Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/13/19881202 I CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL MEETING Mayor McPhee called the special meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. The purpose of the special meeting was a presentation of parliamentary procedures and to interview candidates for the Realtor /Broker position on the Revolving Loan Fund Review Board. II PRESENTATION OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES CLINT HUT Clint Hulse gave a presentation of approximately one -h.11f hour on parliamentary procedures as written by Henry M. Robert in the book "Robert's Rules of Order III INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR REALTOR /BROKER POSITIIN ON CITY'S RE7OLVING LOAN FUND REVIEW BOARD Council interviewed candidates for the position of roaltrc,broker for the City's Revolving Loan Fund Review Board. Those candidates le Larry McHone and Pili Weiseth. Mayor McPhee adjourned the special meeting at 6:55 P.M. IV CALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING Mayor McPhee called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at 7:00 P.M. V PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Webelos Pack 686, from Den 2, Franklin School, leader, Terry Neske, members, Sean Root, John Ramey, Jeff Cruff, Lad Libera, Kory Neske, and Tyler Stamon. VI ROLL CALL Members Present: Mayor McPhee, Councilmen Gabriel, Hallett, Hordyk, Lemon, Sargent, Stamon. Staff Present: Public Present: CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington November 15, 1988 Manger Flodstrom, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Maike, P. Carr, B. Myers, R. Orton, S. Brodhun, B. Becker, J. Pittis, D. Wolfe, C. Jones, J. Caverly, T. Smith, G. Kenworthy. K. Rose, R. Gruver, L. T. Beil, L. McHone, P. Weiseth, D. Meyer, D. McLean, K. Rexrode, J. Reid, S. Switzer, C. Brown, D. C. Mackey, R. French, G. Gase, G. Mangano, B. Lynne, L. Watson, R. M. Fangen, K. Wollen, H. Berglund, M. Finley, L. Long?, B. Lamb, F. Burch, J. Myers, R. Hoyle, G. Furgueson, J. Kimbrough, J. Doyle, B. LaRue, D. Willson, L. Fuller, C. H. Crampton, B. Springob, M. C. Schmitt, R. Page, V. Bingham, J. VanOss, P. Cronauer, R. Schneider, Dr. Mrs. Madsen. VII APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1. 1988 Councilman Sargent moved to accept and place on file the minutes of the November 1, 1988, regular City Council meeting. Councilman Lemon seconded. Councilman Sargent offered corrections to page 12, Item 6, re -state the motion: "Councilman Sargent moved to provide for the budget expenditure of $1,000 to the Port Angeles Symphony Orchestra, previously authorized by the Council for the year 1988, and authorize the execution of the contract." On page 16, third paragraph, re- stating: "Councilman Sargent stated she is not prepared to vote on this matter as this was on the agenda as an informational item only at this time." -1- Councilman Stamon offered corrections to page 15, Item 12, to include in the motion, "Councilman Sargent moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the purchase and sales agreement for City property commonly known as the Morse Creek Gravel Pit to Darrell Vincent." Councilman Hallett requested that the record reflect that he was not present at the November 1st meeting, stating additionally he did have some concerns as to how the meeting had been conducted, and also the letter he submitted should be part of the record. This letter, dated October 31, 1988, read as follows: "Mayor, Council, and City Manager: First of all, please accept my apology for not being able to attend tonight's meeting. It is obvious now that I will not be able to arrive in time from Portland, Oregon. Regarding agenda items, I have some comments: (A) As a UAC member, I am in favor of awarding the bid for automated meter reading to Radix. (B) Items 5, 6 and 7 on the agenda have my support. (C) Item 11 I am in favor of retaining the status quo. We have cussed and discussed this item many times. It is time to get on to more important items. If a vote is to be taken, I would request that final action be continued to our November 15th meeting so that all Councilmembers are present. (D) Item 13 It appears that this is a discussion /info item. Thank you, Mike, for reviewing this. If this item is to be reviewed for action, I would respectfully request that this, too, be placed on November 15th agenda. Thank you for the courtesy of your consideration. See you soon, Respectfully, Jim Hallett." On call for the question, the motion carried with Councilman Hallett abstaining, as he was not present at that meeting. VIII FINANCE 1203 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 15, 1988 1. Request for Payment to Riddell. Williams, of S812.09 for Legal Representation on WPPSS Issues Councilman Lemon moved to authorize payment of the November 1, 1988, Riddell Williams bill in the total amount of $812.09 for legal representations on WPPSS issues. Councilman Sargent seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 2. Request Progress Payment to Lydell Construction of $66.541.71 for Water Main Proiect (18th Street and Park Avenue) Councilman Sargent moved to authorize payment to Lydell Construction in the amount of $66,541.71 for water main project at 18th Street and Park Avenue. Councilman Hallett seconded. Councilman Lemon offered a friendly amendment to state less the retainage fee of $3,327.09. Councilmen Sargent and Hallett concurred. On call for the question, the amended motion carried unanimously. 3. Request for Progress Payment to Lakeside Industries of $161.823.56 on Golf Course Road Proiect Councilman Sargent moved to authorize progress payment to Lakeside Industries of $153,732.38, plus the retainage fee $8,091.18 on the Golf Course Road project. Councilman Hallett seconded and the motion carried unanimously. IX CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Hordyk moved to accept the items listed on the Consent Agenda, including (1) Correspondence from Washington State Liquor Control Board; (2) Vouchers of $781,650.74; and (3) Payroll of 10 -30 -88 of $223,286.94. Councilman Lemon seconded. Following some discussion of the items presented, the question was called and the motion carried unanimously. X ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA James Kimbrough, 17404 NE 40th Place, Redmond, Washington, requested that the Council allow him to address Item 4 on the Agenda regarding the consideration of a letter from Waterfront Associates. -2- 1204 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 15, 1988 Barry Lamb, 1803 31st Avenue S., Seattle, Washington, requested that he, also, be able to speak on Item 4. Leonard Fuller, 420 East llth Street, spoke at length enforcement of the Nuisance Ordinance on his lots and the trees in the City, as well as across the nation. XI LEGISLATION 1. Public Hearin in regard to the need to plant more A. Street Vacation Reouest STV- 88(7)6 Cronauer /Whitman Portion of Caroline Street (Continued from 11- 1 -88), Mayor McPhee opened the public hearing at 7:25 P.M. Paul Cronauer, 1936 West Fifth Street, one of the applicants for the street vacation, stated there were two important issues, in his opinion, which played a key role in the Planning Commission's decision. First, that there was a precedent set which stated property had to be legally accessible on a street or have street frontage. He gave Council a list of street vacations granted in the past which took some of the street frontage away. Secondly, in his first appearance before the Council, he was directed to appear before the Planning Commission regarding the Waterfront Trail access which would go across the front of his property. Through the approval of the shoreline application, the City will have an easement across the front of his property which will allow the continuation of the Waterfront Trail from Francis Street to the east about 250 feet through the front of the property. He urged Council to reconsider the recommendation made by the Planning Commission to deny the vacation. Additionally, Mr. Cronauer pointed out, as stated previously, he would be willing to give a 10 -foot easement for a trail across Caroline access, which would be on the extreme southerly boundary if the street was vacated. However, he stated Mrs. Whitman is not willing to do that on her half of the vacation. Councilman Hordyk asked Mr. Cronauer if any of these vacations were necessary for access to the lots that he plans to develop on the north side of Caroline Street. Mr. Cronauer stated no; the access would be from Francis Street through the alley. Councilman Hallett questioned Mr. Cronauer as to what benefits would be available to the City by granting the vacation that may not be enjoyed through normal development process. Mr. Cronauer stated it would increase the tax base, thereby being an immediate financial gain and a long -term benefit in that the lots would more than likely be developed with large homes which would help facilitate that larger tax base. Counci.lman Hallett questioned staff as to what the tax valuation is on the property. Planner Carr stated the City may charge up to one -half of the assessed valuation, which brings the total to $1,442. Doubling that would get the Public Works estimated value of the property, which would be $2,884. Councilman Hallett asked if the tax would be based upon that value. Planner Carr stated yes. Mr. Cronauer stated the tax base he was referring to would be the ultimate long -term tax base of having the extra 35 feet available to build larger homes in the area. Ann Madsen, 811 Caroline Street, owner of Lots 12 and 13 adjacent to the subject property, stated she had been approached by Mr. Cronauer to buy Lot 11 for an amount of $50,000; however, they had no use for Lot 11. The Madsens did apply for adverse possession because they have used the lot for 38 years. She stated Mr. Cronauer approached them, after he received a letter from their attorney, with the offer of leasing the property from them for $1 per year for 100 years, and they refused. She stated they are seeking legal action. Additionally, she had concerns about the serious sloughing in the area and also that Lot 11 on Caroline Street is a paved street. -3- 1205 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 15, 1988 Doris Willson, 3022 South Laurel Street, representing Soroptomists Jet Set, read to the Council a letter submitted to Richard Wight, Chairman of the Planning Commission, dated October 20, 1988. The letter makes reference to concerns noted by the organization about the possible erosion onto the Waterfront Trail. Additionally, the Jet Set feels that the Caroline Street vacation request should be denied on the following points: (1) If the vacation is granted, there will be a lot which will have no street access Lot 10. Also, Lots 9, 10 and 11 at this point have access and the City would be required to provide access or work with the owner- developer to reinstate rightful access; (2) Vacation is in violation of the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as Caroline Street has been designated a public viewpoint; and (3) By denying the vacation, Council would preclude future problems of development. Mike Doherty, 617 South "B" Street, voiced his concern over the lack of information he feels the public notices provide, stating the majority of the citizens don't understand legal notices, as they provide legal descriptions of the property and therefore do not accurately portray to the public where that property might lie, in this instance, as close to the shoreline as it is. He was also concerned about the misinformation on the posting as it stated it is 100 feet back on each side, when apparently it is 150 feet. It did not state that the meeting had been continued, and he felt if meetings were to be continued then they should be noted on the notices out in the field. He also was concerned about giving back a public easement or giving away a public easement which had been used for over 100 years, as the waterfront had been used in the late 1890's as a thoroughfare. He also noted that there was conflict to the City's own policies regarding the greenbelt and the waterfront view vistas. He did not feel the Council should grant a vacation based upon the possibility of building on a sediment, and whether you can actually build houses on the bluff. Further, there already is a public nuisance on the site, a potential also for an attractive nuisance for children, the continuing trespass, a violation in many people's minds of the Shoreline Management Act, pollution and instability of the hill. He stated a lot of negatives are surrounding the street vacation and he did not see much public benefit. Louis Sample, 732 Caroline, informed Council that in the past 38 years there has never been any public traffic, east or west, on Caroline from Francis, and during this period of time, off and on, there has been raw sewage running down Francis Street. Councilman Lemon asked Planner Carr if Lot 11 is a paved street, and if so, how much of it is paved. Planner Carr stated that all 50 feet of it is paved. Dr. Tom Madsen, 811 Caroline Street, stated that Lot 11 has been maintained for 38 years by himself; that the lot is sloughing and he was concerned that if the lot was removed, he would be very concerned about the stability of his own house. Mayor McPhee asked Attorney Knutson if the public notice was legally adequate. Attorney Knutson stated regarding the point about continuing hearings from one date to another, in his opinion it is legal to publish notice, whether in the paper or at the site of the hearing, and then conduct the hearing and open it or continue it without revising the notice. The reason being, the people who had notice of the original meeting would have attended the first time and also having been there would have been advised of the continuation. Councilman Sargent noted that the notice does state November 1, 1988, and meetings thereafter, or words to that effect. Councilman Stamon stated she felt it was important to note this issue was before the Planning Commission and the logical consequence of the recommendation by the Planning Commission is that there would be a public hearing before the City Council to take action and people were aware of that time at the continuation of the meeting. Mayor McPhee asked staff if the statements made in the Soroptomists Jet Set letter to the Planning Commission were correct and was there any information that staff could provide to Council. Planner Carr stated paragraph 1, -4- 1206 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 15, 1988 referring to Lot 10 not having street access, is consistent with the facts that the Planning Department has. Paragraph 2, regarding violation of the Comprehensive Plan, needs clarification, which he provided as follows: The Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1976 recommends the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan in 1978, that plan does include designation of this area as a park and does include recommendations regarding designation and develop- ment of the street ends on the east and west points as viewpoints and accesses to ravines, and in that sense, it is correct. In regard to Paragraph 3, denying the vacation would preclude future problems of development. While this is not specific, there may be problems dealing with zoning, construction, and therefore, in essence, there is some element of accuracy. Vance Bingham, 323 Vashon, spoke on behalf of the other applicant for the street vacation, Mrs. Whitman. He pointed out that she, also, has cared for a piece of property for some 15 years and Council should consider her wishes, which would be to hold any park or access further away from the front of her home. Werner Quast, 3800 Park Knoll, made some comments, stating that Councils 15 years ago started restraining these types of developers which had proven bad records, because taxpayers had to pick up the shambles and pay for the mistakes made by those developers. He voiced his concern over the approval of the shoreline permit and also the rewarding of applicants who have violated ordinances by approving their applications. He also stated the Council was giving away public property by giving up the public access to the waterfront. He urged the Council to look at the total record of the developer before them, who has violated both City ordinances and State laws; then the Council should not have to extend any privileges at the expense of the public. He urged the Council to be very careful and to listen to the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Cronauer addressed the Council to rebut some of the comments made by Dr. Quast. Councilman Stamon raised a point of order, stating this is a public hearing and she did not feel it was appropriate for two members of the audience to engage in a discussion. Mr. Cronauer stated that a year ago he did receive a permit to work within the right -of -way, after providing plans as to the development, and it was his indication that he needed no other permits. Upon appearing before the Planning and Public Works Departments, Mr. Cronauer proceeded to begin the development, working for approximately five and one -half months before he was asked to discontinue the operation. He further stated the dirt moved along the shoreline was done under the direct supervision of engineers, and additionally, he has been working with the City and has an approved plan since May, 1988, for the road construction and the trail project. Councilman Hordyk stated he has heard about two separate issues; one being the development below Caroline Street in the shoreline, which has nothing to do with the matter before the Council, which is a request for a street vacation. Councilman Stamon asked Planner Carr what permit was issued for working within the right -of -way on Francis Street one year ago. Planner Carr stated no permit was issued a year ago; that in April, 1988, a Right -of -Way use permit was issued. Councilman Hordyk raised a point of order, as he believed the questions being asked were not relevant to the public hearing, which is on the street vacation, not part of the shoreline permit. Following some discussion among Councilmembers regarding the information provided between staff and members of the public as to whether the information provided was appropriate and relevant to the matter, the suggestion was made to strike some of the comments made from the record. 1207 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 15, 1988 Councilman Stamon asked Attorney Knutson whether it was appropriate to consider past performance or histories of an applicant who comes before the Council requesting vacations or grants of special privilege. Attorney Knutson said it may be appropriate in certain circumstances. For example, if the applicant is being required to perform some condition which is part of the approval, then it is appropriate for the Council to consider the applicant's past performance on similar types of conditions. Jack Miller, 1321 East Seventh Street, made some comments regarding the marginal work of contractors and the comments made regarding such work. Mayor McPhee stated to Mr. Miller that the comments being made were not appropriate at this time. Councilman Lemon offered a motion to strike comments made by Mr. Cronauer and also Dr. Quast. The motion died for lack of a second. Mayor McPhee asked Attorney Knutson whether it was proper to strike information. Attorney Knutson stated it is not proper; however, Council can indicate that they feel certain types of testimony are inappropriate and if that is the case, then the Council should point out that the testimony is not appropriate, thereby saving the City possible difficulty in the event of a lawsuit. For example, if certain evidence is presented, then it is possible the Council may have inappropriately taken the information into account. Mayor McPhee then closed the public hearing at 8:30 P.M. Councilman Hallett moved the Council concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the street vacation, citing the following findings: (1) The offer of easement for public access would not provide the City with more benefits than it currently has or will acquire through normal development procedures. Thus, there is no public benefit in vacation of the right -of -way; (2) The tax benefits to the City, even in conjunction with the easement, would be minimal and would not outweigh the conflict with the Park Plan; (3) Vacation of the right -of -way would not provide for an orderly means for protection of the topography because most of the steep slopes do not occur in the right -of -way; (4) Lot 10 would not have street frontage unless additional permits were obtained, which cannot be guaranteed at the present time; and as noted in the memo from the Attorney, there is a requirement for street frontage on lots. Councilman Stamon seconded, offering that the motion also include the findings stated in the September 14, 1988, minutes, as follows: (1) The Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan specifically designates this right -of -way as a bicycle trail. Vacation of the subject right -of -way would conflict with the Park Plan and would not be in the public interest; (2) Vacation of the subject right -of -way reduces the city's ability to protect the unique environmental and topographic features of the Francis Street ravine and hillside, and thus vacation would generally not comply with Open Space Policy No. 3; (3) Vacation would not comply with Circulation Policy No. 10 because it would specifically preclude an identified bicycle trail, which is an integral part of the circulation system. Thus, vacation would not be in the public- (4) Vacation of the subject right -of -way would not be in the public interest because it would not improve residential safety, because at least one lot would not have the required public access to a street right -of -way that could be used by police and fire vehicles. Councilman Hallett concurred. Councilman Hallett, in speaking to his motion, stated the eight items stated speak to the basis of his decision and only the testimony that is germane to the application entered into his deliberation. He did not feel there was any substantial public benefit for the street vacation and for that reason, he spoke in favor of the motion. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. 1208 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 15, 1988 2. Planning Commission Minutes of November 9. 1988 A. Zoning Code Amendment ZCA- 88(7)1 Adult Residential Care Facilities Councilman Sargent moved to hold a public hearing on the matter of adult residential care facilities. Councilman Stamon seconded. Councilman Sargent, speaking to her motion, stated she felt there was a lot of input regarding this matter. It is City -wide and therefore affects many people. She felt the matter should be re- opened to the public for public discussion. Councilman Stamon stated after reviewing the matter at length, she agrees in principal with some of the recommendations made by the Planning Commission. However, she is not comfortable with the form that has come before the Council. She then offered a friendly amendment to the motion that a Committee of the Council and the Planning Commission meet and develop more exact wording for a proposed ordinance that does such things as define congregate care facilities, specifies, within the confines of the ordinance, size requirements, lot coverage requirements, height restrictions, age restrictions, and also deals with Article VI of the Zoning Code, which would be inconsistent, or made inconsistent by the ordinance that we presently have; that this matter be dealt with after the budget hearing process. Councilman Sargent concurred. Councilman Hordyk spoke in opposition to the motion, as he felt Council was doing an injustice; that the integrity of zoning of the single family residents has to be preserved. The matter of adult residential care facilities should require a rezone and not an amendment. Councilman Lemon also spoke in opposition, as he felt Council was working on a matter which is not in demand at this time. He stated the structure is multi- family and he felt there would be vast impacts on neighborhoods, vehicular traffic, visitors, delivery, and he concurred with Councilman Hordyk's comments. Councilman Hallett spoke in favor of the motion and thanked the Planning Commission for their work on the matter. He felt this is a problem which does exist now and planning needs to be undertaken. He felt a logical, reasonable way to address this would be a joint meeting of the parties involved; then hold a public hearing to allow the public to have formal input; and then make a well thought -out decision. Following further discussion, the question was called and the motion failed with Councilmen Sargent, Stamon and Hallett voting "Aye" and Councilmen Gabril, Hordyk, Lemon, and Mayor McPhee voting "No Councilman Hordyk moved that the request of the zoning code amendment, ZCA- 88(7)1 be denied. Councilman Lemon seconded. Councilman Gabriel stated he felt it would still be appropriate to get together with the Planning Commission to discuss this matter. Councilman Hordyk stated that this matter would come before the Planning Commission and the Council again when a zoning change is requested. Councilman Hallett stated he felt the motion had no direction in regard to the process to go through when the issue of congregate care should come up in the future, and he requested that there be some clarification and direction stated. Councilman Stamon stated the reason this request came before the Planning Commission and the Council in the first place is that the matter is not addressed or identified within the Zoning Code as to whether this is a permitted or conditional use within the City of Port Angeles, and she felt the motion, as stated, implies that the City of Port Angeles is not willing to accept this type of development. -7- Councilman Hordyk stated the motion is that this particular request be denied. After further discussion, the question was called and the motion carried, with Councilmen Stamon, Sargent and Hallett voting "No Councilman Hordyk moved to have Council meet with the Planning Commission to review this matter at a later date. Councilman Gabriel seconded. After lengthy discussion of the motion between Councilmembers and Planning Commission member Larry Leonard in regard to the history of zoning code amendments for congregate care facilities, Councilmen Stamon and Hallett stated they would be voting against the motion, as they were opposed to the process. On call for the question, the motion carried, with Councilmen Hallett, Stamon, and Sargent voting "No Councilman Stamon volunteered her services to work on this matter if the Planning Commission so desires. Councilman Lemon moved to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the request to circulate an annexation petition be allowed, subject to the assumption of bonded indebtedness, zoning of the property be RS -9, single family residential, and for the increased area as recommended by staff. Councilman Hordyk seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Hallett moved, for purposes of discussion, to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation to circulate an annexation petition for the larger area recommended by staff, and subject to the standard conditions of assumption of bonded indebtedness and the zoning being RS -9, single family residential. Councilman Hordyk seconded. Councilman Hallett asked Planner Carr why staff is recommending an increase in the area size. Planner Carr stated it does make for a more logical shape; it is a larger area rather than a piece -meal annexation. Councilman Gabriel asked Attorney Knutson who has legal jurisdiction in the area. Attorney Knutson stated outside of the City limits we cannot enforce City ordinances; therefore, it would be the County enforcing its ordinances. Councilman Stamon noted that Council had before it a letter from Constance Lammers and her daughter, Jennifer Lammers, in regard to the matter of the annexation. After further discussion, the question was called and the motion carried unanimously. BREAK B. Annexation Request A- 88(7)1 Schneider. et al C. Annexation Reauest A- 88(7)2 Timm /Watson D. Acceptance of Minutes Councilman Hordyk moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission minutes of the November 9, 1988, meeting. Councilman Sargent seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor McPhee recessed the meeting for a 10- minute break at 9:25 P.M. 3. Reauest for Authorization for City Participation in Access 2000 Proeram Offered Throueh Port Angeles Lions Club Bernard Lynn, President of the Lions Hearing Foundation of Washington, North Idaho, and British Columbia, Canada, gave Council and the public a brief summary of the Access 2000 program. He also presented a video for approxi- mately 15 minutes. He stated there would be simple training available to the employees provided by himself, and the training sessions would last approximately one hour. -8- 1209 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 15, 1988 1210 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 15, 1988 Councilman Sargent commended the effort of the Lions Club. Councilman Stamon stated the issue extends across all age groups. Councilman Stamon then moved to authorize the City's participation in the Access 2000 Program, as offered by the Port Angeles Lions Club. Councilman Sargent seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Hallett moved to continue hearing the items on the agenda. Councilman Gabriel seconded and the motion carried. 4. Consideration of Letter from Waterfront Associates James Kimbrough, 17404 NE 40th Place, Redmond, Washington, stated the Waterfront Associates have asked time on the agenda to explain to the Council the Association's need for the Council's assistance on the completion of The Landing project; that they are seeking reconsideration of the refusal to •r.nt permission to increase the loan on their first X mortgage by i! He presented the Council with several important points which they wished the Council would consider: (1) Since the inception of the project, the owners have invested in excess of $1 million of their own money. The funds that the Associates have approved from United Bank are necessary to complete the work in progress. The owners are not recapturing equity in this arrangement. (2) Approximately $700,000 has been spent or committed to upgrading the building. Most of these dollars have stayed in Port Angeles as payment to local subcontractors and suppliers. These people are now being damaged by the inability of Waterfront Associates to meet its financial commitments to the general contractor. (3) Concern was expressed in the October meeting that the value established in the appraisal is not appropriate because the proposed restaurant operator has withdrawn. The Association has since negotiated a new arrangement with Randy Jones of Sequim to be the operator. (4) From the very beginning of the project, it was anticipated that there may be a modest increase needed in the first mortgage. Given all the above, they respectfully requested approval to increase the amount of the mortgage by $225,000. William Hofius, Bellevue, Washington, one of the owners of The Landing, provided Council with an explanation regarding the $400,000 loan provided by the City and its position, and whether the City was in a better or worse position regarding this request. He stated the Association has made quite a commitment to the City and they feel that the City is, in a sense, a partner in this project, and they would very much like to have the City's support. Douglas Hendel, 6100 93rd Ave. E, Mercer Island, also co -owner of The Landing, spoke in regard to the possibility of taking out a third mortgage, stating that the bank cannot and will not go into a third mortgage position, as the bank's charter prohibits them from being in such a position. Secondly, the loan commitment does not permit that either. It also was the understanding of the Association that the City would permit the increase. Following some discussion between the Associates and Council in regard to additional liens against the property; the possibility of going to a different bank for the third mortgage; the question of default what happens and does the City lose out; and the purpose of the loan, information was provided to the Council which stated that the Association is not aware of any other liens against the property; the additional money requested would be to finish the project and to pay past bills to contractors. The Associates did not think it was a possible solution to go to another bank in order to receive a third mortgage. Leo Longo, 611 36th Ave. E, Seattle, representing the contractor, Barry Lamb, Inc., stated the general contractor has been with the Association since the beginning of the project and their prime motivation for attending the meeting was because they have not been paid on the contract on which they have performed. As of today, the corporation has filed a lien and a stop payment order on the project with the bank. Currently, the Waterfront Associates owe the general contractor approximately $110,000 for work performed. Mr. Longo stated he feels this is a very viable project and they should be completed in about three weeks. -9- CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 15, 1988 Patricia McCawley, President of Casoni Sisters, Sequim, came before the Council to state that she previously had a contract agreement with Water- front Associates as the restaurateur; however, because of disagreement on the financial package, they had withdrawn from the contract agreement. Mayor McPhee stated his concern regarding the information provided on the corporation being able to take a third mortgage, as it was his opinion there should not be any problem regarding that. Also, he was concerned about the amount of money which the corporation was requesting. In the first letter it stated $200,000; now it was up to $225,000. He expressed his concern about the increase being ahead of the City's position, and he felt the bank was able to take a third mortgage. Councilman Lemon expressed his concerns over the discrepancies of what the partnership says they have put into the project and the visualization of the project, as he did not believe the income could warrant or support the indebtedness. Councilman Stamon asked Attorney Knutson what constitutes an unreasonable withholding. Attorney Knutson stated on a case -by -case basis, if the Council has satisfactory proof or indication that the money is going to be used for the benefit of the project and the benefit of the City position on its loan, in that case it might be difficult for the City to argue that it was withholding its consent reasonably. However, the last time the matter was presented to the Council, based on the letter that indicated the money would be taken out of the project by the partnership, then it would definitely not be unreasonable for the City to withhold its consent at that time. However, with the facts presented tonight, and if those facts are correct, it was his opinion it may be unreasonable to withhold consent. Mayor McPhee recessed the meeting for approximately 5 minutes from 11:05 to 11:10 P.M. Upon returning, Mayor McPhee stated it is not uncommon for a bank to take a third mortgage, stating there is no charter provision against that and banking law does not prohibit it. He suggested the Association approach the bank. Councilman Gabriel suggested if United Bank believes this is a viable project, they would be willing to add another $400,000 to the loan and pay off the City. Mr. Hendel stated he did not feel that was a practical solution. Following further discussion, Councilman Stamon moved Council authorize the Mayor to execute the authorization to United Bank for the additional funds with the following requirements: That there be notarized statements provided by Port Angeles Waterfront Associates which will include a state- ment from United Bank of Tacoma that there is, in fact, a loan commitment for $225,000; a notarized statement from an independent Certified Public Accountant attesting to the financial condition of the project and account- ing for where the money has been spent to date on' the project; a notarized statement from the developers stating the moneys authorized by the City will be used to finish the project; a notarized statement from Waterfront Associates that all other reasonable avenues for funding the project have been exhausted; a notarized statement that either there are no liens against the property or if there are additional liens against the property, that those be identified; a copy of the lease the Waterfront Associates and Randolph Jones, restaurateur. Councilman Sargent seconded. Councilman Stamon, in speaking to her motion, stated she does this with some reluctance, as all members of the Council share some concerns that in the past there has been some information lacking and that is the reason why the Council turned down the request the first time it was brought before them. Further, she was concerned that as a part of the original loan agreement, the City has stated in writing that the City would not unreasonably withhold authorization for increase in the dollar amount of the project loan; how- ever, if the conditions are met and the information is provided and veri- fied as stated in the motion, that would give Council sufficient reason to go ahead and authorize the additional $225,000. -10- 1212 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 15, 1988 Councilman Hallett commented the conditions as stated in the motion ought to make it acceptable and the conditions do make it reasonable that the City will be able to be a partner in bringing this project to a logical com- pletion. In doing this, the Council will have protected the City's interest, as well as the public interest. The community as a whole will ultimately benefit. Councilman Stamon added another statement to the motion: A notarized statement of the break -down of soft costs. Councilman Sargent concurred. Mayor McPhee stated he felt this was a matter that should be brought before the partnership's bank and the partnership itself, and the citizens of Port Angeles should not take a position that is less secure than it is today because the banker being referred to is not as familiar with banking law as he should be. Therefore, he would not be in support of the motion. Councilman Sargent, questioning Attorney Knutson, asked, in his opinion, would the motion before Council and the conditions stated safeguard the City's interests, and if Council does not choose to approve the request, would the City be unreasonably withholding the loan. Attorney Knutson replied he believed the conditions attached to the motion do safeguard the City's interest in that they assure that the money which is being requested for Council's approval for additional indebtedness is necessary to make the project continue to be viable and will add to the likelihood that the City will get back its $400,000. If the information attached to the motion in the form of conditions comes back to the City in a satisfactory form, then it would be difficult for the City to reasonably withhold consent. Mayor McPhee challenged that statement. Following further discussion of the motion, Councilman Gabriel offered a friendly amendment that the Audit Committee review the matter. Councilman Stamon concurred, with the understanding that the motion, as stated, means the information would go to the Audit Committee to verify whether or not the information, as requested in the motion, has been provided and if that information has been provided and is satisfactory to the Attorney, in terms of protecting the City's position, then the Mayor should be authorized to sign the contract. On call for the question, the amended motion carried, with Mayor McPhee, Councilmen Hordyk and Lemon voting "No 5. Consideration of Street Vacation Ordinance for Gund Plaza, Mayor McPhee read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2513 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles vacating the undeveloped street sommonly identified as the Eighth /Tenth Crossover Drive, the alley in Blocks 253 and 254, "H" Street between Eighth Street and the 9/10 alley, Ninth Street between "G" Street and "I" Street, and superseding Ordinance No. 2393. Councilman Stamon moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title. Councilman Gabriel seconded. After some discussion of the matter between the Council, Douglas Lloyd, representing George Gund, and Brian Hardin, representing the title company involved, Councilman Stamon amended her motion to require that a letter be submitted outlining the completion date of December 31, 1989. Councilman Gabriel concurred. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. 6. Consideration of "Energy Smart Design Assistance" Program 1213 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 15, 1988 Councilman Hallett moved to concur with the recommendation of the Light Department to approve the selection of Coffman Engineers and to authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with Coffman Engineers. Councilman Sargent seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 7. Consideration of Morse Creek Wheeling Agreement Councilman Lemon moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement between the City, Clallam County Public Utility District, and the Bonneville Power Administration, providing for the wheeling of energy generated by Morse Creek Hydroelectric Project across PUD and BPA facilities. Councilman Stamon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 8. Consideration of Property. Fire. and Contents Insurance Coverage Claude Jones, Risk Manager, provided Council with some background regarding the insurance coverage options available to the City. Councilman Lemon moved to consider Option 3 to decrease the premium, changing the coverage to exclude direct damage from earthquakes and include incidental damage that can be caused, leaving the rest of the coverage intact as it currently stands. Councilman Stamon seconded. Councilman Sargent noted for the record that Option 3 will cost $9,373 for the current coverage year. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. 9. Select Realtor Representative for Revolving Loan Fund Board Mayor McPhee request Clerk Maike poll the Council regarding the candidates for the Revolving Loan Fund Board, those candidates being Pili Weiseth and Larry McHone. The votes cast by the Council were as follows: Councilmen Hallett, Hordyk, Sargent and Stamon voted for Pili Weiseth; Councilmen Gabriel, Lemon and Mayor McPhee voted for Larry McHone. Pili Weiseth having the majority would be the representative for the Realtor /Broker position on the Revolving Loan Fund Board. 10. Consideration of Renewing City Lease of Department of Natural Resources Property at the Foot of Lincoln Street Councilman Stamon moved to authorize the renewal of the City lease of Department of Natural Resource property at the foot of Lincoln Street for the period December 8, 1988, through January 1, 2000. Councilman Lemon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 11. Presentation of Preliminary Budget to City* Council and Setting of Budget Presentation Dates City Manager and staff provided Council with copies of the Preliminary Budget. Councilman Stamon moved to concur with the recommendation of staff to schedule the dates for Departmental and special agency budget requests for Wednesday, November 30th, 5:00 P.M.; Thursday, December 1st at 5:30 P.M.; and Saturday December 3rd, 9:00 A.M.; and to set public hearings for the regular meetings of December 6th and December 13th, if needed, as public hearings on the budget; and final adoption to be scheduled for the meeting of December 20th. Councilman Sargent seconded and the motion carried unanimously. XII CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /LATE ITEMS Councilman Hordyk requested that the City Attorney draft ordinances regard- ing the panhandling and jake brake situation. -12- 1214 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 15, 1988 Councilman Gabriel asked how the Permit Review Committee was doing. Manager Flodstrom stated the Committee had met previously and had hoped to bring some information to the meeting. However, because of conflict with budget information, the information would be brought before the Council at the December 6th meeting. Councilman Hallett voiced his concern over a letter he received from the Fire Department which indicated two Councilmembers had been planting rumors among the employees of the Fire Department. He requested the matter be brought forth on the next meeting agenda. Councilman Lemon requested that the Public Works Department check into the situation of a traffic problem at the First and Oak Street light, stating that several times during the day he has seen drivers pull into the on- coming traffic lane as they seemed to believe it was a one -way street. He requested that the Public Works Department look into the painting of arrows to direct traffic in that area. He also expressed concern about the main- tenance of Marine Drive, especially regarding a pothole. Public Works Director Pittis stated this is an on -going problem, especially this time of year, as there is a leak from the industrial water line which is a problem that the Department is trying to address. Councilman Sargent also suggested something be brought before the Council in regard to the jake brake and panhandling problem. She also pointed out Item 14 on the Information Agenda regarding a letter of commendation for Officer Gallagher. She stated she was present at the luncheon at which he gave a presentation on self defense for women, and she felt that Officer Gallagher does the Police Department proud. Councilman Stamon stated there was well- deserved praise for the Fire Department in regard to the open house they had several months ago, and she commended the employees of the Fire Department and also the Volunteers for the amount of time and effort that went into the open house. She also asked about the billings for ALS transport, asking if there had been any negative comments received from the Department. Fire Marshal Becker stated they have not received anything back yet, as there has not been any billing done on those particular issues. Councilman Stamon also requested Parks and Recreation Director Brodhun give a brief update on the Daishowa baseball park project. Director Brodhun stated the grading work is done; four inches of sand have been brought in for the sub surface; the main drain lines are in place; 90% of the irriga- tion is in place; and they are in a position right now, but will probably wait to seed until February or March, 1989. Manager Flodstrom requested the members of the UAC set a meeting date. A meeting date was set for November 28th at 5 P.M. in the Public Works Conference Room. XIII ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION There was no need for an executive session. XV ADJOURNMENT Councilman Lemon moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilman Stamon seconded adjourned at 12:35 A.M. and the motion carried unanimously. The meeti Clerk v Mayor -13-