Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-06 City Council Minutes Approved C.) I( 0etri`:: t9 w City Council Minutes— February 6, 2012 At 7:00 p.m. Mayor Dean Maxwell called the regularly scheduled Anacortes City Council meeting of February 6, 2012 to order. Roll call found present: Eric Johnson, Ryan Walters, Erica Pickett, Brad Adams, Bill Turner, Cynthia Richardson and Brian Geer. Roll call was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Minutes of Previous Meeting Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Mr. Turner, that the minutes of January 17, 2012 be approved as if read. Vote: Ayes—Walters, Pickett, Adams, Turner, Richardson, Geer and Johnson. Motion carried. Citizen Hearings Sandra Spargo, 1408 11th Street, spoke on the drafted procedures of the City Council. Ms. Spargo stated that the policy of denying public comments on agenda items during open meetings is substandard democracy. She objected that having to relay her comments through her councilperson is a needless transfer of representation and said that not allowing her to speak in person would abridge her freedom of speech. Ms. Spargo reported that at the City Council retreat on February 3, 2012 some councilmembers expressed concern that if 100 people showed up to make public comments on an issue it would delay business. She said that would be unlikely and if it were to occur, speaker time limits should be advertised. Ms. Spargo proposed an addition to Section 6 called Addressing the Public, "Once recognized, no member of the public shall be interrupted when speaking unless that member is redirected to confine comments to questions under debate." Ms. Spargo submitted written comments upon leaving the podium. Mayor/Council Communication and Committee Reports Proclamation: Kiwanis Children's Cancer Cure Month Mayor Maxwell read a statement proclaiming February 2012 to be Kiwanis Children's Cancer Cure Month in Anacortes and encouraged citizens to celebrate the many contributions made by members of the Kiwanis Clubs of the Pacific Northwest. Mayor Maxwell announced that Councilmembers Richardson, Turner and Pickett would be attending the Port/City Liaison meeting the next day at City Hall. Mayor Maxwell introduced Bob Hyde, Executive Director of the Port of Anacortes. Noting that the community has long discussed better connecting downtown to the marina and waterfront, Mr. Hyde announced that on Wednesday, February 8, 2012 from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at Anthony's Restaurant Julie Bassuk from Makers would be facilitating a public meeting to define the problem and brainstorm innovative, low cost solutions for improving that connection. Mr. Adams reported that he, Mr. Walters and Mrs. Richardson met as the City Council Planning Committee earlier in the day. He said the committee talked about setting priorities for 2012 including looking at all the zones and reviewing the language pertaining to each and coming up with a matrix showing which uses are allowed in each zone. Mr. Adams encouraged councilmembers to forward any other ideas to the committee. He added that proposals for the 2012 amendment cycle are due by the end of March. Consent Agenda Mr. Geer moved, seconded by Mr. Turner, to approve the following Consent Agenda items. Vote: Ayes— Pickett, Adams, Turner, Richardson, Geer and Johnson. Nays: Walters. Motion carried. Approval of Vouchers/Cancellation of Checks Council voted unanimously that the following vouchers/checks audited and certified by the City's Auditing Officer (Finance Director) and subsequently reviewed and approved by the Council Finance Committee on January 27, 2012 and February 2, 2012 are approved for payment as of February 6, 2012. Anacortes City Council Minutes February 6, 2012 1 Claim Checks Jan/Feb 2012: Check Numbers 63276 through 63470 in the total amount of $619,721.72 EFT Jan/Feb 2012: EFT Number 63275 in the total amount of $374.00 Payroll for January 20, 2012 in the total amount of$558,614.29 Check Numbers 36827 through 36854 in the total amount of$28,500.34 Direct Deposit Numbers from 42909 through 43087 in the total amount of$343,342.32 EFT Numbers from 1372 through 1378 in the total amount of$186,771.63 Payroll for February 3, 2012 in the total amount of$847,627.61 Check Numbers 36855 through 36911 in the total amount of $38,075.48 Direct Deposit Numbers from 43088 through 43287 in the total amount of$614,210.69 EFT Numbers from 1379 through 1383 in the total amount of$195,341.44 Public Hearing: 2011 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Amendments Planning Director Ryan Larsen briefly recapped the public hearing topics for the evening which were reviewed in depth at the study session on January 23, 2012. He suggested hearing all public comments on Exhibit 1, then hearing all public comments on Exhibit 2, etc., before beginning Council deliberation and discussion. At approximately 7:14 p.m. Mayor Maxwell opened the public hearing and announced that each person would be given three minutes to speak. The first topic was Exhibit 1, proposed by Mrs. Richardson, which would add a new section (i) to AMC 16.12.020.E which would allow for pedestrian connection to adjacent property and/or provide for future connection. Terry Christiansen, 3302 K Avenue, said he was ambivalent about Exhibit 1 because he hadn't seen a graphical depiction of what it could look like but was not overly concerned because most future development will involve small plots of land. He did offer, as a former real estate broker, that people like to buy homes on quiet streets and that cul-de-sacs are popular with home buyers. He said he isn't someone who wants every street connected to every other street. No one else wished to speak to Exhibit 1. The next topic was Exhibit 2, proposed by Mrs. Richardson, which would revise AMC 17.34.050 Minimum lot size (R3 zone) to allow lots not exceeding 12,000 SF which have an existing single family residence at least 20 years old to subdivide and create an additional lot of at least 4,000 SF and also be required to record a covenant against the property agreeing not to demolish the existing house for 15 years. Mr. Larsen said the Planning Commission recommended denial of this item. Carol Strandberg, 1418 18th Street, referred to her written testimony and the testimony of Joan Fossum and Mark Johnson in the record. She said she is probably the only person who has taken advantage of the opportunity to build a separated dwelling unit on her property. She explained that no one anticipated that because she has a 100-year-old house and a new house on the same lot, banks will not give loans on the old house. It will thus have to be a rental property forever. She said that counter to some Planning Commissioner testimony, she felt a homeowner is much more likely to keep a home in good condition than a renter is. She encouraged councilmembers to review the written testimony and asked them to consider whether they want to promote more rental properties or more individual home owners. Terry Christiansen, 3302 K Avenue, said he opposed this proposal. He said it would create a special privilege for a few people. He said it would legitimize the creation of two substandard lots out of one fully compliant lot. He recalled that in the past owners of contiguous lots of less than 6000 SF were forced to aggregate those lots into a single lot. He said Exhibit 2 tries to go back in the opposite direction. He warned that if this amendment were adopted the language would have to be carefully crafted to prevent Anacortes City Council Minutes February 6, 2012 2 the existing house from ending up on a substandard lot next to a vacant lot of legal size, which could then be sold and built upon. Mr. Christiansen said real estate investors actively seek such opportunities. He said the result is invariably two homes on small lots jammed close together. Sharene Elander, 1406 8th Street, asked how Exhibit 2 would affect the Old Town overlay district. Edward Bradley, 1403 7th Street, said he supported the Planning Commission recommendation to deny this exhibit, calling it spot zoning. He said his lot is in excess of 16000 SF with a historic home on it and right now he can legally subdivide it into a 6000 SF and a 10000 SF lot which has a real bearing on his property value. He said the proposal singles out some people to help and asked why the proposal is limited to lots of up to 12000 SF. He said unless the proposal were to cover all property in the R3 zone that is large enough to accommodate this plan, he supported denying it. No one else wished to speak to Exhibit 2. The next topic was Exhibit 3, proposed by Mrs. Richardson, which would revise AMC 17.34.060 Minimum setback requirements (R3 zone) to allow single family residences on lots 60 feet wide to reduce both side yard setbacks to five feet. Mr. Larsen said the Planning Commission recommended denial of this item. Terry Christiansen, 3302 K Avenue, said he opposed this proposal. He said the AMC was revised previously to allow a five foot setback on one side and ten feet on the other to give developers some flexibility and is sufficient as it stands now. He said he could see no rational reason to reduce the setbacks which would result in more crowding, further restrict the utility of side yards and reduce fire protection. No one else wished to speak to Exhibit 3. The next topic was Exhibit 4, proposed by Hal Rooks, which would revise AMC 17.18.090 (LM Zone) to limit the height requirement to 35 feet along the Guemes Channel and eliminate the ability for a property owner to build to 50 feet as currently allowed by code. Mr. Larsen said the Planning Commission recommended denial of this item. Proponent Hal Rooks, 1019 10t" Street, referred to the information he submitted for the Council packet. He quoted AMC 17.18.090 regarding height limits in the LM zone which allows commercial building up to 50 feet if granted a conditional use permit. He said the code is confusing because it isn't clear that the 50- foot limit requires a conditional use permit. He said his proposal would limit building height in this zone to 35 feet in all cases. Mr. Rooks emphasized that he has no financial stake in this issue and is not aiming at any one proposal. He said his proposal would protect public views, shoreline access and concomitant quality of life. He said his goal was not to replace commercial or marine businesses in the LM zone with residences. He said his proposal would not affect any businesses located in the neighboring MS zone. He said his proposal was not aimed at any current development proposals including GEMS and noted that such proposals are vested in existing code. Regarding the staff report statement that Exhibit 4 would create an inconsistency between the AMC and the Shoreline Master Program, Mr. Rooks said the current LM Zone height limits have already been a test case before the Shoreline Hearings Board. Mr. Rooks said if his proposal is not adopted, the code language should be revised to reflect the Board's decision and the requirements of the State's Shoreline Management Act that any building over 35 feet must not block the neighbors' views and must serve an overriding public interest. He said his proposal would result in a clear and unambiguous zoning code that residents and developers need and want. Gene Derig, 1302 K Avenue, referenced Commissioner Folsom's comments from the December 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting and cited from a Shoreline Hearings Board decision: "The policies and provisions of the state Shorelines Management Act which protect the public and private rights to enjoy the aesthetics and views of the natural shorelines of the state.... The legislature and the people of this state have determined single family residences are a priority use on the shoreline of the state. The Shorelines Management Act protects the views and economic investments of such properties in retaining these views." Noting that the AMC is in need of repair and rebuilding Mr. Derig urged councilmembers to support the citizens who oppose 50-foot height limits because they were in the majority at the Planning Commission hearings. He said those testifying in favor of the 50-foot limit were three employers, the Chamber of Commerce Executive Director, and a public official who said the 50-foot limit should be Anacortes City Council Minutes February 6, 2012 3 retained because there are 350,000 unemployed people in Washington. Mr. Derig said that going counter to the Shoreline Management Act is not going to create 350,000 jobs. He said protecting neighborhood character and housing values should be the goal. He urged councilmembers to support the 35-foot limit to remove the doubt from water views and neighborhoods. Mr. Derig noted that he doesn't live near the shoreline but does enjoy the views. Ross Barnes, 1004 7t" Street, #202, said the existing code language is not a satisfactory solution because there is no definition of "residential" and "non-residential" in the zoning ordinance. He said it may be that when the language was adopted mixed use buildings weren't in play but they exist now. He asked if a non-residential structure that can go up to 50 feet could include an industrial building with a caretaker's residence or perhaps a commercial development on the ground floor with four stories of residences above. He said there is great potential in the current code for ambiguity. Dr. Barnes said Hal Rooks provided one possible solution with Exhibit 4. He said if Council did not adopt that proposal, it remained essential to define "residential" and "non-residential"as part of next year's comprehensive plan amendments. Marilyn Wells Derig, 1302 K Avenue, referred to her December testimony before the Planning Commission in support of Exhibit 4 to maintain water views. Mrs. Derig stated that her childhood home had those views and said that while for 37 years she has lived in a different neighborhood she still valued those views highly for visitors and citizens alike. Mrs. Derig reported that at the City Council retreat on February 3, 2012 the councilmembers and staff present each described their vision for the future of Anacortes and that no serious comments from the group conveyed intentions to exclude shoreline views from residents or visitors. Mrs. Derig noted that the 2010 Comprehensive Plan identifies a goal to "improve the image of Anacortes as a marine-oriented city by encouraging and protecting and enhancing marine views from public places." She quoted other Comprehensive Plan goals: "Public access to shorelines and tidelands should be maintained, enhanced and increased. A primary consideration should be given to preserving and adding to public access to shorelines, increase and preserve physical and visual access to shoreline areas." and "Public permit process efforts should be made to protect existing scenic views." She urged councilmembers to consider a future where views and shorelines will be preserved for generations to come. Edward Bradley, 1403 7t" Street, said he has always had views at his homes in various states and they are part of his quality of life. He said he testified before the Planning Commission in support of Exhibit 4 and he opposes the Planning Commission recommendation to deny it. Mr. Bradley said the code is ambiguous and difficult to understand right now because in most sections permitted and conditional uses are listed in consecutive paragraphs but in the LM zone the code lists permitted uses but makes no mention of 50-foot height in the conditional uses, that is found elsewhere in the code. He added that any citizen who owns property with a view would be affected if 50-foot heights were allowed. Terry Christiansen, 3302 K Avenue, spoke in support of Exhibit 4. He said a 50' building could have varying visual impacts at different places in the LM zone due to varying terrain in the zone. He also argued that a lot of the property along the channel has higher assessed values because of marine views and pointed out that if those property values go down, their property taxes go down but other taxpayers will have to make up the difference. Stephanie Hamilton, 4412 Glasgow Way, Executive Director of the Anacortes Chamber of Commerce, spoke on behalf of the Chamber Board of Directors and recommended not considering Exhibit 4 for two reasons. First, because it goes against the Shoreline Master Plan so would create an inconsistency between the documents. Second, because Anacortes is a working waterfront and the LM zone along Guemes Channel is an important economic tool for job creation. Ms. Hamilton said job creation has got to stay number one. Tom Glade, 210 Mansfield Court, spoke on behalf of Evergreen Islands. He said residents along the Channel are concerned about views and property values. He suggested that the City learn from the Grill and Tamm decision and adopt some of the premises proposed in that decision. He suggested adding a Anacortes City Council Minutes February 6, 2012 4 design criterion to the code that the view obstruction be limited to 15-18 degrees in accordance with the decision. Bob Hyde, speaking as Executive Director of the Port of Anacortes, said the scale of development along Guemes Channel necessitates the ability to go to 50 feet. He said it's a shipping channel and added that the CBD has a 50-foot height limit so it's really not that big a deal. Mr. Hyde said the real issue is jobs. He said anyone who wants to develop on the waterfront has to get a half dozen major permits and lowering the height limit is another nail in the coffin. He concluded that the Port of Anacortes recommends supporting the 7-0 Planning Commission recommendation against Exhibit 4. Larry Post, 1809 37th Street, HR Manager at Trident Seafoods, said Trident Seafoods is on record opposing the 35-foot height restrictions. He said Trident employs over 250 surrounding residents and contributes to a strong Anacortes economy. Mr. Post said height restrictions could impact future growth and revenue. He said like most people he wants a balance of a beautiful city and job in town. Mr. Post said he welcomes business development both horizontal and vertical. He urged councilmembers to consider all of Anacortes including residents who are still of working age and to deny Exhibit 4. No one else wishing to comment, at approximately 7:52 p.m. Mayor Maxwell closed the public hearing. Mr. Walters asked for a copy of the photo Mr. Rooks wished to display as part of his testimony. Mr. Adams said hard copy was included in the Council packet. Mr. Larsen confirmed this. Council began deliberations on Exhibit 1. Mrs. Richardson asked Mr. Larsen why staff had recommended moving this language to a different location in the code. Mr. Larsen said Mr. Furlong concurred with the location proposed by staff because the original proposed section is the RCW which outlines Findings but doesn't make it a requirement. The revised location proposed by staff would make the language a requirement for the applicant. Mrs. Richardson said her intent was to flag it as something the Planning Commission would be tasked with looking at but she didn't intend for it to be a requirement. She asked if it couldn't be in both places. Mr. Furlong said it could be in both places but that would be redundant if it is in fact a requirement. He said "flagging something"for Planning Commission to look at without direction if it is a mandatory element could lead to ambiguity. He said it is in the city's best interest to say"you shall do this"or"you shan't do this." Mrs. Richardson reiterated that she didn't intend to make it a requirement to make vehicular or pedestrian connections, only that they should be provided where possible and reasonable. Mr. Larsen said even so, it wouldn't make sense to include the topic in the Findings section of the code. He said the language could be moved to the location suggested by staff and reworded to say "should consider" rather than "shall." Mr. Furlong said it is important that the code give property owners, Council and the community bright lines as often as possible so decision makers have an objective standard to work with. He said the language should be clarified to accurately reflect Council's intent. Mrs. Richardson asked if such revised language would come back to Council for final approval. Mr. Larsen and Mr. Furlong said they would be happy to do that. Mrs. Pickett said the Planning Commission has had a policy of making such connections for many years. Mayor Maxwell pointed out it is in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Turner said Mrs. Richardson's proposal was a good idea but he'd like to see revised language which would give the Planning Commission more direction on what to do even if they have been doing it traditionally. Mr. Geer said he was not convinced this was needed since the city is already making connections and working with developers to make them. Mr. Adams said the city has missed some opportunities for connections, for example in the case of a 9-lot short plat which Council never gets to see. He said the proposed language would include such developments so it would be a good idea. Mr. Geer asked if connections were going to required or just called for if reasonable. Mrs. Pickett said no one was saying it would be mandatory and the revised staff language would say, "where reasonable". She noted that just about every transaction the city has with a developer is a negotiation. Mr. Geer said as long as it is a point of negotiation, he would reconsider it. Mr. Larsen suggested that staff redraft the language and bring it back to Council at its February 21, 2012 regular meeting. Mr. Walters asked what exactly staff would be drafting and suggested a motion to clarify Council's intent. Mayor Maxwell replied that when the draft language comes back, Council can examine it and vote it up or down. Mrs. Richardson read the language proposed by staff in the packet and said to Anacortes City Council Minutes February 6, 2012 5 keep all of those thoughts but change the grammar. Mr. Geer moved, seconded by Mrs. Pickett, to send Exhibit 1 back to staff for different language. Vote: Ayes—Adams, Turner, Richardson, Geer, Johnson, Walters and Pickett. Motion carried. Council turned to a discussion of Exhibit 2. Mrs. Richardson provided some background on her proposal. She said she proposed this because the code allowed duplexes on certain lots, then was revised to allow two separated buildings on a single piece of property that would still be considered a duplex. She explained that the thinking at the time was the two units would be condominiumized, where each unit is individually owned but the property is owned in common. When Carol Strandberg did this with the intent of condominiumizing she found banks won't loan on such structures. Mrs. Richardson proposed Exhibit 2 so Mrs. Strandberg and others in her situation could split up and sell the units that the code allows them to build. Mrs. Richardson said there are at most two dozen lots where this could possibly apply so it would not have a major impact. She said she added the prohibition on tearing down the existing house in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson referred to Mrs. Elander's testimony and asked how Exhibit 2 would affect the Old Town overlay. Mr. Larsen said Exhibit 2 would apply to the entire R3 zone and would not preclude the Old Town overlay. Mr. Adams confirmed with Mr. Larsen that currently a 12000 SF lot in the R3 zone can subdivide into two 6000 SF lots. He asked if Exhibit 2 would require a 10000 SF lot to end up with one 4000 SF lot and one 6000 SF lot. Mr. Larsen clarified that an 8000 SF lot could subdivide under Exhibit 2 into two 4000 SF lots if it met all the other requirements of the zoning. Mr. Adams said Mrs. Strandberg's situation is difficult but that this change could cause some ruckus as well. Mr. Turner noted that only a few lots would likely be affected. He said he was concerned about the size of the homes. He doesn't want to have as big a house as possible on a small lot. He said looking down the road, there's going to be a need for smaller homes people can afford which will make town a little denser which he's not opposed to but he would like to flesh it out to see the actual potential impact. He'd like the proposal to restrict home size according to lot size. Mr. Geer said this could be a slippery slope and agreed with Mr. Adams that he wasn't sure this should go forward. Mr. Johnson said he had served on an affordable housing panel with Mrs. Pickett and former Planning Director Ian Munce and that Exhibit 2 is one way to achieve that. He didn't think it was a slippery slope but rather a direction the city should be going. Mr. Geer said this proposal wasn't going to solve affordable housing since not many lots are affected. Mr. Turner said affordable housing is, by nature, small. He said the future for the U.S. is smaller homes. He said he was in favor of making sure the home fits the lot, is no larger than the original home, and will be more affordable. Mrs. Pickett said she couldn't decide if she was for this or not. She agreed with Mr. Turner that smaller homes are the future. She wondered if lots larger than 12000 SF should also be subject to the proposal. She noted that since the complicated issue involves bankers and appraisers and others the Council may not have all the information to decide on this. She added that the proposal might help preserve some older homes. Mr. Adams said he was comfortable with subdividing a 12000 SF lot but not an 8000 SF lot into two 4000 SF lots. Mrs. Richardson noted that the entire City of Seattle has had a 5000 SF minimum lot size forever and in the desirable University District neighborhood most lots are 4000 SF so the notion of what is substandard depends where you are. Mr. Geer countered that Anacortes is not comparable to Seattle. He said Exhibit 2 was not going to solve the problem of saving older houses or the mother in law apartment crisis. He called it a spot zone within a zone and said he was not in favor of it. Mr. Turner suggested tabling the matter since there was no consensus. He asked about limiting the size of home that could be built on a 4000 SF lot because he didn't want to see bigger homes but otherwise was fine with the proposed amendment. Mayor Maxwell asked Mr. Furlong to what extent Council could modify the Anacortes City Council Minutes February 6, 2012 6 language of a proposed amendment now that the public hearing was closed. Mr. Geer and Mrs. Pickett agreed that it might make more sense to resubmit the proposal. Mr. Furlong said Council's hands aren't entirely tied but if there were to be substantive changes proposed the city would have to look at SEPA compliance in which case Council might want to reconsider the proposal from scratch as part of next year's amendment cycle. Mrs. Pickett moved, seconded by Mr. Adams, to table Exhibit 2 until the February 21, 2012 regular City Council meeting. Vote: Ayes—Turner, Richardson, Johnson, Walters, Pickett and Adams. Nays—Geer. Motion carried. Council turned to a discussion of Exhibit 3 regarding setbacks in the R3 zone. Mr. Larsen advised that the Planning Commission recommended denial. Mr. Geer asked if the Fire Department had looked at the proposal. Assistant Planning Director Don Measamer said they were consulted, that their minimum is three feet for access and otherwise the Fire Department had no issues with the proposal. He added that the Residential Building Code requires fire resistant construction if homes are separated by less than five feet. Mr. Adams asked if situations like this can currently be considered by the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Larsen said yes, a property owner could apply for a variance to the Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Richardson explained why she proposed the amendment. She said Anacortes has a lot of small lots left from the old days when those were legal. She said a house on a 40-foot lot is really constrained as to remodeling. She said her intent was to give more flexibility to those homeowners. She added that the proposal wouldn't change the minimum side yard, which remains five feet. Mr. Turner said he supported the proposal and said even two adjoining five foot setbacks is ten feet of separation between buildings which is plenty for the firefighters. Mr. Adams said he felt the Board of Adjustment route was sufficient and that he was comfortable with the current process. Mrs. Pickett asked how much a variance request costs. Mr. Measamer said the application fee is$100. Mrs. Richardson asked if a variance would be granted if a homeowner simply wanted more space. Mr. Larsen said probably not, a variance request has to prove hardship. Mrs. Richardson concluded that Exhibit 3 would result in flexibility homeowners cannot achieve with the current process. Mr. Turner moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, to accept Exhibit 3. Vote: Ayes— Richardson, Geer, Johnson, Walters, Pickett and Turner. Nays—Adams. Motion carried. Council turned to a discussion of Exhibit 4 regarding maximum height in the LM zone. Mr. Johnson referred to the RCW quoted by Mr. Rooks stating that a 50' height shall not be allowed unless overriding considerations of public interest will be served. Mr. Johnson asked if"overriding considerations of the public interest" is defined. Mrs. Pickett said the public may not be aware how many public access points to the waterfront the city has gained as conditions on conditional use permits over the years. She provided a number of examples. Mrs. Pickett said it is in vogue to view the conditional use process as inimical to the public interest but it is actually an opportunity to negotiate, including for access points. She said "overriding public interest" may come into play to achieve highly desirable public access. Mrs. Pickett said she didn't support Exhibit 4, that views and the public interest are already sufficiently protected, and that the CUP process is not an enemy. Mr. Geer agreed with Mrs. Pickett. Referring to testimony by Mr. Barnes, Mr. Geer said the city should address the language of this section next year but not approve Exhibit 4 as proposed. Mr. Adams said he appreciated that Mr. Rooks brought this proposal forward but he didn't think it would be a good choice right now to implement a blanket exclusion of 50-foot buildings. He said the CUP process includes public hearings so concerns about views would be carefully evaluated case by case. Mr. Adams agreed with Mr. Geer and Mr. Barnes on the need to clear up the language in the future. Mr. Turner agreed with Mrs. Pickett's eloquent explication and agreed that conditional use permits can add conditions to protect views. He supported leaving the code the way it is. Mrs. Richardson concurred with not changing the height limit at this time and also with the point raised by Mr. Barnes that the code is not fully consistent and has some gaps that need to be addressed. Anacortes City Council Minutes February 6, 2012 7 Mrs. Richardson moved to deny Exhibit 4 but thanked Mr. Rooks for raising this important issue and urged Council to address it in the next amendment cycle. Mrs. Pickett seconded the motion to deny. Vote: Ayes—Geer, Johnson, Pickett, Adams, Turner and Richardson. Nays: Walters. Motion carried. Contract Award: Fidalgo Bay Road—Construction Management and Inspection Services Public Works Director Fred Buckenmeyer presented a proposed contract with Reichhardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc. for construction management and inspection services during the construction phase of the Fidalgo Bay Road improvement project near the entrance to the RV park. Mr. Buckenmeyer advised that WSDOT had given its approval for the City to go out to bid on the project and the target timeline is for bid opening on February 27, 2012, contract award on March 5, 2012 and contract completion by May 18, 2012. Mr. Buckenmeyer recommended awarding a contract in the amount of $66,341.46 to Reichhardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc. Mr. Adams clarified that the project is entirely funded by a federal grant awarded to the Samish Indian Nation. Mr. Turner moved, seconded by Mr. Geer, to award the contract to Reichhardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc. Vote: Ayes—Johnson, Walters, Pickett, Adams, Turner, Richardson and Geer. Motion carried. Executive Session (15 Minutes) At approximately 8:45 p.m. Mayor Maxwell announced that the Mayor, Council and City Attorney Brad Furlong would convene in Executive Session to discuss potential litigation for approximately fifteen minutes and would reconvene with potential for action. At approximately 9:00 p.m., the Council reconvened. Mr. Geer moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, to amend the agenda to take action on a proposed settlement agreement with MJB Properties. Council voted in favor by acclaim. Mayor Maxwell advised that MJB had appealed three conditions on its shoreline permit and that the City and MJB had negotiated a settlement agreement that works really well for the community and for MJB. Mr. Turner moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, to authorize the mayor to sign the proposed settlement agreement. Mrs. Richardson asked the city's legal counsel in the matter, Susan Drummond, to summarize the agreement for the public. Ms. Drummond said under the settlement agreement MJB would withdraw its appeal of its shoreline development permit currently pending before the Shoreline Hearings Board if three conditions of the permit were revised via a Revision Request which could be approved administratively. She said the revisions are within the scope and intent of the three appealed conditions concern the grading, the esplanade and the easement on the south portion of the property. Mrs. Richardson summarized that at the end of construction when all the exact dimensions are worked out the public will have access to an esplanade across the MJB property as was originally intended when they got the shoreline permit. Mr. Furlong clarified that the motion on the table was not to approve the three conditions, only to give the mayor authority to sign the settlement agreement. He said the conditions would be submitted pursuant to code within the scope of the Shoreline Master Program procedures. Vote: Ayes—Walters, Pickett, Adams, Turner, Richardson, Geer and Johnson. Motion carried. There being no further business, at approximately 9:05 p.m. the regularly scheduled Anacortes City Council meeting of February 6, 2012 was adjourned. Anacortes City Council Minutes February 6, 2012 8