about noise, and asked if there was
anything the Germans could do that would mitigate the problem with noise for
her and her husband. Mrs. Anders stated no, as long as the children were
outside, it was like a school yard and you really cannot keep children
quiet.
Councilman Stamon asked Mr. German if there was an area not adjacent to the
Anders' where the children could play, or to at least limit their activi-
ties to more quiet activities in that area. Mr. German stated they have the
children in the house from noon until approximately 3:00. He did offer to
move the play yard to the other side of the house; however, that would be at
a great expense, and he stated he had tried to work this problem out with
Mr. and Mrs. Anders.
Councilman Hordyk expressed some concern regarding the length of time placed
upon the conditional use, and asked what would happen after the June dead-
line? Would this have to be a whole new process, or is it a reapplication
deadline?
Councilman Stamon stated she made the assumption, as the second, that this
meant there would be progress toward resolving the problems, and if it
proves that the parties are working toward a solution, Council would have
the authority to extend the conditional use until such time as the road has
been fixed.
Following further discussion, the question was called and the motion
carried, with Councilman Gabriel and Mayor McPhee voting "No
1c After somebrr of the motion and vote, Councilman Stamon stated, as a
)N(. point of order, that Councilman Hordyk should move to reconsider the motion,
as he was on the affirmative side and there was some confusion about the
motion.
Councilman Hordyk moved to reconsider. Councilman Gabriel seconded. On
call for the question, the motion carried, with Councilmen Stamon and
Hallett voting "No
Councilman Hallett then moved to concur with the recommendation of the
Planning Department to approve the conditional use permit, subject to the
following conditions: (1) The proposed "family day care center" shall
confolm 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
the number of children not to exceed the State guidelines, 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
requirements; (4) If, in the future, the City or other appropriate regu-
latory agency finds that the "family day care center as approved at this
site, requires greater on -site parking facilities, the applicant shall
provide such on -site parking, subject to the City's Planning and Public
Works Department approval; (5) If substantive complaints regarding this
"family day care center" are received, the authorized hours of operation may
be reduced and /or other control measures required, as determined by the
Planning Commission; 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
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan; (D) A "family day care center" on this
property, as conditioned by this permit, should not adversely affect
-12-
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
Councilman Stamon spoke in opposition to the motion.
1176
surrounding properties, and that this Conditional Use Permit be valid for a
period through June 30, 1989. Councilman Hordyk seconded, based upon review
of the CUP at the end of eight months.
Councilman Hordyk, in view of the statements made, withdrew his second. The
motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Hordyk then moved that Council grant the Conditional Use Permit
with the standard time of one year, as recommended by the Planning Depart-
ment, 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; (4) If, in the future, the City or other appropriate regulatory
agency finds that the "family day care center as approved at this site,
requires greater on -site parking facilities, the applicant shall provide
such on -site parking, subject to the City's Planning and Public Works
Department approval; (5) If substantive complaints regarding this "family
day care center" are received, the authorized hours of operation may be
reduced and /or other control measures required, as determined by the
Planning Commission; 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
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan; (D) A "family day care center" on this
property, as conditioned by this permit, should not adversely affect
surrounding properties. Councilman Gabriel seconded for the purpose of dis-
cussion.
Councilman Gabriel offered a friendly amendment to Condition No. 2 where it
states "with a maximum of six children" to delete that and substitute "with
the number of children not to exceed State guidelines Councilman Hordyk
concurred.
Councilman Stamon stated again for the reasons stated earlier, she would be
speaking in opposition to the motion.
Councilman Hallett spoke in opposition also, as he did not feel the extra
four sor five months was fair to the abutting property owners.
Councilman Stamon stated for the record that she is not opposed to the
Germans' day care center, but she is opposed to the motion as it stands
because she did not feel the people in the neighborhood have had the impacts
they see with this proposal mitigated in a fair way.
Councilman Hallett was of the same opinion and also felt the procedural
manner the Mayor followed regarding the previous motion which passed needs
to be discussed at a workshop or something similar at some point in time.
On call for the question, the amended motion carried, with Councilmen
Hallett and Stamon voting "No
Councilman Lemon returned to the meeting room at 10:08 P.M.
BREAK
Mayor McPhee then recessed the meeting for a 10- minute break at 10:09 P.M.
Councilman Gabriel moved to continue the agenda. Councilman Hordyk
seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
-13-
B. Appeal of Williams CUP 88(9)19
Mayor McPhee opened the public hearing at 10:22 P.M.
1177
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
Councilman Stamon stated the letter she had read earlier from Mrs. Craver
did apply to the Williams CUP also.
Keith Wollen, 3203 Maple, stated in purchasing his house, it was his
intention to select a residential neighborhood which is quiet, and they are
concerned about avoiding problems of commercial businesses coming into
single- family residential areas. He stated he and his wife are not opposed
to any one specific person or business; only businesses in residential
areas. He felt there were plenty of areas in which a shop could be located.
He felt for himself the most important consideration is that people do not
want this. However, he understood that is not a relevant consideration; but
he felt it should be, and requested that some time in the future the issue
should be brought forth of whether the whole notion of conditional use
permits anywhere in the City should continue. He also felt that a very
strong consideration should be given to the people in the neighborhoods
affected. He stated our country is based upon the notion of democracy and
the majority rules. However, it seems that democracy does not apply in this
issue; that it is the Planning Commission's jurisdiction to make such
decisions and that the democracy aspect goes out the window. If it were a
matter of democracy, he felt there would be no doubt about the conclusion
which would be reached. All such permits would be denied in this particular
area, suggesting serious consideration should be given to having some areas
that are set aside strictly for the purpose of single- family residences
without any conditional use permits possible.
Councilman Gabriel asked Mr. Wollen if he was currently aware of the uses
that are allowed in residential areas. Mr. Wollen said probably not, he is
new to the area. Councilman Gabriel stated the issues before Council are
strictly conditional use permits that are allowed within the residential
districts. Mr. Wollen stated he did realize that.
Councilman Lemon questioned Mr. Wollen concerning the noise and asked him
what types of impacts the beautician's shop would have regarding noise. Mr.
Wollen stated he could not speak directly to that, since he has never lived
adjacent to one, but he believed increased traffic would be a primary
source; however, it is a matter of any business, and he would not be in
favor of businesses within the residential districts.
Councilman Stamon asked Mr. Wollen for clarification if there were any
stipulations in which this particular application would be acceptable to
him. Mr. Wollen stated "No
Lorr nine Ross, 418 East Front Street, spoke in favor of the proposed
conditional use.
Linda Beasler, 1528 West Sixth Street, also spoke in favor of the condi-
tional use, stating she had been a customer of 'Mrs. Williams at the old
residence and that people would not even be aware that it was a business
unless they had known.
Fran Burch, 1429 West 12th Street, stated that she was the realtor who sold
the house to Mr. and Mrs. Williams and the primary reason she sold this
house to them was because it met the conditions of the CUPs, and she
requested that Council grant approval for the conditional use.
Karen Jensen, 3114 South Peabody Street, reiterated that it is not a
question of a beauty shop. That has never been the problem. The issue is
they do not want commercial business in their area, stating they are the
people who live there; it is their homes, and they are the ones impacted.
She felt it was very important that Council preserve the integrity of single
dwelling residential areas.
Councilman Stamon asked Mrs. Jensen if she understood that under the present
Codes, the Council does not have the latitude to deny a conditional use
permit if it meets the requirements of the Code. Mrs. Jensen stated yes,
she did understand.
-14-
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
1178
Councilman Stamon asked if the Council does, in fact, find that they have
met the requirements of the conditional use permit and they do, in fact,
award the permit, are there conditions that could be placed on the permit
that Mrs. Jensen would feel would mitigate those impacts. Mrs. Jensen
stated absolutely not. She is totally against a commercial business in the
neighborhood.
Glen Gallison, 332 Viewcrest, reinforced the statements of the others; that
they did not want to see commercial businesses within the neighborhood.
Councilman Stamon asked Mr. Gallison if there were any conditions that he
felt could mitigate the impacts. He stated no.
Councilman Hordyk commented that probably less than 50% of the home occu-
pations in the City of Port Angeles have conditional use permits.
Chris Brown, 3207 Maple, stated she was in a very bad position, as she felt
strongly for people who want to have their own businesses, but for every one
of those people who have the freedom to do that, there is someone else whose
freedom has been taken, or whose rights have been denied in some way. Mrs.
Brown stated that things do change in neighborhoods, but that is to be
expected. She voiced her concerns over not having any sidewalks in the area
and she felt the Council should take emergencies into consideration. She
suggested that more people get together with the Planning Commission and the
City Council to start planning for the future of the City. She did not
believe the answer is temporary or unconditional; that the City needs to
start looking ahead for the community 20 to 30 years from now.
Councilman Hordyk stated one of the ways we can start planning ahead is when
the City does the periodical review of the Comprehensive Plan, voices should
be heard from the community.
Councilman Stamon asked Mrs. Brown if there are any mitigating measures she
thought Council could ask, or did she feel the impacts were sufficient to be
mitigated in this particular instance, given the set of circumstances. Mrs.
Brown stated this is an active neighborhood, with no sidewalks for people
and children to walk. She felt it was really a problem, as there was
already congestion, and she felt, as the others expressed, that above the
High School area they did not need commercial businesses.
Colleen Williams, 1516 West Seventh Street, the owner of 350 Viewcrest and
the applicant, stated she operates out of her home, just by herself, with
one chair and two dryer chairs. She averages one car an hour. They have a
sidewalk in front of their house on Viewcrest and it is the only one in the
area. She did not feel that traffic would be an impact in this neighborhood
and also, it is their home. It is going to look like a home.
Mayor,McPhee then closed the public hearing at 10:48 P.M.
Councilman Lemon moved to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit
to operate a one -chair beauty salon as a Home Occupation at 350 Viewcrest,
as recommended by the Planning Commission, subject to the following con-
ditions: (1) One 2A1OBC fire extinguisher shall be installed and a smoke
alarm provided; (2) The hours of operation shall be limited to 9 am to 5 pm,
Monday through Saturday; (3) No more than two customers at a time shall be
scheduled for an appointment on the premises; (4) The evergreen tree located
at the northeast corner of the property, and directly adjacent to the
intersection of Peabody and Viewcrest and the subject driveway and Peabody,
shall be trimmed or removed for traffic safety, in conformance with Article
IX, Section 10 of the Zoning Code; (5) Subject to Public Works Department
approval, the graveled area on the site be reserved for turn around only,
with no parking, and be signed accordingly; and citing the following find-
ings: (A) The proposed Home Occupation for a beauty shop does not involve
equipment or other processes which introduce noise and hazards in excess of
those normally found in residential areas; (B) Provided the attached con-
ditions are enforced, the Home Occupation will not significantly increase
local vehicular or pedestrian traffic; (C) Provided the attached conditions
are enforced, the proposed beauty shop should not endanger the public
health, morals, safety, and the welfare of the community. Councilman
Gabriel seconded.
-15-
1179
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
Councilman Hallett asked Planner Carr is there any State or over riding
criteria on conditional use permits that necessitates that municipalities
have home occupation permits. He asked if the City could do away with home
occupation permits. Planner Carr stated that was correct. There are no
State requirements for home occupation permits as conditional uses within
residential districts.
Councilman Hallett asked if there was no such thing as a conditional use,
then it would be done by zoning. Planner Carr stated conditional use is
zoning. Most zoning codes have either conditional use sections or some
other term which is about the same thing.
Councilman Hallett stated he has heard people say they wanted residential
districts, such as RS -7 and RS -9 with nothing but single family residences.
Do we not have the option to do that as a community? Planner Carr replied
that is correct.
Councilman Hallett questioned Planner Carr if a home occupation was granted
in a neighborhood and two doors down someone else requested a home occupa-
tion, would the fact that there is already one in the neighborhood have any
impact? Planner Carr stated it has some impact, in particular characteris-
tics of both uses and what effect they would have on the residential char-
acter of the surrounding area, and also if they are similar uses there is a
tendency for similar uses to get similar treatment.
Councilman Hallett stated therefore, if there was another application for a
home occupation for a beauty shop two doors down, or across the street, or
whatever, they would have to weigh the application on the merits and the
fact that there is already one in the neighborhood may or may not make any
difference. Planner Carr stated correct.
Councilman Stamon voiced some concern regarding the turn around area, as she
felt it may not be sufficient. Mr. Williams addressed Council, stating
there was an additional area marked off and he indicated that gravel will be
placed on the site for an additional turn around area.
Councilman Hallett asked Attorney Knutson if, on home occupation permits
where there are not findings to cause denial, such as a safety hazard or the
things reviewed with the last home occupation permit, is the Council within
legal ground to deny the permit? Attorney Knutson stated no. There is room
for denial under the provisions in the Home Occupations Chapter of the
Zoning Code that indicate that the permit has to be in the public interest
and for the public health, safety, and welfare. Therefore, it seems to him
that people who are opposed would almost always be opposed for some reason
which would fall into one of those categories, and the question would then
become is the impact significant enough to warrant the denial.
Councilman Hallett questioned once a conditional use permit is granted, does
that mean it is a permanent use? Attorney Knutson stated sometimes they are
granted with a particular time limitation. Other times, they are per-
petual, as long as they the property owner /appl'icant chooses to main-
tain them.
Councilman Stamon stated for the record that she sees a very clear distinc-
tion between t is p ticular application and the application previously
,before the P !!�`o M; in that the degree of impact on the neigh-
fo l borhood is much reduced, and with the measures which have been posed for
mitigation, which are items 1 through 5, she feels this particular permit
can meet the requirements of the conditional use permit section of the
Zoning Code, and therefore, she would be in favor of this particular
permit.
On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously.
5. Planninz Commission Minutes of October 12. 1988,
A. Rezone HearinE RZ- 88(8)2 Gerald Austin,
Councilman Stamon moved to set a public hearing for the rezone of property
presently designated as LI, Light Industrial, to CBD, Central Business
-16-
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
1180
District, located at Railroad Avenue, for November 1, 1988. Councilman
Gabriel seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
B. Conditional Use Hearing CUP 88(10)20 Port of Port Angeles
Councilman Stamon moved to concur with the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow a wood -waste
landfill site as a conditional use in the LI, Light Industrial District,
located at Fairchild International Airport Industrial Park, subject to the
following conditions: (1) This proposal is for a single -lift, two -acre wood
waste landfill site only. Any change or expansion of the wood waste land-
fill will require a separate conditional use permit application for ap-
proval; (2) The proposal shall meet the minimum functional requirements for
wood waste landfilling facility under WAC 173 304 -462 prior to issuance of
permits by the City; (3) A site and access plan shall be submitted to the
Public Works Department for approval. Said site and access plan shall
indicate the location, extent, and design of all project components,
including the access to the site, and ingress /egress from 18th Street. In
addition, a description of all project components shall be supplied with
said site and access plan, which must be approved by the City's Planning and
Public Works Departments prior to issuance of permits; (4) The proposed use
shall comply with all requirements set forth in the Light Industrial
District Chapter of the City's Zoning Code and the purpose of the Port of
Port Angeles Airport Industrial Park Plan; and citing the following find-
ings: (A) The proposed wood waste landfill facility, as conditioned, can
comply with the purpose of the Light Industrial District; (B) Design review
of the required site and access plan will reduce the impacts of the pro-
posal to the City's streets and traffic by the project to insignificant
levels and ensure that all standards of the Zoning Ordinance are complied
with; and (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 by WAC 173 304 -462 and by the mitigation measures included in the
conditions of approval. Councilman Hallett seconded and the motion carried
unanimously.
C. Appeal of Conditional Use Permit CUP 88(8)13 Mr. and Mrs.
Rodric Pence
Councilman Stamon asked whether the Council's decision on this matter would
be the final decision, or is there another appeal process. Attorney Knutson
stated there is a further appeal to the Superior Court.
Councilman Lemon moved to uphold the decision of the Planning Director
approving the permit. Councilman Gabriel seconded.
Councilman Stamon voiced opposition to the motion, as there is no real
adequate off street parking. Also with concerns addressed in the Planning
Commission minutes regarding safety hazards to children, because of the
parking impacts and no sidewalks in the area, and given the combination of
unusual characteristics in this particular area, she felt it would be a more
appropriate action to deny this permit.
On call for the question, the motion carried, with Councilmen Hallett and
Stamon voting "No
Councilman Lemon moved to concur with the recommendation of the Planning
Commission that the requirements of Section 14 of the Short Plat Ordinance
and Resolution 8 -83 be replaced by a street LID non protest agreement
because this has been a standard procedure in other short plats and with
this alternative the conditions of the Short Plat Ordinance would be
fulfilled. Councilman Gabriel seconded.
D. Appeal of Short Plats SP- 88(1)1 and SP- 88(1)2 Casadv
Following lengthy discussion of the issue, the question was called and the
motion carried with Councilman Hallett voting "No
E. Acceptance of Minutes
1181
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
Councilman Lemon moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission
minutes of the October 12, 1988 meeting. Councilman Hallett seconded and
the motion carried unanimously.
6. Request to Circulate Annexation Petition Schneider 88(7)1 "C"
Street Extension Area
Councilman Stamon moved to concur with the recommendation of the Planning
Department and refer the issue to the Planning Commission for consideration
at the November 9, 1988, meeting. Councilman Hallett seconded and the
motion carried.
7. Request to Circulate Annexation Petition Timm 88(10)2 Bean Road
Area
Councilman Stamon moved to concur with the recommendation of the Planning
Department and refer the issue to the Planning Commission for consideration
at the November 9, 1988, meeting. Councilman Hallett seconded and the
motion carried.
8. Request to Amend Sybil CUP 78(4)5 Family Skate Center
Councilman Stamon moved to approve the all -night skate party for November 4,
1988, and allow three per year at the time of request. Councilman Gabriel
seconded.
Councilman Stamon noted this is an item that has come before the Council in
the past and there has been success with this particular issue.
Councilman Hordyk commented that he had visited one of these all -night
skate parties at about 1:20 A.M. and he was not allowed entrance. He
believed that Council should have a stipulation to be placed on these all
night parties which would allow certain people maybe the Police Department
or someone of responsibility entrance in order to examine the parties.
Chief Cleland stated there would be a problem unless there was probable
cause. To just arbitrarily go in and inspect would not be allowed.
Councilman Stamon questioned Attorney Knutson as to whether it would be
appropriate to add that as a condition. Attorney Knutson stated yes, an
authorized representative of the City could be allowed to inspect.
Councilman Stamon included that as part of her motion.
concurred. On call for the question the motion carried.
11. Reauest for Approval of Final Loan Agreement
Associates and United Bank
-18-
Councilman Gabriel
Between Waterfront
Councilman Hallett removed himself from discussion-'on this issue as a matter
of conflict of interest.
Councilman Lemon suggested that Councilman Hallett should leave the room.
Attorney Knutson stated that Councilman Hallett has a conflict of interest
and not an appearance of fairness problem. This is not a quasi judicial
decision and it is the appearance of fairness doctrine that requires leaving
the room so that any appearance of fairness is avoided. However, what the
conflict of interest statute requires in this situation is that Councilman
Hallett's interests be disclosed and that he not vote.
Councilman Lemon challenged the appearance of fairness, because he believed
if Councilman Hallett was the general manager or whatever his title is of
The Landing, there is then an appearance of fairness on the situation.
Attorney Knutson stated the appearance of fairness doctrine applies to
quasi judicial decisions when the Council is acting as a judge which
would be conditional use permits and land use issues. The issue at hand is
more of a legislative or administrative decision.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
1182
Mayor McPhee questioned Councilman Hallett as to what his particular
interest is on this item. Councilman Hallett stated that he has done some
on -site consulting for the owners of Waterfront Associates from time to time
and acts as a liaison.
Councilman Lemon moved to not authorize the Mayor to approve the final loan
agreement between Waterfront Associates and United Bank in the amount of
$2,100,000. Councilman Hordyk seconded.
Councilman Lemon, in discussing the motion, stated he has looked at the
information provided and at the building, and he believed the $3.8 million
figure is based on the assumption that the development is complete. Addi-
tionally, he felt if this is true, then it would actually weaken the City's
position. Also, as a construction project, this is possibly an equity
recoup.
Councilman Gabriel asked why this additional amount was not taken as a third
or fourth loan. Administrative Services Director Wolfe stated that
originally when the agreement was signed, this kind of action was contem-
plated and it was anticipated that the amount of the first loan would be
$1.9 million. However, the partners of the firm have asked the City to
approve the final loan agreement; however, if Council chose not to, that
was up to their discretion.
Councilman Stamon requested that Director Wolfe go through a quick
explanation of the issue. Director Wolfe stated that in 1985, the City
agreed to loan the developers for The Landing project, $400,000 which the
City had received through a Community Development Block Grant. This loan is
on a junior deed of trust, which is subordinate to the senior deed of trust
of United Bank. Since the time of the initial loan, the organization has
done some modifications and increases, including development of the
restaurant facility, which was intended to be a tenant improvement, and also
the construction of the hotel. Further, the appraisal of the building has
gone from $2.5 million to $3.8 million.
Councilman Stamon asked Director Wolfe what is our ability to collect on the
loan, if the loan were to be defaulted upon. Director Wolfe responded it
depends on how much is based upon the appraisal. Obviously, a $400,000 loan
in second position on a $3.8 million loan is better than one on a $2.4 or
$2.5 million project.
Councilman Lemon commented to Director Wolfe that he thought it was inac-
curate to say that the building was worth $3.8 million because that
appraisal is based on the assumption that the 27 units and the large
restaurant be finished to conformance. However, in looking at the building,
Councilman Lemon has found only about 50% of those things to be complete.
Councilman Stamon stated that she, too, had some concerns in terms of the
fact that the appraisal is based upon completion. However, she thought, in
reading the letter, it does talk in almost anticipatory language and that
the project will be finished, and at that point the value will be at $3.8
million. However, she stated she would be more cdtnfortable with condition-
ing any approval upon a signed lease and completion; and upon those items
being completed, she would not have any problem with doing what has been
requested.
Mayor McPhee asked whether this would weaken the City's position from where
it is today to where it would be when it took a $200,000 step back.
Director Wolfe stated from where the City is today, if you believe in
appraisals and if an increase is authorized, yes, because right now the City
is in a stronger position than originally thought. However, the Waterfront
Associates' request would still leave the City in a stronger position than
originally agreed upon.
Mayor McPhee stated that the City has a certain lien on the property and,
regardless of its worth, the City has a lien which sits behind a $1.9
million lien. He asked if that was correct. Director Wolfe stated the
City has a lien which sits behind the senior deed of trust on which the loan
has not been finalized.
-19-
1183
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
Mayor McPhee stated if the City agrees to this, then we would be $200,000
further behind the senior deed of trust. Director Wolfe stated that was
correct.
Mayor McPhee asked Manager Flodstrom why this issue was not brought out that
the City's position would be further weakened if this was authorized; that
the property would have to be sold for $200,000 more than it stands today.
Mayor McPhee stated he was disappointed that the Council is continuing to
get memos which do not present both sides.
Director Wolfe stated he was the one who wrote the memo, and if the facts
are not presented correctly, then he is the one who is at fault. He
explained that he had tried to lay the memo out in a very simple manner and
the point of the memo is that the City is in a better position than what it
originally agreed to; however, this does not put the City in a better
position than it is today, but then, he did not believe anyone would
anticipate that, and all he intended to say in the memo is where this issue
would put the City in relationship to where it originally agreed to be and
in relation to that, the City is better off.
Mayor McPhee stated he believed the memos could have more attention so
Council would be given both sides, regardless of the issue.
Manager Flodstrom stated if the memo appears in the agenda packet, then it
appears with his having read and approving it. Further, the discussions he
had with Director Wolfe was to be neutral on this issue because it is a
decision of the City Council. He did not believe there was any intent to
slant the information in one direction or another in order to encourage the
Council to go in either direction; that there are positives to approving and
positives to not approving. He further stated he did not believe the City
would be in a weaker position in approving this, but that the City may very
well be in a stronger position if the project is complete and it becomes
financially a more stable project. However, the City would be in the best
position if the loan is repaid.
Following further discussion, the question was called and the motion carried
with Councilman Stamon voting "No
15. Reouest for Utility Advisory Committee (UAC) Meeting City Light
Issues Update Public Works Secondary Issues
A meeting date was set for October 27th at 4:00 P.M. in the Public Works
Conference Room.
16. Consideration of Out -of -Town Travel Reouest City Light
Councilman Lemon moved to approve the travel request for Lynn Emery to
attend a seminar in Everett, Washington. Councilman Hordyk seconded and the
motion carried unanimously.
IX CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /LATE ITEMS K
Mayor McPhee stated he had made a proclamation regarding the 100th Anni-
versary of the Independent Bible Church in Port Angeles and asked that it be
included as part of the record.
Councilman Stamon moved to adopt the proclamation of the 100th Anniversary
of the Independent Bible Church in Port Angeles. Councilman Hordyk seconded
and the motion carried unanimously.
Jon Didrickson addressed the Council regarding a mural placed in the City
Council Chambers at the old City Hall in approximately 1969, done by John
Pogani. Mr. Didrickson stated that some time in the past, the mural was
donated to the County and the County had placed the mural in storage. At
that time, there had been a history stored with the mural, outlining the
background of the mural; however, today when they discovered the mural, they
found that the history was not included. He requested that the City Council
and City staff help with finding the history. Also, there is the question
regarding authorization: To whom does the mural belong at this point?
-20-
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 1988
Following some discussion of the issue, Council decided to have staff look
into the matter and to bring back information at the next Council meeting.
X ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor McPhee recessed the meeting to executive session at 12:00 midnight.
The purpose of the executive session was to discuss one real estate matter
and two litigation items. The approximate length of the executive session
would be 15 minutes.
XI RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
The meeting returned to open session at 12:29 A.M.
XII ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 A.M.
CC.28
Clerk Mayor
-21-
1184
ORT 4
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of
the City of Port Angeles will hold a public hearing
on Tuesday, October 4, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. in the Ci-
ty Council Chambers, 321 East Fifth Street. The
purpose of this public hearing is to receive public
input on the City's Goals and Objectives for 1989
and beyond.
1
QUALIFICATIONS
The City of Port Angeles
Light Department is seeking
proposals from qualified
Engineering and /or Architec-
tural firms to perform the
following services related to
the operation of Bonneville
Power Administration's
(BPA) Energy Smart Design
Assistance Program.
A. Review Building Energy
Use Simulation Models and
Reports.
B. Assist in Energy Conser-
vation Measure Selection
and Recommendations.
C. Provide informal training
in HVAC and Lighting
Design.
Our evaluation will concen-
trate on the following
factors.:
1. Ability to assign a single
contact person who meets
the BPA Energy Smart De-
sign Assistance Lead
Modeler qualifications to this
work.
2. Recent and varied pro-
gram experience in design
assistance and breadth of
experience in energy use
simulation software
including bin models.
3. Recent experience with
designing, specifying equip
are available from the City ment and inspecting installa-
Clerk's Office, P.O. Box tion of measures in new
1150, Port Angeles, WA commercial buildings.
98362. Phone (206) 457 -0411, 4. Willingness and ability to
ext. 118. train and consult with utility
Sealed bids will be opened personnel regarding me-
at 2:30 P.M., Wednesday, crianical, lighting and enve-
October, 12, 1988, at 321 lope designs.
East Fifth Street, Port Ange- 5. Ability to respond to re-
les City Hall quests for assistance in a
A certified check or bid bond timely manner.
for 5% of the am'Dunt of bid 1 6. References.
shall accompany each bid. Please send your response
The City Council reserves the tn. yen Maike City of Port
right to accept or reject any 1988, at 7:00 p.m., or as
or all bids or any part soon thereafter as possible
thereof. n the City Council Cham-
David T. Flodstrom )ers, 321 East Fifth Street,
City Manager 'ort Angeles, Washington,
tt pub.: Sept. 26. Oct. 3. 1988. o consider An appeal of the
C Tanning Commission's rec-
hce, on vcrooerrs, I988- ommendation regarding a
at 7:00 P.M., or as soon Home Occupation for a
thereafter as possible, in the Beauty Shop in the RS -7, sin
City Council Chambers, 321
East Fifth Street, Port Ange-
les, Washington, to consider:
An appeal of the Planning
Commission's recommenda-
tion regarding a daycare
center in the RS -9, single
family residential district.
LOCATION: 3131 Regent
Street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7,
8, and 9, Whittington's
subdivision.
APPLICANT: Roger and Kelly
German.
PROPERTY OWNER: Same.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PO-
LICY ACT (SEPA): N /A.
All interested parties may
appear at the hearing and
express their opinion on this
proposal.
DATE: October 6, 1988.
Michelle Maike
City Clerk
Pub.: Oct. 9, 1988.
NO1
that
COUNCIL will hold a public,
hearing on NOVEMBER 1, 1
1988, at 7:00 P.M., or as
soon thereafter as possible,
in the City Council Cham-
bers, 321 East Fifth Street,
Port Angeles, Washington,
to consider a request to va-
cate a portion of City
right -of -way.
LOCATION: CAROLINE
STREET, east of Francis
Street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Caro-
line Street from Francis
Street 100 feet to the east,
abutting Lots 9, 10 and 11,
Block 32, and Lots 7, 8 and
9, Block 37, Norman R
Smith's Subdivision to the
Townsite of Port Angeles.
APPLICANT: PAUL CRON
AUER and MAXINE WHIT-
MAN.
PR FRTY n NFR'
eived by the City Clerk of
the City of Port Angeles at
321 East Fifth Street of said
City until 2:30 P.M., Wednes-
day, October 12, 1988, for
furnishing the following:
Provision, Installation, and
Training for an Electronic
Meter Reading System.
Bid sheets, specifications,
and instructions to bidders
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
321 E. Fifth Port Angeles 457 -0411
The public is strongly encouraged to attend.
gle family residential
district.
Location: 350 Viewcrest
Legal Description: Lot 1 and
the north 20' of Lot 2, Block
27, Grant's Addition to Port
Angeles.
Applicant: Colleen Williams
Property Owner: Fred and
Wendy Rix
State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA): N/A
All interested parties may
appear at the hearing and
express their opinion on this
proposal.
Date: October 7, 1988
Michelle Maike
City Clerk
Pub.: Oct. 11, 1988
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 per
mit, declaring a public emergency, and establishing a new
Chapter 17.67 of the City Zoning Code.
WHEREAS, there is an immediate need, based on the expe-
rience of other western Washington cities, to regulate the
location and operation of adult entertainment businesses 1
in order to preserve the quality of the living environment 1
of the City's residential neighborhoods and business and
commercial centers, and to avoid increased crime and re-
duction of property values, and
WHEREAS, there is an immediate need to enact an interim
ordinance for the purpose of controlling the adverse im-
pacts which adult entertainment businesses have been
shown to generate in other communities, which regulation
the City Council finds will result in the least intrusion upon
constitutionally protected rights possible while still
achieving the minimum degree of regulation needed to
meet the City's objectives of avoiding or minimizing the
adverse impacts identified above, and
WHEREAS, due to the fact that the City currently has limit-
ed regulations applicable to adult entertainment
businesses, there is an immediate need to adopt regula-
tions in order to prevent, mitigate and monitor the types
of adverse impacts associated with such businesses; and
WHEREAS, there is an immediate need to designate a
public emergency in order to protect the public health,
public safety, public property, and the public peace, and to
adopt an interim ordinance to meet this emergency by
regulating such businesses;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PORT ANGELES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows:
management responsibility of each;
f 4. Terms of any loans, leases, secured transactions and
repayments therefor relating to the business;
5. Addresses of the applicant for the five years immedi-
ately prior to the date of application;
6. A description of the adult entertainment or similar
business history of the applicant; whether such person or
ORDINANCE NO. 2236 entity, in previously operating in this or other city, county
AN ORDINANCE of the City or state, has had a business license or land use permit
of Port Angeles vacating the revoked or suspended, the reason therefor, and the activi-
westerly 50' of Columbia ty or occupation subsequent to such action, suspension or
Street between Blocks 3 and revocation;
4, PSCC; and vacating the 7. Any and all criminal convictions or forfeitures other
westerly 50' of the Colum- than parking offenses or minor traffic violations, including
bia/ Caroline alley in Block dates of conviction, nature of the crime, name and location
4, PSCC. �1 of court and disposition for each owner, partner, or
WHEREAS, a petition is on corporation;
file with the City of Port An- p5 8. A description of the business, occupation or employ
geles to vacate the westerly ment of the applicant for the three years immediately
50 feet of Columbia Street 2uT preceding the date of application;
between Blocks 3 and 4,1111 5 9. Authorization for the City, its agents and employees
PSCC; and to vacate thef9s to seek information to confirm any statements set forth in
westerly 50 feet of the Co the application;
lumbia/ Caroline alley inI 10. Supplemental identification and /or information nec-
Block 4, PSCC; and
1 1 !j essary to confirm matters set forth in the application.
WHEREAS, the requirements ka E. Copies of the application shall be referred by the Plan-
of Chapter 43.21C RCW, the
Acctt, have bee n met et and da 3 I ning Department to the Police, Fire, Public Works or other
State Environmental Policy appropriate departments. The departments shall inspect
m
public hearing has been held Ino the application, the premises proposed to be operated as
by the City Council following an adult entertainmeent business, and shall make written
public notice pursuant to verification to the Planning Department that such premises
Chapter 35.79 RCW; and yr comply with the codes of the City and recommendations
WHEREAS, said vacation ap- 1 consistent therewith. The Police Department shall make
pears to be of benefit to and written verification of the information provided by the sp-
in the interest of the public; o plicant on the permit application and a recommendation
now, therefore, consistent therewith. No permit may be issued without
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE !le such verifications and recommendation.
CITY 17.67.080 Operation and Dev .ilpoment Sta flarJs. All adult
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF By) entertainment businesses shall comply with the following
PORT ANGELES as follows: k operation and development standards:
Section 1. Vacation. Subject le; A. All signs shall be in compliance with the regulations for
to the terms and conditions lap such signs as set forth in the zoning requirements for the
of this Ordinance, the fol- applicable zone; provided that such signs shall not contain
lowing described street/ al- 4 any obscene language or other form of obscene commun-
ley, or portion of a street/ ication.
alley, is hereby vacated: B. The interior of the premises shall be arranged such that
That portion of Columbia fps, no adult entertainment shall occur except upon a stage at
Street abutting Lot 6, Block a2p`::'r removed at least six inches a the nearesdiate floor 3' a nd that portion of level and
4, and abutting of the al-
tting Lot Block 101 C. No person shall be allowed entry onto the premises
Michelle M. Maike
City Clerk
Hospital shall relocate the
underground and overhead
utilities to the satisfaction of
the City of Port Angeles; and
Olympic Memorial Hospital
shall pay the cost of re-
locating said utilities. These
temporary easements shall
a
And he tprmiriated
The City Treasurer of the
City of Port Angeles will
pay, upon presentation at
his office, Bonds numbered
97 through 110, inclusive, of
Local Improvement District
No. 203, City of Port Ange-
les, Washington.
These bonds are dated No-
vember 1, 1993, and bear in-
terest at 14.75% per annum.
No interest will be allowed
after November 1, 1988.
R. Duane Wolfe, CPA
Director of Finance and
Administrative Services
Pi.: Oct. 20, 1988.
who is younger than eighteen years of age.
D. The business shall be operated and managed by per-
sons whose background and experience demonstrate the
ability to maintain compliance with all applicable federal,
state and local laws and the provisions of this chapter.
E. The Police Department shall be authorized to make
inspections at all times as necessary to insure compliance
with this chapter and other applicable laws.
F. Sufficient illumination shall be provided so that all ob-
jects are plainly visible at all times. Such illumination shall
be not less than ten foot candles at floor level at all times
when the premises are open or when any member of the
public is permitted to enter and remain therein.
G. No alcoholic beverage shall be served or allowed on
the premises.
ley abutting Lots 6 and 13, let
Block 4; all in Puget Sound lu
Cooperative Colony's Sub- 0
division.
Section 2. Special Terms and
Conditions.
A. TEMPORARY EASEMENT. o!
Olympic Memorial Hospital u
shall provide to the City
temporary utility easements l e
20 feet in width, centered on
the existing electric, sewer 1'
and water lines, for the pur-
poses of maintaining the
existing utilities. Prior to the
construction of the parking 17.67.090 F pqt xc. to r1 s. This chapter shall not be construed
area, Olympic Memorial to prohibit the following:
D Dlavc eras muc nr ether. dram -air wnrkc which
NOTICE OF
SPECIAL MEETING
NOTICE IS ;1EREBY GIVEN
that the Utility Advisory
Committee (UAC), a subcom-
mittee of the City Council of
the City of Port Angeles, will
hold a special meeting on
Thursday, 'October 27, 1988
at 4:00 PM in the Public
Works Conference Room,
321 E. 5th Street. The pur-
pose of this special meeting
is discussion of Public Works
secondary issues and review
and update of City Light
issues.
Pub.: Oct. 25, 1988.
111
NO1
that:.
COUNCIL will hold a public
hearing on NOVEMBER 1,
1988, at 7:00 P.M., or as
soon thereafter as possible,
in the City Council Cham-
bers, 321 East Fifth Street,
Port Angeles, Washington,
to consider a request to va-
cate a portion of City
right -of -way.
LOCATION: CAROLINE
STREET, east of Francis
Street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Caro-
line Street from Francis
Street 100 feet to the east,
abutting Lots 9, 10 and 11,
Block 32, and Lots 7, 8 and
9, Block 37, Norman R
Smith's Subdivision to the
Townsite of Port Angeles.
APPLICANT: PAUL CRON
AUER and MAXINE WHIT-
MAN.
P
eived by the City Clerk of
the City of Port Angeles at
321 East Fifth Street of said
City until 2:30 P.M., Wednes-
day, October 12, 1988, for
furnishing the following:
Provision, Installation, and
Training for an Electronic
Meter Reading System.
Bid sheets, specifications,
and instructions to bidders
are available from the City
Clerk's Office, P.O. Box
1150, Port Angeles, WA
98362. Phone (206) 457 -0411,
ext. 118.
Sealed bids will be opened
at 2:30 P.M., Wednesday,
October, 12, 1988, at 321
East Fifth Street, Port Ange-
les City Hall.
A certified check or bid bond
for 5% of the amaunt of bid
shall accompany each bid.
The City Council reserves the
right to accept or reject any 1
or all bids or any part s
thereof.
David T. Flodstrom
City Manager
th pub.: Seot. 26. Oct. 3. 1988.
C
h...1116 on ucrouer irs, r9oo,
at 7:00 P.M., or as soon
I thereafter as possible, in the
City Council Chambers, 321
East Fifth Street, Port Ange-
les, Washington, to consider:
An appeal of the Planning
Commission's recommenda-
tion regarding a daycare
center in the RS -9, single
family residential district.
LOCATION: 3131 Regent
Street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7,
8, and 9, Whittington's
subdivision.
APPLICANT: Roger and Kelly
German.
PROPERTY OWNER: Same.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PO-
LICY ACT (SEPA): N /A.
All interested parties may
appear at the hearing and
express their opinion on this
proposal.
DATE: October 6, 1988.
Michelle Maike
City Clerk
Pub.: Oct. 9, 1988.
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
!0o
321 E. Fifth Port Angeles 457 -0411
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of
the City of Port Angeles will hold a public hearing
on Tuesday, October 4, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. in the Ci-
ty Council Chambers, 321 East Fifth Street. The
purpose of this public hearing is to receive public
input on the City's Goals and Objectives for 1989
and beyond.
The public is strongly encouraged to attend.
QUALIFICATIONS
The City of Port Angeles
Light Department is seeking
proposals from qualified
Engineering and /or Architec-
tural firms to perform the
following services related to
the operation of Bonneville
Power Administration's
(BPA) Energy Smart Design
Assistance Program.
A. Review Building Energy
Use Simulation Models and
Reports.
B. Assist in Energy Conser-
vation Measure Selection
and Recommendations.
C. Provide informal training
in HVAC and Lighting
Design.
Our evaluation will concen-
trate on the following
factors.:
1. Ability to assign a single
contact person who meets
the BPA Energy Smart De-
sign Assistance Lead
Modeler qualifications to this
work.
2. Recent and varied pro-
gram experience in design
assistance and breadth of
experience in energy use
simulation software
including bin models.
3. Recent experience with
designing, specifying equip-
ment and inspecting installa-
tion of measures in new
commercial buildings.
4. Willingness and ability to
train and consult with utility
personnel regarding ine-
cf"ianical, lighting and enve-
lope designs.
5. Ability to respond to re-
quests for assistance in a
timely manner.
6. References.
Please send your response
_to: Ken Maike '1 Port
Angeles, P.O. Box 1150, Port
Angeles, WA 98362.
Your response must be
received by 5:00 p.m., Octo-
ber 24th, 1988.
Call (206) 457 -0411 ext. 188
for more information.
We expect to operate this
program through mid -1991
and provide design assis-
tance for approximately sev-
L L en buildings in the Clallam
L County and City of Port An-
t geles areas through 1988
2: and the first half of 1989.
A The award of this work will
A be made by mid November
P 1988. Ken Maike
Energy Management Analyst
St Pub.: Oct. 12, 14, 1988.
A PA) N/A
Al interested parties may
appear at the hearing and
express their opinion on this
proposal.
Date: October 7, 1988
Michelle Maike
City Clerk
Pub.: Oct. 11, 1988
Michelle M. Maike
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 2236
AN ORDINANCE of the City
of Port Angeles vacating the
westerly 50' of Columbia
Street between Blocks 3 and
4, PSCC; and vacating the
westerly 50' of the Colum-
bia/ Caroline alley in Block
4, PSCC.
WHEREAS, a petition is on
file with the City of Port An-
geles to vacate the westerly
50 feet of Columbia Street
between Blocks 3 and 4,
PSCC; and to vacate the
westerly 50 feet of the Co-
lumbia/ Caroline alley in
Block 4, PSCC; and
WHEREAS, the requirements
of Chapter 43.21C RCW, the
State Environmental Policy
Act, have been met and a
public hearing has been held
by the City Council following
public notice pursuant to
Chapter 35.79 RCW; and
WHEREAS, said vacation ap-
pears to be of benefit to and
in the interest of the public;
now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PORT ANGELES as follows:
Section 1. Vacation. Subject
to the terms and conditions
of this Ordinance, the fol-
lowing described street/ al-
ley, or portion of a street/
alley, is hereby vacated:
That portion of Columbia
Street abutting Lot 6, Block
4, and abutting Lot 13, Block
3; and that portion of the al-
ley abutting Lots 6 and 13,
Block 4; all in Puget Sound
Cooperative Colony's Sub-
division.
Section 2. Special Terms and
Conditions.
A. TEMPORARY EASEMENT.
Olympic Memorial Hospital
shall provide to the City
temporary utility easements
20 feet in width, centered on
the existing electric, sewer
and water lines, for the pur-
poses of maintaining the
existing utilities. Prior to the
construction of the parking
area, Olympic Memorial
Hospital shall relocate the
underground and overhead
utilities to the satisfaction of
i the City of Port Angeles; and
Olympic Memorial Hospital
shall pay the cost of re-
locating said utilities. These
temporary easements shall
erminated
when the rblocation 01
utilities is completed.
B. ACCESS. Olympic Memori-
al Hospital shall install tem-
porary barriers to eliminate
non municipal access to Co-
lumbia Street and the alley
until relocation of the
utilities is completed. Upon
completion of the relocation
of utilities, Olympic Memori-
al Hospital shall construct
the parking lot to prevent
permanent access to Colum-
bia Street and the alley.
C. BLUFF PRESERVATION.
Before any improvements
are constructed, appropriate
tests shall be made to as-
sure protection of the bluff
and upland properties.
Section 3. Quit Claim Deed.
Upon compliance with the
terms and conditions of this
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 per-
mit, declaring a public emergency, and establishing a new
Chapter 17.67 of the City Zoning Code.
WHEREAS, there is an immediate need, based on the expe-
rience of other western Washington cities, to regulate the
location and operation of adult entertainment businesses 1
in order to preserve the quality of the living environment
of the City's residential neighborhoods and business and
commercial centers, and to avoid increased crime and re-
duction of property values, and
WHEREAS, there is an immediate need to enact an interim
ordinance for the purpose of controlling the adverse im
pacts which adult entertainment businesses have been
shown to generate in other communities, which regulation
the City Council finds will result in the least intrusion upon
constitutionally protected rights possible while still
achieving the minimum degree of regulation needed to
meet the City's objectives of avoiding or minimizing the
adverse impacts identified above, and
WHEREAS, due to the fact that the City currently has limit-
ed regulations applicable to adult entertainment
businesses, there is an immediate need to adopt regula-
tions in order to prevent, mitigate and monitor the types
of adverse impacts associated with such businesses; and
WHEREAS, there is an immediate need to designate a
public emergency in order to protect the public health,
public safety, public property, and the public peace, and to
adopt an interim ordinance to meet this emergency by
regulating such businesses;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PORT ANGELES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. A new Chapter 17.67 of the Port Angeles Zoning
Ordinance is hereby adopted to read as follows:
Chagtfr 17.67
Adult Entertainment Condi i nal t se Permit
17.67.010 Puroose. The purpose of this c is to insure
that adult entertainment businesses are appropriately
located and operated within the City of Port Angeles, are
compatible with uses allowed within the City, and are
conducive to the public health, safety, and welfare.
17.67.020 Definitions.
A. "Adult entertainment business" means any premises
operated as a commercial enterprise, where any live exhi-
bition or dance of any type is conducted, which exhibition
or dance involves a person that is unclothed or in such
attire, costume, or clothing as to expose to view any
portion of the female breast below the top of the areola
and /or any portion of the genital region.
B. "Obscene" means having such quality or being of such
nature that, if taken as a whole by an average person
applying contemporary community standards, would ap-
peal to a prurient interest in sex, would depict patently
offensive representations of sexual acts or lewd behavior,
and would lack serious literary, artistic, political or scien-
tific value.
17.67.030 Conditional Use Permit Required. No adult enter-
tainment business shall be permitted in the City of Port
Angeles unless a conditional use permit is approved pursu-
ant to, and in compliance with, the provisions of this
chapter.
17.67.040 Development Policies. All proposed adult enter-
tainment businesses must be compatible with the permit-
ted and conditional uses of the zoning district in which the
adult entertainment business is located and must be con
ducive to the public health, safety and welfare. In further-
ance of this general policy, all adult entertainment
businesses shall also be consistent with the following
policies:
A. Adult entertainment businesses shall be located in ar-
eas of intensive uses which serve a regional market.
B. Adult entertainment businesses shall be located so as to
avoid close proximity to one another to reduce potential
for crime, protect property values, and to protect local
business image.
C. Adult entertainment businesses shall be located so as to
avoid close proximity to any zone in which residential uses
are an outright permitted use, or any single or multi family
residence, public park, public library, daycare center, pre-
school, nursery school, public or private primary or sec-
ondary school or church, in order to reduce incompatibility
with such uses and close proximity to locations likely to be
frequented by persons under eighteen years old.
17.67.050 Separ tion Rea lirempnts. Adult entertainment
businesses may be permitted by conditional use permit
only if the following separation requirements are met un-
less a waiver is obtained as provided herein:
A. No adult entertainment business shall be located closer
than 2,000 feet to another adult entertainment business,
whether such other business is located within or outside
t ity C limits.
No adult entertainment business shall be located closer
n 2,000 feet to any of the following zones or uses,
ch are likely to be frequented by persons under the
age of 18, whether such zone or use is located within or
outside the City limits:
1. Any zone in which residential uses are an outright
permitted use;
2. Single or multi family residence;
3. Public park;
4. Public library;
5. Daycare center, preschool or nursery school;
6. Public or private primary or secondary school;
7. Church, provided that, for the purpose of this chapter,
"church" shall mean a building erected for and used
exclusively for religious worship and schooling or other
activity in connection therewith.
C. The distances provided in this section shall be measured
1, by following a straight line, without regard to intervening
buildings, from the nearest point of the property parcel
upon which the proposed use is to be located, to the
nearest point of the parcel or property or the zone from
which the proposed land use is to be separated.
D. A waiver of the distance requirements provided in this
section may be obtained as follows:
1. By presenting evidence of consent to the location of-
the adult entertainment business within the 2,000 -foot area
by least 51% of the owners of property within the the
2,000 -foot area as evidenced by the notarized signatures of
such owners;
2. By determination of the City Council based upon the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and consider-
ation of the following:
a. The extent to which physical features would result
in an effective separation in terms of visibility and access;
b. Compliance with the goals and policies of this
chapter;
c. Compatibility with adjacent and surrounding land
uses;
d. The availability or lack of alternative locations for
the proposed use;
e. Ability to avoid the adult entertainment hncinpcc by
street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7,
8, and 9, Whittington's
subdivision.
APPLICANT: Roger and Kelly
German.
PROPERTY OWNER: Same.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PO-
LICY ACT (SEPA): N /A.
All interested parties may
appear at the hearing and
express their opinion on this
proposal.
DATE: October 6, 1988.
Michelle Maike
City Clerk
Pub.: Oct. 9, 1988.
Sta 1 Oct. 12,14 19886y Act PA) Pub. N/A
All interested parties may
appear at the hearing and
express their opinion on this
proposal.
Date: October 7, 1988
Michelle Maike
City Clerk
Pub.: Oct. 11, 1988
when the relocation of e y o
utilities is completed. will: b fllowing a straight line, without regard to intervening g
r a buildings, from the nearest point of the property parcel.
B. ACCESS. Olympic is Memori-` upon which the proposed use is to be located, to the
al Hospital shall install tem- -reds nearest point of the parcel or property or the zone from
porary barriers to eliminate ot l which the proposed and use is to be separated.
ri
non- municipal access to Co- ige-
D. A waiver of the distance requirements provided in this
lumbia Street and the alley section may be obtained as follows:
until relocation of the No- 1. By presenting evidence of consent to the location of
utilities is completed. Upon i the adult entertainment business within the 2,000 -foot area
completion of the relocation m. by least 51% of the owners of property within the the
of utilities, Olympic Memori- Ned 2,000 -foot area as evidenced by the notarized signatures of
al Hospital shall construct
the parking lot to prevent 3PA
permanent access to Colum- and
bia Street and the alley. ices
C. BLUFF PRESERVATION.
Before any improvements in an effective separation in terms of visibility and access;
are constructed, appropriate
tests shall be made to as-
sure protection of the bluff
and upland properties.
Section 3. Quit Claim Deed.
Upon compliance with the
terms and conditions of this
Ordinance, the owner of
abutting property entitled to
the vacated street/ alley,
pursuant to RCW 35.79.040,
may present a quit claim
deed to the City of Port An-
geles for execution by the
Mayor, who is hereby
authorized and directed to
execute such quit claim
deed. Such quit claim deed
shall include all reserva-
tions, conditions, or other
qualifications upon the title
established by this
Ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall be ef-
fective only upon the satis-
faction of the terms and con-
ditions of this Ordinance,
and the Clerk is hereby
directed to file, record and
publish this Ordinance upon
that satisfaction.
PASSED by the City Council
of the City of Port Angeles
at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the 16th day
of November, 1982.
Dorothy Duncan, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Marian C. Parrish, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Craig L. Miller, City Attorney
Pub.: Oct. 7, 1988.
such owners;
2. By determination of the City Council based upon the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and consider-
ation of the following:
a. The extent to which physical features would result
b. Compliance with the goals and policies of this
chapter;
c. Compatibility with adjacent and surrounding land
uses;
d. The availability or lack of alternative locations for
the proposed use;
e. Ability to avoid the adult entertainment business by
alternative vehicular and pedestrian routes.
E. Uses and zones specified under 17.67.050(B) shall not be
allowed to locate within 2,000 feet of an adult entertain-
ment business. Any party proposing to locate such a use or
zone within 2,000 feet of an adult entertainment business
is considered an intervening use and may do so only after
obtaining a waiver as provided in 17.67.050(D).
17.67.060 Permit Fee.
A. The annual fee for the conditional use permit required
pursuant to 17.67.030 shall be $100.00.
B. The conditional use permit shall expire annually and
must be renewed each year.
17.67.070 Perrpit Agglication.
A. the applicant must 18 years of age or older.
B. All applications for adult entertainment conditional use
permits shall be submitted in the name of the person or
entity proposing to conduct such adult entertainment busi-
ness on the premises and shall be signed by such person
and notarized or certified as true under penalty of perjury.
C. All applications shall be submitted on a form supplied
by the Planning Department, which shall require the fol-
lowing information:
1. The name, home address, home telephone number,
date and place of birth, driver's license number, if any,
and social security number of the applicant if the applicant
is an individual;
2. The business name, address and telephone number
of the establishment;
3. The names, addresses, telephone numbers, and so-
cial security numbers of any partners, including limited
partners, corporate officers, shareholders who own ten
percent or more of the business, or other persons who
have a substantial interest or management responsibility
in connection with the buness, specifying the interest or
management responsibility of each;
4. Terms of any loans, leases, secured transactions and
repayments therefor relating to the business;
5. Addresses of the applicant for the five years immedi-
ately prior to the date of application;
6. A description of the adult entertainment or similar
business history of the applicant; whether such person or
entity, in previously operating in this or other city, county
or state, has had a business license or land use permit
revoked or suspended, the reason therefor, and the activi-
ty or occupation subsequent to such action, suspension or
revocation;
7. Any and all criminal convictions or forfeitures other
than parking offenses or minor traffic violations, including
dates of conviction, nature of the crime, name and location
of court and disposition for each owner, partner, or
corporation;
8. A description of the business, occupation or employ-
ment of the applicant for the three years immediately
preceding the date of application;
9. Authorization for the City, its agents and employees
to seek information to confirm any statements set forth in
the application;
Ili 10. Supplemental identification and /or information nec-
essary to confirm matters set forth in the application.
E. Copies of the application shall be referred by the Plan-
ning Department to the Police, Fire, Public Works or other
appropriate departments. The departments shall inspect
the application, the premises proposed to be operated as
an adult entertainmeent business, and shall make written
verification to the Planning Department that such premises
comply with the codes of the City and recommendations
consistent therewith. The Police Department shall make
written verification of the information provided by the ap-
plicant on the permit application and a recommendation
consistent therewith. No permit may be issued without
such verifications mkt recommendation.
17.67.080 Operation and DPP-v e.. poment Stafda0(1s. All adult
entertainment businesses shall comply with the following
operation and development standards:
A. All signs shall be in compliance with the regulations for
such signs as set forth in the zoning requirements for the
applicable zone; provided that such signs shall not contain
any obscene language or other form of obscene commun-
ication.
B. The interior of the premises shall be arranged such that
no adult entertainment shall occur except upon a stage at
least eighteen inches above the immediate floor level and
removed at least six feet from the nearest patron.
C. No person shall be allowed entry onto the premises
who is younger than eighteen years of age.
D. The business shall be operated and managed by per-
sons whose background and experience demonstrate the
ability to maintain compliance with all applicable federal,
state and local laws and the provisions of this chapter.
E. The Police Department shall be authorized to make
inspections at all times as necessary to insure compliance
with this chapter and other applicable laws.
F. Sufficient illumination shall be provided so that all ob-
jects are plainly visible at all times. Such illumination shall
be not less than ten foot candles at floor level at all times
when the premises are open or when any member of the
public is permitted to enter and remain therein.
G. No alcoholic beverage shall be served or allowed on
the premises.
17.67.090 FxgPq}iorjs. This chapter shall not be construed
to prohibit the following:
A. Pays, .operas, musicals_ oE -caber do ma1ic works ••t c
I are not obscene.
B. Classes, seminars and lectures held for serious scientific
I or educational purposes.
C. Exhibitions or dances which are not obscene.
D. Political performances and presentations which are not
obscene.
17.67.100 Appeals. Any person aggrieved by the decision
of the City Council as to any conditional use permit applied
for pursuant to this chapter shall make appeal to the
ri .nun.., r`,.,... c,,..e.,.., r..,,.-+ ..,i+k
verification to the Planning Separ men a suc pr•
comply with the codes of the City and recommendations
consistent therewith. The Police Department shall make
written verification of the information provided by the ap-
plicant on the permit application and a recommendation
consistent therewith. No permit may be issued without
such verifications and recommendation.
17.67.080 Operation nd Deev P.. pmt Stap�Jarps. All adult
entertainment businesses shall comply with the following
operation and development standards:
A. At signs shall be in compliance with the regulations for
such signs as set forth in the zoning requirements for the
applicable zone; provided that such signs shall not contain
any obscene language or other form of obscene commun-
ication.
B. The interior of the premises shall be arranged such that
no adult entertainment shall occur except upon a stage at
least eighteen inches above the immediate floor level and
removed at least six feet from the nearest patron.
C. No person shall be allowed entry onto the premises
who is younger than eighteen years of age.
D. The business shall be operated and managed by per-
sons whose background and experience demonstrate the
ability to maintain compliance with all applicable federal,
state and local laws and the provisions of this chapter.
E. The Police Department shall be authorized to make
inspections at all times as necessary to insure compliance
with this chapter and other applicable laws.
F. Sufficient illumination shall be provided so that all ob-
jects are plainly visible at all times. Such illumination shall
be not less than ten foot candles at floor level at all times
when the premises are open or when any member of the
public is permitted to enter and remain therein.
G. No alcoholic beverage shall be served or allowed on
the premises.
17.67.090 Exceptions. This chapter shall not be construed
to prohibit the following:
A. Plays, operas, musicals oC ..nif .rlcamaiir wprkc Aft-ic'l
are not "ooscehe.
B. Classes, seminars and lectures held for serious scientific
or educational purposes.
C. Exhibitions or dances which are not obscene.
D. Political performances and presentations which are not
obscene.
17.67.100 Appeals. Any person aggrieved by the decision
of the City Council as to any conditional use permit applied
for pursuant to this chapter shall make appeal to the
Clallam County Superior Court within fifteen days following
the decision of the City Council.
17.67.110 Penalties.
A. Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a
fine not to exceed $500.00. Each day that a violation con-
tinues shall constitute a separate offense.
B. Violation of the standards and regulations in this chap-
ter is declared to be a public nuisance per se, which shall
be abated by the City Attorney by way of civil abatement
procedures, and which shall subject the premises to imme-
diate closure.
C. Nothing in this chapter is intended to authorize, legalize
or permit the establishment, operation or maintenance of
any business, building or use which violates any City ordi-
nance or state statute regarding public nuisances, sexual
conduct, lewdness, or obscene or harmful matter or the
exhibition or public display thereof.
Section 2 Severahility. If any provisions of this Ordinance,
or its application to any person or circumstances, is held
invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, or application of
the provisions of the Ordinance to other Persons or circum-
stances, is not affected.
Section 3 Emereency. The City Council finds that protec-
tion of the public health; public safety, public property and
public peace necessitates the designation of a public emer-
gency pursuant to RCW 35A.13.190 and the immediate ef-
fectiveness of this Ordinance. This Ordinance is intended
to be of an interim nature and is hereby referred to the
Planning Commission for its consideration and the holding
of the necessary and appropriate public hearings. The
Planning Commission shall return its recommendation as to
the appropriate final form of an adult entertainment
busines ordinance to the City Council within ninety days of
the adoption of this Ordinance.
Section 4 Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect
upon adoption.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a
regular meeting of said Council held on the 4th day of
October, 1988.
Frank McPhee, MAYOR
ATTEST: Michelle M. Maike
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Craig D. Knutson
City Attorney
Pub.: Oct. 9, 1988.