Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/21/2003 5057 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington October 21, 2003 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Wiggins called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order REGULAR MEETING: at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Wiggins, Councilmembers Braun, Campbell, Erickson, Headrick, Rogers, and Williams. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Manager Quinn, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Upton, B. Collins, M. Connelly, T. Riepe, Y. Ziomkowski, K. Miller, A. Bmsseau, D. Estes, T. Reid, C. Hagar, J. DeFrang, D. Morse, K. Ridout, J. Mason, S. Johns, S. Roberds, and K. Dubuc. Public Present: P. Lamoureux, F. Norton, J. Wilson, J. Pittis, K. Siemens, B. McGuire, C. Kidd, D. Morrison, K. Morrison, S. Lorance, D. Frizzell, B. Roberds, R. Anderson, B. & M. Averill, and S. Kuruvilla. All others present in the audience failed to sign the roster. PLEDGE OF The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Braun. ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC CEREMONIES, 1. Quarterly Chamber of Commerce Report by Russ Veenema, Executive PRESENTATIONS AND Director: PROCLAMATIONS: Russ Veenema, Chamber of Commerce Executive Director, presented the 3rd Quarter Chamber of Commerce report, initially focusing on recently featured events that proved to be quite successful: Report The Wine Stop at Olympic Cellars, Heritage Weekend, Strait Thunder Hydro Races, and the Dungeness Crab & Seafood Festival. Recent advertising efforts via TV spots, the electronic billboard, and radio have drawn favorable comments from the public. The advertising campaign for 2004 will involve similar efforts, the details of which will be presented to the Chamber Board in the near future. He expressed hope that more special event groups will work with the Chamber on advertising in order to accomplish consistency and to share marketing dollars. Mr. Veenema distributed statistical information to the Council, reviewing the room tax collections for the first 10 months of 2003, which reflect a 4% year-to-date decrease compared to 2002. He reviewed comparative statistics on sales tax, occupancies, web site visits, and Information Center door count. Discussion ensued, and Mayor Wiggins noted that, considering the economy and other factors, the City should be quite pleased with the tourism numbers. Councilman Williams observed that Mr. Veenema is likely relying on the remaining $28,000 in additional ftlnding for 2003. Mr. Veenema agreed, noting he had been concerned with the reduced revenue and wanted to be certain there was no deficit at the end of the year. Mr. Veenema then clarified for Councilman Williams that the tax revenues reflect actual year-to-date receipts. Councilmember Rogers informed the Council that she received several favorable telephone calls from -1- 5058 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 21, 2003 Chamber of Commerce colleagues in the greater Seattle area regarding the fall advertising campaign. Report (Cont'd) Waterfront Ambassadors 2. Waterfront Ambassadors: Parks & Recreation Director Connelly indicated that volunteers are the cornerstone of success, particularly as relates to the Waterfront Ambassador program just implemented this year on the Waterfront Trail. He cited a quotation from an unknown source that "volunteers are not paid, not because they are worthless, but because they are priceless", adding that they have enhanced the quality of life in Port Angeles. Dan Estes, Special Events Coordinator, advised the Council that a Waterfront Ambassador is an official representative of the City and area businesses on the waterfront from the Valley Creek Estuary Park to beyond the Francis Street Park. The Ambassadors greet visitors, provide directions, and provide any other information that may enhance someone's visit. The Ambassadors also serve as the eyes and ears of the area by providing information to the City on areas that may need maintenance, cleaning, and the like. The year's program commenced in August and has logged almost 300 hours. Thanking the volunteers for their many contributions, Mr. Estes introduced those present in the audience: Harriet Herzog, Dan Hart, Barbara Hart, Bill Sohlberg, Mary Sohlberg, Bill Helwick, Nancy Helwick, and Geri Braun. Unable to attend this evening were Ambassadors Lee Carlson, Irene Estes, and Jeanne Rolley. School Essay Winners re. 3. School Essay Winners re. Diversity: Diversity Mayor Wiggins announced that the School District essay contest was spawned by the Multi-Cultural Task Force, and the winners are being honored this evening. Gary Cohn, Port Angeles School District Superintendent, indicated there were approximately 200 participants in the contest, representative of Grades 2, 3, 4, and 5. Dr. Cohn chronicled how the contest was implemented in that the National League of Cities sponsored Race Equality Week to commemorate the 40th Anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, IHave a Dream speech. The Multi-Cultural Task Force decided to sponsor the essay contest in the School District, using the State WASL format, with selected topics on racial equality. A subcommittee made up of volunteers from the City's Task Force, as well as volunteers from the School District's Multi-Ethnic comrmttee, assisted in judging the essays. Dr. Cohn and Mayor Wiggins created an additional incentive such that any class having complete student participation in the essay contest would be treated to ice cream, to be served by the Mayor and the Superintendent. Four classes achieved that level of excellence. Dr. Cohn reviewed the topics selected for each grade level, after which School Board President Charlie McClain added this was an excellent opportunity for the School District to work with the City. The response to the essay contest was overwhelming in terms of participation, and he was extremely pleased with the quality of the essays submitted. The three then presented certificates to the winners from each grade. Grade 2: Kendall Clotfelter, Makayla Lopez, and Sara Catract. Grade 3: Dylan Wickersham (unable to attend), Elspeth Chamo, and Brian DeFrang. Grade 4: Courmey Lemon, Connor Reid, and Riley Hannam. Grade 5: Rebecca Ramsey, Erika Hughes, and Sharellee McBride. Dr. Cohn recognized the students' teachers: Ms. Grimes, Ms. Hill, Mr. Burnett, and Ms. Biasell, and he then asked that all students and parents stand for recognition. Presentation of 4. Presentation of Certifications to Officer Allen Brusseau and K-9 "Kilo "for Certifications to Officer Completion of K-9 Training: Allen Brusseau and K-9 "Kilo" Police ChiefRiepe made introductory remarks concerning the success of the City' s K-9 Program that started approximately 7 years ago under the direction of Corporal Kevin Miller. It was possible for a second dog, "Kilo", to be acquired by the City, due to the generous donation of a very humble lady present this evening, and it is intended that CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5059 October 21, 2003 Presentation of "Kilo" will be commissioned at this evening's meeting. Corporal Miller provided a Certifications to Officer perspective on the K-9 Program whereby officers are less likely to get into foot chases Allen Bmsseau and K-9 and other dangerous situations, because tracking dogs can provide assistance in "Kilo" (Cont'd) locating, searching, evidence finding, and the like. In spite of being abused and attacked by suspects, his dog has over 150 felony captures, and he has saved City officers from being hurt and costing the City tax dollars. The dog has had over 500 felony drag arrests and has located a murder suspect, evidence of the success of the program. Corporal Miller introduced Officer Brusseau and "Kilo", who just graduated from training and has already experienced his first felony capture. "Kilo" will soon be undergoing narcotic training. Corporal Miller described the nature of"Kilo's" training, the success of which can be attributed in large part to the volunteers who assisted throughout. He recognized Councilman Braun's active participation in getting the program implemented in 1996. The volunteers who committed so many hours to the training process were presented withplaques: Jessica Strauss; Mike Hill, Sequim Police Department; and Dan Morse, Port Angeles Police Department. Unable to attend were Morgan Wilson and Trevor Dropp. Mayor Wiggins presented "Kilo" with his badge, and certificates were presented to Officer Bmsseau and Officer "Kilo" for graduation from the Canine Academy. Ms. Frances Lyon was honored for her substantial contribution to the K-9 Program. Councilman Braun briefly reviewed the K-9 Program since its inception, noting Corporal Miller's contributions and hard work that resulted in the initial contribution from Arco. Bill Laitner Introduction - 5. Bill Laitner Introduction - National Park Superintendent: National Park Superintendent Mr. Bill Laitner, newly appointed Superintendent of Olympic National Park, thanked the Council for the opportunity to address the group. Of the almost 400 National Park Service areas, he indicated that Olympic National Park is Number One, and he expressed pleasure at being assigned to this area. His job entails the preservation of everything in the Park, to include the natural wonders, wildlife, animals, plants, and the scenic beauty. The other portion of his job involves the provision of enjoyment for the public. Superintendent Laitner indicated that, since his arrival, he has experienced the first big fire since 1988, drought, and now floods. He welcomed everyone to come to the Park and have a good time; he emphasized the Park belongs to the citizens, from whom he welcomes differing opinions and views. Mayor Wiggins mentioned the two main issues involving the National Park and the City: removal of the Elwha Dams and the efforts of the Hurricane Ridge Public Development Authority. Superintendent Laitner was aware of the effort to remove the dams, noting the community has come together in the interest of salmon restoration. Regarding the Hurricane Ridge PDA, he indicated he was looking forward to seeing the ski area in operation for the first time. Mayor Wiggins noted Councilman Campbell's contributions to the Elwha Dam issue over the years, expressing hope that he would be willing to continue in an advisory capacity as the endeavor progresses. Superintendent Laitner agreed that such a valuable resource should not be lost. Break Mayor Wiggins recessed the meeting for a break at 6:53 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Street Vacation Petition - STV 03-02 - Port Angeles School District: Vacation of the OTHER: 12/13 Alley between Chase and Lincoln Streets: Street Vacation Petition - Community Development Director Collins summarized the Street Vacation petition Port Angeles School submitted by the School District, which has been recommended for approval by staff District and the Planning Commission. During the reconstruction of the main school structure, Ordinance No. 3147 a survey revealed that this right-of-way was inadvertently not included in a street vacation of 1922. When the matter was discovered, the School District asked the City -3- 5060 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 21, 2003 PUBLIC HEARINGS - to vacate the property so that title could be cleared to avoid furore issues. The Real OTHER: Estate Committee met and considered the request and recommended there be no compensation associated with this particular vacation in keeping with the original Street Vacation Petition - vacation. Port Angeles School District Mayor Wiggins opened the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. There being no public Ordinance No. 3147 testimony, Mayor Wiggins closed the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. and read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 3147 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, vacating the twelve/thirteen alley from Lincoln Street to Chase Street. Councilman Braun moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title, citing Findings 1 - 8 and Conclusions A - C, as set forth in Exhibit "A", which is attached to and becomes a part of these minutes. The motion was seconded by Councilman Campbell and carried unanimously. WORK SESSION: None. LATE ITEMS TO BE Mayor Wiggins asked that discussion regarding the Graving Dock be added as Agenda PLACED ON THIS OR Item 1.3. FUTURE AGENDAS: Jesse Wilson, President of Clallam County Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, 1025 W. 1 lth, presented a statement to the Council on the subject of fluoride. On August 12-13, 2003, a meeting sponsored by the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency was convened at the National Academy of Sciences Building in Washington, D.C., to discuss the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology's program studying environmental pollution problems affecting human health. The National Research Council's Division on Earth and Life Studies, concerned itself with an important EPA sponsored project entitled, "Toxicologic Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water". Mr. Wilson indicated that the focus is to investigate the total exposure to all orally ingested fluoride sources including food, toothpaste, dental rinses, and water fluoridation. He felt it would be the prudent course of action for the fluoridation of Port Angeles water to be put on hold until the National Research Council subcommittee's conclusions are issued. Paul Lamoureux, 602 Whidby, referencing informational materials he had provided to the Council on an earlier date, expressed displeasure at the lack ofcommunicationback from the Councilmembers. Mayor Wiggins advised Mr. Lamoureux that this portion of the Council agenda provides an opportunity for the public to come forward and express themselves on their own views. This is not, however, an appropriate time for the Council to enter into an exchange with the public. Councilman Williams expressed willingness to communicate via e-mail if Mr. Lamoureux would provide the proper address, and Councilmember Rogers felt she communicated with Mr. Lamoureux on a fairly regular basis; however, she felt that some of the materials provided do not necessarily call for action. Mr. Lamoureux felt more communications are in order on such matters as electric rates and stormwater. He felt the citizens should be made aware of the means by which the City intends to bill for stormwater, and Mayor Wiggins, Councilmember Rogers, and Manager Quinn clarified that the City has a process through which the stormwater issue is proceeding. The matter has been under consideration at the Utility Advisory Committee level and has not yet been forwarded to the Council. It is fully intended that public input will be sought at the appropriate time. -4- CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5061 October 21, 2003 FINANCE: 1. Replacement of Copy Machines: Replacement of Copy Finance Director Ziomkowski summarized the upcoming expiration of photocopy Machines equipment leases, and she reviewed quotes obtained from three vendors for replacement equipment, also on a lease basis. In the ensuing discussion, Finance Administrative Assistant Hagar clarified rates for the machines, noting that a higher volume typically results in a lower rate per copy. Councilmember Rogers moved to lease the seven copiers/printers from /kBS. The motion was seconded by Councilman Braun and carried unanimously. Award 2003 Sewer 2. Award 2003 Sewer Repairs, Project 02-23: Repairs Deputy Director of Operations Ridout reviewed the proposed contract for 2003 server repairs, noting the three areas in which repairs are to be conducted. Councilman Campbell moved to accept the recommendation to award and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract for the 2003 Sewer Repairs, Project No. 02-23, to Kuchan Construction Company, Inc., of Port Angeles in the amount of $116,436.18. The motion was seconded by Councilman Headrick and carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA: Referencing the City Council minutes of October 13, 2003, Councilman Headrick asked to change language in the motion from "five lots on Valley Creek" to "five lots on Valley Street through negotiation". Also, Manager Quinn noted an incorrect check list had been included in the Council packet; the correct list was distributed to the Council. Mayor Wiggins asked that Council review the list and bring any questions to the next meeting. Councilman Braun moved to approve the Consent Agenda, to include: 1.) City Council Minutes of October 7, 2003 regular meeting, October 13, 2003 special meeting [as corrected], and Gateway Review Team Committee Meeting - September 12, 2003 minutes; 2.) Expenditure Approval List - October 10, 2003 - $639,835.60; 3.) Electronic Payments - October 10, 2003 - $1,945,425.95; 4.) Trail Advisory Appointment to County; and 5.) Accept Laurel Street Slide Repair, Project 96-05. The motion was seconded by Councilman Williams and carried 6 - 0, with Councilman Campbell abstaining due to absence from the October 13, 2003, meeting. CITY COUNCIL Mayor Wiggins attended a recent forum on the Patriot Act, and he asked that someone COMMITTEE from the Council plan to attend the Serenity House function this coming Friday. REPORTS & Councilman Braun agreed to attend. CALENDAR: Councilman Braun attended meetings of the Clallam Transit Board, the AWC Regional Conference, a meeting of the Real Estate Committee, the Highland Courtc open house, a Gateway Review Committee meeting, and the Valley Creek Estuary dedication. Councilmcmber Rogers shared that, this past month, Computer Source magazine interviewed different cities related to technology. Both she and Tim Smith were interviewed, as Port Angeles is now on the map for becoming a technology-related town. A series of technology seminars arc being offered through the Tech Cluster, the first of which was just completed on E-Bay; thc seminars have been very well attended. She has continued her Congressional and State liaison work on City-related issues, and she was pleased to announce that thc Gateway Review Committee approved thc design for the Gateway project. Final costs will be forthcoming in approximately three weeks. Efforts on land acquisition must proceed. Councilman Braun offered kudos to Councilmember Rogers for her efforts in this regard. Councilman Williams attended the Port Angeles Business Association meeting for a presentation by CouncilmemberRogers. The group collected approximately $700 for the undergroundproject. He also attended the informational meeting held on fluoride. -5- 5062 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 21, 2003 CITY COUNCIL Councilman Campbell offered kudos to the Story People of Clallam County for a very COMMITTEE successful festival; attendees came from all over the U.S. and Canada. REPORTS & CALENDAR: (Cont'd) Councilman Headrick attended a conference of environmental engineers regarding watershed practices, at which time he discussed the City's efforts in the Valley Creek area. The conference was sponsored by the North Olympic Land Trust. ORDINANCES NOT None. REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS: RESOLUTIONS: None. OTHER I. Appeal of a Deterrnination of Non-Significance lssued for a Duplex in the RS- CONSIDERATIONS: 9 Zone: Appeal of Determination Councilman Headrick recused himself from the appeal consideration and departed the of Non-Significance for Council Chambers at 7:45 p.m. Attorney Knutson made introductory comments of a Duplex in RS-9 Zone procedural nature having to do with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, why this is a two-part appeal, and what the rules and order of presentation will be for the actual appeal. With regard to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, Attorney Knutson advised the Council that this is a quasi-judicial matter before the City Council; therefore, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies. This is why Councilman Headrick disqualified himself, as he is related to one of the parties involved. In addition, two Councilmembers spoke briefly with Department of Community Development staff prior to this meeting and, under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine as set forth in State Statute, Attorney Knutson indicated that the Councilmembers should disclose the nature of their discussions with staff and assure the parties that they will not consider that information during this matter tmless it comes before the Council as part of the presentations. In accordance with the Doctrine, when there is a quasi- judicial matter, the Council must only consider information that is presented during the appeal. In one instance, Councilman Braun raised a question to staff about drainage. Before he received an answer to that question, staff informed Attorney Knutson of the discussion, and he instructed staff that the information should not be relayed. Councilman Braun verified that Attorney Knutson's statements were accurate. In the other instance, Councilman Williams asked questions of Planning staff. Councilman Williams subsequently informed Attorney Knutson that he would not consider that information this evening unless it was introduced during the appeal. Councilman Williams stated this was accurate, and he relayed the nature of the questions he had posed. One had to do with Page 83 of the packet pertinent to the three indicators of a wetland, and the second, on Page 107, referenced SEPA #1000 and whether objections had been raised. He was told there were none. Attorney Knutson indicated that, after discussing this with the appellant's attorney, there would be no objection to either Councilmember considering this matter. However, since the appellant's attorney will proceed first, he will be free to raise any objection at that point. Attorney Knutson then explained why this is a two-part appeal. Referencing Page 81 of the packet, he noted the memo regarding an appeal of a Determination of Non- Significance, which falls under the State Environmental Policy Act. Secondly, he referenced the memo on Page 125 regarding an appeal of approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Those two matters constitute the two appeals being heard this evening. Preliminary discussions were held with all parties, and it was agreed that both parts of the appeal would be addressed during their presentations. However, when it is time for the Council to make a decision, the first decision must be made on the DNS Appeal. If the Council should determine that the DNS was substantively correct, then Council -6- CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5063 October 21, 2003 OTHER should proceed to a decision on the Conditional Use Permit portion of the appeal. CONSIDERATIONS: Attorney Knutson indicated that, if the Council were to decide that the DNS was not (Cont'd) appropriate and that an Environmental Impact Statement should be required, then that would end matters and, in essence, the consideration of the Conditional Use Permit Appeal of Determination would be moot. This is because the City would then have to do an EIS. He explained of Non-Significance for that, under the State Environmental Policy Act, the City must determine if there would Duplex in RS-9 Zone be any action that could potentially affect the environment in a significant way. This (Cont'd) determination undergoes what is called a threshold determination process, and the City has to decide whether the action before it is significant enough that a full Environmental Impact Statement should be required. In this case, the Department of Community Development Director, as the City's Responsible Official under SEPA, decided that an EIS should not be required, so he issued a Determination of Non- Significance. That determination has been appealed. Attorney Knutson indicated that, with State land use planning laws developed in recent years, there has been an effort on the part of the State Legislature to streamline land use processes, resulting in the consolidation of SEPA determinations with the underlying substantive determination. So, in this case, the reason why there are two separate issues is because State law has dictated that these types of matters must be handled concurrently. The City Planning Commission had to make its decision on the Conditional Use Permit so that both decisions - the DNS and the CUP - could be considered together if they were both appealed. The Planning Commission decided to issue the Conditional Use Permit, so that constituted another action that was essentially in favor of the applicant. The same party that originally appealed the DNS also appealed the Conditional Use Permit so, when the second appeal on the CUP was filed, the City consolidated both for consideration by the Council. With regard to the third part of the procedural issues, Attorney Knutson addressed the requirement that this is considered a closed record appeal, which is another effort on the part of the State Legislature to streamline these kinds of proceedings. The State Legislature decided that there should be only one public hearing on these matters. The public hearing was held before the Planning Commission, at which time the public was able to present testimony and evidence. Because there is no longer an opportunity for a public hearing, this is considered to be a closed record appeal, which means the parties are entitled to present argument to the Council with just one spokesperson for each party. The general public is not allowed to present evidence, and the parties involved are not allowed to present any further evidence either. They are obligated to base their arguments on the record that was created before the Planning Commission. Attorney Knutson informed the Council that the parties involved agreed that the appellant, represented by Attorney Craig Ritchie, would proceed first. The Department of Community Development Director would follow, representing the position of the Planning Commission, the staff, and the applicant. It was Attorney Knutson's understanding that the applicant would not be addressing the Council, as he felt no additional presentation was necessary. Then, since the appellant has the burden of proof in this matter, Mr. Ritchie would be entitled to a rebuttal at the end. Craig Ritchie, attorney representing Virginia DelGuzzi Frizzell, advised the Council that, to some extent, the appellant is saying not in my backyard, because the backyard is a wetland. The record shows what the land was like and, although the Council has been told there are two options - approve the DNS or require an EIS - there is a third option of a mitigated declaration of non-significance which might require some remedial action by addressing the wetland. Mr. Ritchie related that the concern is that the Planning Commission's approval of the duplex in and of itself shows there isn't and wasn't any planning on where duplexes should be located in this particular zone. He argued that the Planning Commission could approve the location of duplexes anywhere, which is the antithesis of the reason for zoning. He submitted that the reason for zoning is so that people can be secure that the property they purchase will be used for the types -7- 5064 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 21, 2003 OTHER of uses for which they purchased the property unless and until there is a rezone. Mr. CONSIDERATIONS: Ritchie indicated that, in this instance, the zoning is for a single-family residence with (Cont'd) an adjacent vacant lot that is a wetland. But, the lot was then being filled, and the Planning Commission subsequently approved a duplex. He felt that the rationale used Appeal of Determination by the Planning Commission was to approve a duplex wherever they may choose. He of Non-Significance for felt that any person who buys land, and relies on the zoning of the land he buys, is at Duplex in RS-9 Zone a loss as to what the land will be used for because there are no consistent standards. (Cont'd) Mr. Ritchie felt that the only standard is that which is determined by the Planning Commission. The difficulty with this particular project and the reason for objecting to the impact statement was that it didn't consider everything appropriately but, rather, it was considered in a piecemeal fashion. Mr. Ritchie indicated there was a filling of land that was allowed by the City earlier and, at that time, the City failed to consider why the land was being filled and whether it related to some furore plan for the property. The property owner did ultimately submit a plan to the City which required a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Ritchie felt the City failed to follow a process of reviewing the likely impacts of its decision earlier to allow the filling of a wetland and whether there should be some type of mitigation. He felt that, for instance, the City could have allowed the filling of the land under the condition that it be done so for a single-family residence that would fit in the neighborhood. He suggested that the matter be remanded to the Planning Department for a mitigated declaration of non-significance stating there may be building on the property, but it needs to be a single-family, not multi-family residence. He indicated they have not abandoned their position that the property was a wetland and could not be filled, and that the entire project is invalid. He submitted that if Council were to look at the property, it would be seen that the property is and was a wetland, but now is filled, and eventually it may be found that other jurisdictions may determine it to be a wetland, forcing the building to be stopped. He asked that the Conditional Use Permit be denied, that the Declaration of Non-Significance be determined inadequate, and that it be reconsidered. Community Development Director Collins then addressed the Council by stressing the importance of avoiding confusion. He indicated that Mr. Ritchie felt the Planning Commission had made decisions without any standards; he urged the Council to focus on the issue that was before them on appeal. The issue relates to a Conditional Use Permit for a duplex, which is an allowed use in the Single-Family RS-9 Residential Zone. The wetland, fill and drainage issues Mr. Ritchie alluded to were decided a year ago, and they are not subject to the appeal. The impacts of the duplex are also on appeal, not the wetland, filling, and drainage issues, but the impact of the duplex, although there is nothing to distinguish the duplex structure, which has been proposed in this Conditional Use Permit, from a single-family structure with regard to environmental impacts on adjacent wetlands or the drainage facilities. Director Collins distinguished between what the appeal is about and what it is not about. He indicated it is about a proposed duplex which appears much like a single family residence in scale, facade, and impacts on the environment. It is a 2,336 square foot structure with a two-car garage which, he noted, is fairly typical of any single family structure in the City. Further, Director Collins stated the appeal is about a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) #1040 for a duplex on a 5.14 acre site off Old Mill Road. This is a site previously prepared for more intensive residential development under a Clearing, Grading, Filling, and Drainage Permit with an earlier DNS (#1000), and it was not appealed when acted upon a year ago. On-site wetland areas were delineated at that time and found to be unregulated per Chapter 15.24 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. Director Collins indicated that the City approved a drainage system that is operating, as designed, under storm events. In addressing what the appeal is not about, Director Collins indicated that Mr. Ritchie had characterized the previous DNS as not having a plan when, in fact, there was a plan -8- CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5065 October 21, 2003 OTHER for a subdivision with a much more intensive type of activity. It was a plan for CONSIDERATIONS: developing a 13-1ot subdivision with a 500 foot cul de sac to provide access, and the (Cont'd) mitigating measures for that were the drainage system that was put in place as reviewed and approved by the City engineers. It is operating as designed. Director Collins Appeal of Determination indicated it is clear that the cumulative affects of the development of this property go of Non-Significance for far beyond placing a duplex on a 5+ acre piece of property. They were adequately Duplex in RS-9 Zone reviewed a year ago, and there wasn't any piecemeal determination. SEPA requires a (Cont'd) determination at the earliest conceptual stages of the development of the property, which is what the applicant did when he provided a checklist a year ago. That determination was then supplemented by a new checklist that dealt with a relatively normal 2,366 square foot residential structure. Director Collins indicated the appeal is also not about a DNS #1000, as that issue has been decided and is not appealable. The appeal is also not about off-site wetlands, to include two ponds to the south and west of the subject property and the overflow stormwater on to the subject property. The wet areas on this particular property serve as a drainage ditch, which has been operating to collect some of the overflow stormwater from the properties to the south and west, efficiently bringing it to the City storm drainage system in Old Mill Road. After actions were taken to prepare the site a year ago, those types of impacts no longer exist for the subject property. Director Collins continued that another issue that the appeal is not about is storm drainage problems. Mr. Ritchie had indicated there are problems elsewhere in the City; those areas not related to the vicinity cannot be of concern to the issue at hand. Director Collins felt the issue is whether the proposed duplex has any significant adverse impacts or any incompatibilities with the purpose of the RS-9 Zone. The record of the Planning Commission found no such impacts or incompatibilities, which is why the Planning Commission approved CUP 03-10 for a duplex in this RS-9 Zone. He emphasized there is not a regulated wetland on the subject property and, therefore, the concerns about how the Morrison property affects other wetland properties that are associated at a higher elevation to the south and west is not an issue that needs to be addressed during the duplex issue. There is no regulated wetland on the duplex site. Another issue addressed by Director Collins was related to the duplex as opposed to the environmental review. It was Mr. Ritchie's contention that there was no planning for a duplex in the City, let alone in this particular area. Director Collins referred to Pages 126-127 of the Council packet, noting that the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code are very clear in specifically permitting a duplex in a low density or single-family residential area. Duplexes are not classified specifically as multi-family; the Zoning Code differentiates between multi-family housing and duplexes. As a result, in the RS-9 Zone, there are provisions for duplexes, but there are no provisions specifically for multi-family housing. It is understood in the Code and the Comprehensive Plan that it is desirable to have a variety of housing types within a residential area; it is understood in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code that a duplex is part of what would be found in a single-family zone. Director Collins indicated that, in this particular case, the duplex is hardly distinguishable from a single- family structure. The Planning Commission, over the years, has approved duplexes in single-family zones, but has limited how many can occur in specific single-family neighborhoods or a single block. The reason for the limitation is the idea that an occasional duplex does not change the overall density of the area, nor does it change the nature of the single-family zone. Instead, it allows for the placement of an occasional duplex without the necessity of rezoning a property to a higher density, a multi-family density, which would allow not only duplexes, but apartment buildings and anything else of a higher density. Director Collins noted there are limitations in the Comprehensive Plan that are related to the notion that density, not housing type, is what dictates low density areas versus medium or higher density areas. He felt that Mr. Ritchie has not understood that part of the City's Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission has not been guessing, as the zone does not mean only -9- 5066 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 21, 2003 OTHER single family. The RS-9 Zone does allow for a mixture of housing types as long as the CONSIDERATIONS: density of the area does not exceed a certain threshold. A single duplex in a single- (Cont'd) family block does not change the density of that block above that threshold. Appeal of Determmation In sunmaary, Director Collins informed the Council that the record of the Planning of Non-Significance for Commission did not find any impacts related to the duplex that affect drainage, the Duplex in RS-9 Zone wetlands either on site or off site. It did not find there was any regulated wetland on (Cont'd) the site, and it did not find any incompatibilities with a conditionally permitted duplex in a Single Family RS-9 Zone consistent with how the Commission has approved duplexes throughout the City for many, many years. He asked that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Comrrdssion on the CUP, as well as his decision on the Determination of Non-Significance. Mr. Ritchie returned to the podium to address comments made by Director Collins. He agreed that Director Collins and the Planning Commission viewed duplexes as an allowed use in an RS-9 Zone. He stated it was not an allowed use, but a conditional use, and the fact that it has been treated as an allowed use is what constitutes their complaint. A conditional use is supposed to benefit the community, and there is an obligation to review the impacts it would have on neighbors, all based on some type of standards. He referenced Page 2 of the Planning Commission minutes of August 27, 2003, wherein Director Collins explained that the City followed an informal rule of not approving more than a certain number of things. He felt that another way to say that is that the City didn't follow any rule - they just granted something when they chose to grant something - not based on a resolution or an ordinance. He felt that to follow an informal, not adopted rule, could be considered arbitrary and capricious. He felt that Director Collins has suggested the Planning Commission should follow that course of action, and the Planning Commission did just that, which does not make it legal, nor is it in keeping with when a conditional use should be granted. Further, Mr. Ritchie indicated that other statements made indicate there ~vasn't any evidence that there was any wetland present. He indicated that was not true, in fact it was pointed out by Planner Scott Johns that the two indicators of a wetland on paper were the Sheldon Wetland Inventory for Port Angeles, which showed a wetland, and the County Wetland maps, which indicated a wetland. The opinion has been expressed by Mr. Johns that the wetland was not as big as the County and the other inventory say. Mr. Ritchie indicated that it is not quite true that there is no evidence of a wetland. He was unaware that a 13-lot subdivision was approved but, nevertheless, he questioned if the fill was approved for a 13-lot subdivision that wasn't approved or for fill for some future development. He felt the City shouldn't have allowed the fill. He asked the Council to review what constitutes a conditional use and what should constitute a conditional use, as well as the factors in determining how it may affect the neighbors. He reiterated that, when people purchase property, there should be some assurances as to what uses would be allowed and when. If the standard is that there is no standard or that there is an informal standard, then there is no standard. In this particular case in this particular property, a conditional use should not be approved. The argument that there was no problem with drainage and no problem with water is not true. If all statements that were made have been read, the Council would see that the problems have been explained and the reasons why building should not be allowed have been established. Mr. Ritchie felt this was not a well thought out plan for a conditional use that won't affect the neighborhood. No particular standard was applied, and there was no finding that the conditions would help the neighborhood. He submitted that the Council should £md that the Planning Department has not done the work they should have done in determining that this does not have some environmental concerns that should be mitigated. Secondly, since there was no mention of how this would affect the other residents, it should be void as a matter of law. Mayor Wiggins opened the matter for discussion, and Councilmember Erickson noted her understanding of the Determination of Non-Significance. However, she was con- - 10- CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5067 October 21, 2003 OTHER fused by the Conditional Use Permit in that either a duplex is or is not an allowed use. CONSIDERATIONS: She queried why, if it's an allowed use, a conditional use permit is required. Further, (Cont'd) she didn't understand the references to the Comprehensive Plan, as the duplex should either be allowed in the Zoning Code or it is a conditional use. Director Collins Appeal of Determination explained the difference between a permitted use and a conditional use, noting that both of Non-Significance for conditional and permitted uses are allowed in a zone. A permitted use is permitted Duplex in RS-9 Zone outright in that it is not subject to any special conditions that might be applied. An (Cont'd) example of a special condition would be to limit the number of conditional uses that would be in one neighborhood and would be based on the density standard that is in the Comprehensive Plan allowing for more than single-family densities but not for a large number of conditional uses for duplexes to take place in one particular area, raising that density above what's allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Erickson sought clarification for an RS-9 zone in that a duplex is an allowed use, not a permitted use, to which Director Collins agreed. Director Collins noted that one must seek a Conditional Use Permit in order to build a duplex. He indicated that the density in the RS-9 Zone is roughly 5 units per acre, while the density allowed in the low density residential area of the City is up to 8 or 9 units an acre. There is an expectation in an area that there may be a duplex or two that are allowed, but two or three duplexes would not necessarily be allowed, for instance, in a 13-lot subdivision, which is the discussion that took place at the Planning Commission level. Director Collins further clarified that the standard determined in the Zoning Code is whether a duplex is compatible with the purposes of the Single Family Zone. In review of that matter, the Planning Commission determined there was no incompatibility. The Planning Commission records indicate there are several duplexes quite a distance from this particular location - one on Rhodes Road and a couple of others on Viewcrest, quite a distance away. Based on the purpose of the Single Family Zone and based on the density of housing units, it was determined there weren't any reasons that this particular conditional use couldn't be approved. If a neighbor were to ask for a similar conditional use for a duplex, it may be a lot more difficult to acquire, as a duplex already exists in that single family area. That is the practice that occurs throughout the City and so, in the single family neighborhoods, there may be an occasional duplex but there is not, as the appellant indicated, an open door to allow duplexes without due consideration. Councilmember Erickson indicated there is an appearance that the reason for an allowed use is that people get conditions put on them, not to limit the number. The key is how those uses are conditioned, and she agreed that, in some respects, it may be unreliable, as there is a possibility that it will be totally duplexes. Director Collins indicated that, for the last thirty years, the City has allowed a duplex within the single family zone. If it was a permitted use, there could be an entire single family zone of just duplexes but, because it is not a permitted use, there are no entire single family zones where the duplex has been allowed. It requires a special review by the Planning Commission, and that review determines whether it will exceed the density in the area, whether it will place too many duplexes in a single family area, and whether it will change the character of the neighborhood, thereby creating what Mr. Ritchie has stated is just an area where there are duplexes. This is the standard that has been followed, and Director Collins indicated the standard in the Zoning Code is not specified more than what he described as to the purpose of the zone and the density of those conditional uses. There are a lot of conditional uses in this zone, not just the duplex. Mayor Wiggins asked if there was a potential that this conditional use could ever terminate. Director Collins responded there is such a potential if there were a violation of the purpose of the single-family zone. The conditional use could be re-challenged as not being what was originally approved. However, if someone makes a property investment for a two-unit structure, a duplex, then the Planning Commission or someone else could not subsequently determine that the duplex had to be removed. He indicated there is a protection in the Code to allow those things that were legally per- -11- 5068 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 21, 2003 OTHER mitted. One question that arose in the Planning Commission was whether the City CONSIDERATIONS: should stipulate how many specific duplexes are allowed in a neighborhood. The (Cont'd) Planning Commission and the City Council could decide that they didn't like duplexes in single family neighborhoods. In that case, the City could remove that particular Appeal of Determination conditional use. However, because this particular conditional use would have been of Non-Significance for approved, then it would have had legal standing as a vested right and as legally non- Duplex in RS-9 Zone conforming, something that has happened in some jurisdictions. The City's (Cont'd) jurisdiction has been more open to a variety of housing types and has been more open to the way the City developed. Before the City's zoning laws, prior to 1967, there were a lot of duplexes in single family neighborhoods, as there weren't any conditional or permitted use issues at the time. Director Collins indicated the community actually developed over the first half of the 20th Century with a mixture of these kinds of housing densities and housing types. Mayor Wiggins concluded this is not a wetland issue, but a density issue, to which Director Collins agreed. In Director Collins' view, this is a question of whether the duplex is appropriate and whether there is any incompatibility with the single family zone. None was demonstrated in the evidence of the Planning Commission. It was only after the decision was made that the appellants claimed that this was opening some floodgate and creating a permitted use out of a conditional use. Mayor Wiggins observed that a single family residence would have the same impact, no matter what the wetland issue may be, and Director Collins agreed. Councilmember Erickson moved to uphold the SEPA Responsible Official's Determination of Non-Significance #1040 and Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents (DNS #1000) for a duplex use on a 5.14 acre site located on Old Mill Road and to deny the appeal. The motion was seconded by Councilman Campbell and carried 5 - 0. Attorney Knutson recommended that staff return to the Council at its next meeting with Findings andConclusions in support of the motion. Mayor Wiggins agreed. Appeal of Conditional 2. Appeal of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Duplex in the RS-9 Zone: Use Permit to Allow Duplex in RS-9 Zone Councilman Campbell moved to deny the appeal on CUP 03-10 and to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission by denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision approving a duplex use on a 5.14 acre site located on Old Mill Road. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Rogers and carried 5 - 0. Attorney Knutson indicated that staff would prepare Findings and Conclusions on this issue as well. Graving Dock 3. Graving Dock: Mayor Wiggins referenced the situation at the Graving Dock, asking for a status report from Manager Quirm, who indicated the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and the Department of Transportation have been involvedin negotiations for the handling of artifacts discovered at the site. They must determine how to move forward with continued construction. Because other agencies are involved, the process has been somewhat extended; however, he has been informed that all parties are positive and are hopeful that agreement will be reached very shortly. Break Mayor Wiggins recessed the meeting for a break at 8:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None. QUASI-JUDICIAL: PUBLIC HEARINGS - None. OTHER: - 12- CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5069 October 21, 2003 INFORMATION: Manager Quinn briefly reviewed items contained in the Information Agenda. He commented on the cost report on the Waterfront Trail, noting there is some money left in the project fund, and staff may return to Council with a request for continued paving to the east. Councilman Campbell inquired as to whether the cost report contains any information relative to donations for benches, trees, flowers, and other landscaping. Director Connelly responded that the donated items were not included in the report. He indicated that donations in the area from Francis Street east to Morse Creek were very limited, perhaps three or four in that location. He estimated there were approximately 192 donations made along the Waterfront Trail from Ediz Hook to the west Rayonier gate, to include trees, benches, and picnic tables. On the issue of the Waterfront Trail and the Memorial Policy, Councilmember Rogers asked for clarification as to how long it will take to receive a report. Director Connelly felt that a report should be forthcoming in a relatively short period of time. Manager Quinn provided clarification to the Council concerning the City's receipt of a runner-up award from the National League of Cities. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 8:55 p.m. to discuss potential litigation for approximately 15 minutes. RETURN TO OPEN The meeting returned to Open Session at 9:10 p.m. SESSION: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. ~enn Wiggins, Mayor w B~cky J7 Upl~p Cit~lerk ~ - --- - 13- Exhibit "A" 5070 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN SUPPORT OF STREET VACATION PETITION - STV 03-02 - PORT ANGELES SCHOOL DISTRICT: Findings: 1. A petition requesting vacation of the 12/13 alley right-of-way located between Lincoln and Chase Streets that was not previously vacated, as were the 13/14 alley (Ordinance No. 742 dated June 10, 1923) and 13th Street (Ordinance 1194 dated March 10, 1948), was received by the City of Port Angeles on August 13, 2003. The petition was filed by the Port Angeles School District as the owner of adjacent property. 2. Properties abutting the subject right-of-way are designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map were reviewed for consistency with the proposed vacation of right-of-way. The following Comprehensive Plan policies have been found to be most relevant to the proposal: Land Use Element Residential Goals and Policies Goal C and Policy C. 1; Open Space Goals Policies and Objectives Goal J, and Policies J.4; Utilities and Public Services Element Goal B and Policies B. 1 and B.3. 3. Surrounding properties are zoned Residential, Single Family (RS-7) and Commercial Office (CO) on the City Zoning Map. 4. Jefferson School has been in existence since 1922. The main school structure straddles the platted right-of-way as identified on the original Townsite map. 5. Although platted as right-of-way in the original Townsite map, the subject right-of- way was never developed as a public access street. 6. The vacating of right-of-way is categorically exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) per Section 197-11-800 (2) (h) of the Washington Administrative Code. 7. Per RCW 35.79.035, the site was posted on September 19, 2003, and publication appeared in the Peninsula Daily News on September 24, 2003, advertising the fact that a public heating would be held in consideration of vacation of the tight-of-way. No written comments were received. 8. The Planning Commission conducted a public heating on October 8, 2003, and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council that conducted a public heating on the matter on October 21, 2003. 5071 Findings and Conclusions - ST~/ 03-02 October 21, 2003 Conclusions: A. Traffic patterns on surrounding streets would not be negatively impacted by the vacation because the right-of-way does not serve developable properties. The alley right-of-way has been occupied by Jefferson School since 1922 and has never been developed. B. The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. C. The public interest will be served by the consolidation of the subject property with additional property under the School District control and will clear any future title issues that may arise. Adopted by the Port Angeles City Council at its meeting of October 21, 2003 ~'"~Glenn Wiggins, Maf~ I~ecky J. Up~rn~, ~ Clerk/-'- -