Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/96 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FEBRUARY 7 1996 CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 P.M. A. Pledge Of Allegiance B. Invocation CONSENT AGENDA Items listed below have been distributed to Council members in advance for study and will be enacted by one motion. If separate discussion is desired on an item, it may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at the request of a Council member. A. Minutes - January 17, 1996, #AB96-029 3. CLaIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS MAYOR' S REPORT State Of The City Address 6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) ORDINANCES A. ordinance (First Reading) Restricting Storage Of Oversize Vehicles #AB96-030 PUBLIC HEARING - 6;00 P.M. OR LATER A. Tracyton Beach Pre-Annexation Zoning And Comprehensive Plan Designation; And Ordinance (First Reading) #AB96-031 1. SUBJECT: - AGENDA BILL -- BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - 3ANUARY 17, t996 FOR AGENDA OF: February ?, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT: Ci[y uouncil ORIGINATOR: John Law: pr~H~ DATE SUBMITTED: 1-3]-96 2. ~3~: (comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: ENDORSEMENT__ INFORMATION __ APPROVED BY COUNCIL p~O~SUB~TTAL: MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT' 4. SD%gtARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR'COUNCIL ACTION: 8. RECOM3{ENDATION: 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOT~CE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: AMENDED A UJ LIJ MODERATE PRIORITIES ESTABLISH DROP OFF SITE FOR BULK GOODS FINALIZE COUNTY WIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION FINALIZE NEW UTILITY BILLING FORMAT IMPLEMENT PARKING CHANGES · Eliminate "repark" issues in business district FINALIZE CHARTER REVIEW FOR FALL BALLOT COMPLETE IVY GREEN CEMETERY UPGRADES · Assist in removal of Evergreen Park Training Tower EXPAND URBAN TREE NURSERY CONTINUE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TRAINING FACILITY ELIMINATE SCOTCH BROOM PROBLEM ALONG WARREN AVENUE REVIEW STREET LIGHTING OPTIONS REVIEW TRAFFIC LIGHTS FOR BETTER TRAFFIC FLOW COMPLETE GORST CONNECTOR DESIGN CONTINUE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN IMPLEMENTATION · Expand Neighborhood K Prep CONTINUE EMPLOYEE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM CONTINUE PROVIDING PROACTIVE LEGAL SERVICE CONTINUE YOUTH AGENDA SUPPORT · Coordinating Council on Youth · Bremerton Youth Council 2001 GOALS GORST CONNECTOR · Property acquisition and construction PENDERGAST REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX · Phase II TAPE #1350 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 17~ 1996 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, January 17, 1996, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Cecil McConnell, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, David Farr, Richard Neville, and Lon Overson. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Law and Invocation given by Reverend Cleveland Williams of Ebenezer African Methodist Episcopal Church. President Law asked the City Attorney to address a concern raised by a citizen that has to do with the Open Meetings Act. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated it appears a citizens raised the issue that the ballots cast by City Council members during election of Council Officers were not identified by Council person and it is his opinion that a vote taken by Council in an open meeting needs to comply with the Open Meetings Act, as does every other vote Council takes, and identify who made what vote. Mr. Overson stated this is actually an internal Council function, which is not opened up to the public for input and the action is taken in accordance with what Council sees as appropriate. It is not a function of the public to become concerned with who serves as City Council President. However, he did see the public having an interest in who would serve as Mayor Protem, but again the public is not given the opportunity to speak to that. He believes the method of voting for Council Officers in the past was appropriate and there had been occasions when Council Officers were voted on during a Study Session and then the results announced. If the process is to be conducted as identify by the member of the public, it should be placed on the Agenda as an Agenda item. He has always looked at this a~tion as an internal Council function and not a pertinent part of the constituent concern. Mr. Colvin asked the City Attorney if this was a point of law? Mr. Overson referenced the Open Meetings Act, which requires that Council members publicly announce their votes. He agreed with Mr. Sievers that Council member votes on public issues are to be made public, but their votes on internal Council administrative functions don't necessarily have to follow those rules. Mr. Sievers stated in the memorandum he distributed to Council there is an argument on where this provision on secret balloting does appear on that statute. The first part does talk about actions of Council that seem to be directed to the public - rules, regulations, directives, ordinances TAPE #1350 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 17, 1996 Page 2 of 12 and resolutions, but it does not include election of officers. However, Council rules would need to be adopted by a non-secret ballot in a public meeting. The fact that something is on the Agenda does not mean there has to be public participation. A lot of cities do not invite the type of public participation that the City of Bremerton recognizes. The Charter does not require public participation or input on every item on the Agenda, there can be internal matters where the meeting is held in pubic, but the public is not invited to participate or give input. Advance notice is not required for items included on the Council Agenda, unlike special sessions where there must be a public agenda. Mr. Colvin asked if there were any provisions for questioning the candidates in public to ascertain their views? Mr. Sievers explained that would be up to the City Council, but there is nothing requiring public input. President Law opened nominations for City Council President: Mr. Winters nominated John Law. Mr. Montgomery nominated Sherril Huff-Menees. President Law announced nominations are closed. Vote: John Law - 5 votes Sherril Huff-Menees - 4 votes. John Law was elected City Council President Mr. Montgomery called for a roll call of votes: Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read the following voting record: For John Law: Overson, McConnell, Colvin, Winters, Law For Sherril Huff-Menees: Huff-Menees, Farr, Neville, Montgomery President Law opened nominations for City Council Vice President: Mr. Fart nominated Richard Neville. Mr. Winters nominated Mr. Fart. President Law closed the nominations Vote: Richard Neville - 7 votes David Fart - 2 votes. Mr. Montgomery asked for a roll call of votes: Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read the following voting record: For Mr. Neville: Colvin, Montgomery, Law, Farr, Neville, Overson Huff-Menees For Mr. Farr: Winters, McConnell Richard Neville was elected City Council Vice President. President Law opened nominations for Mayor Protem: Mr. Montgomery nominated David Farr Mr. Neville nominated Sherril Huff-Menees President Law nominated Bob Winters. President Law closed the nominations. TAPE #1350 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 17, 1996 Page 3 of 12 Vote: Bob Winters - 4 votes David Farr - 3 votes Sherril Huff-Menees - 2 votes Bob Winters was elected Mayor Protem. Mr. Montgomery asked for a roll call of votes: Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read the following voting record: For Mr. Winters: Winters, Colvin, McConnell, Law For Mr. Fart: Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Overson For Mrs. Huff-Menees: Farr, Neville Presi4ent Law announced the Study Session scheduled following this Council meeting has been canceled. And item 9A - PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION NO. 2535, REGARDING RECOVERY OF FEES FOR THE REMOVAL OF GARBAGE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1340 HAYWARD AVENUE, #AB96-01] had been postponed to February 14, 1996. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Overson stated he was saddened to see the loss of Mary Ann Harris' business from the downtown. He hoped that Council could do something this year that will help the downtown businesses realize a better business environment. He realized the need to watch over the whole City, but felt downtown needed some special treatment. He restated his position on election of Council Officers and the fact that the responsiblity should move around. He is hopeful that next year more Council members can move into positions they have not previously served in. Mrs. Huff-Menees announced Districts #6, #7 and #8 will hold a combined District Meeting on February 1, 7:00 P.M., at the Bremerton School District Office, 300 Montgomery Avenue. A flyer advertising that meeting will be sent out to residents in those areas to notify them of the meeting. The main topic of that meeting will be a presentation on Sinclair Landing. Mr. Colvin commented on activities celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. The Martin Luther King Scholarship Fund awarded a scholarship to Ms. Gordon, a very capable young lady. He congratulated the members of Ebenezer A-M Episcopal Church for the program at the Pavilion honoring Martin Luther King Jr. He commented there is more "segregation at 11:00 AM on Sunday mornings than there is at 1:30 PM because of sports. However, people of all races participated at that event. He thanked Bremerton Community Access for recording that program and Mr. Dave Noble for doing such a good job at the Martin Luther King Jr. Scholarship luncheon. Ron Sims was the guest speaker at the Sunday event and is an advocate of keeping the Missouri in Bremerton because it not only helps Bremerton but the whole western part of the United States. Mr. Colvin thanked Wednesday Magazine for the article about King County #0753 TAPE #1350 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 17, 1996 Page 4 of 12 Councilman Ron Sims, and The Sun for their article on Ms. Gordon, the Scholarship recipient. He referenced a comment by the Mayor that voters over 60 years of age are the ones that vote in this country. He recalled when he was a lad in San Antonio, Texas, his parents could not vote, but yet at school they practiced voting. As children, they wondered why they were doing such an activity since they could not vote as adults, but their parents had a lot of wisdom and said: "son, there will be a day that you will be able to vote", and that day has come. Today, he is saddened by the fact that there are so many people who do not take advantage of that privileged. He felt strongly that people in the School system need to do more instructing in the privilege of voting when children are young, even at the pre-school age, in order to teach our children how to be good citizens. Mr. Winters thanked those members of the Council that supported him for Mayor Protem and it was his hope the Mayor will call on him to serve in that capacity. He announced the Parks Department has scheduled a Daddy Daughter Dance on February 10, 7:00 - 9:00 PM, at the Senior Center. For the record, he wanted everyone to know that when he is asked by someone in the City to help out on a function or assist in some way, he offers his services for free. If tickets for the dance are purchased in advance from the Parks Department, those name will go into the drawing for a limousine ride to the dance. He welcomed a new downtown business - Making Waves Deli & Espresso, 202 Pacific Avenue. Mr. Law stated he would be remiss if he did not comment on the Martin Luther King Jr. celebrations this past weekend. Mr. Colvin is the behind the scenes power on the Martin Luther King Jr. Scholarship Luncheon, which was held January 14, and his efforts should be recognized. Reverent Williams, who organized the event at the Kitsap Pavilion on January 15, did a fantastic job. Mr. Law observed that the choir at that event was made up of various ages. He reported the District #3 District meeting held on Tuesday evening went well and they were fortunate enough to have Sergeant Kevin Long and Beat Patrol Officer Matt Smalley drop by. He encouraged the public to take advantage of opportunities to talk with the Beat Patrol Officers, they are interested in taking care of the neighborhoods and are anxious to become known throughout the community. The main topic for that meeting was cancelled; however, he hoped to reschedule that presentation in the near future. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes -- December 20, 1995 #AB96-007 M/S/C(Neville/Farr) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. #0774 TAPE #1350 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 17, 1996 Page 5 of 12 Vote on motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Overson, Neville, Farr, Huff-Menees, Law, Montgomery, Colvin, Winters Abstain: McConnell CLaIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) on January 17, 1996, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 193865, 193866, 194260 through 194266, 194267 through 194484 in the amount of $919,378.81. MAYOR~B REPORT Mayor Horton stated she had a request or offer from Mr. Parypa, who has seven sons, if there is someone in the community who needs an escort to the Father-Daughter Dance he is available. She has been spending much of her time the past few days in Olympia to lobby for the three million dollar state funding for the Missouri. A bill is being drafted as a separate piece of legislation and the response they have received so far has been very favorable. On Tuesday, January 16, she went to Olympia to lobby - there is an attempt at this point to gut the powers of the Growth Management Appeal Board, and she feel strongly that it is a neutral body and it would be a shame to do away with that board, and believed they dealt with the City fairly and consistently. She attended both of the Martin Luther King Jr., functions this past weekend and complimented Councilman Colvin and Reverend Williams for the wonderful job they did in spearheading and organizing those events. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Jack Lefcoskl announced the next Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association meeting will meet Thursday, January 18, 6:30 P.M., at the Cascade Natural Gas building. The topic of discussion at that meeting will be "weeds in Kitsap Lake". Gordy Byrd related an incident where he saw an advertisement on television for a seminar that offered a money back guarantee ($39.00) if one found they did not like the seminar. But, when he got to the seminar at the Seatac Hilton, he was told the tuition had to be paid no matter what, but if within the first 90 minutes one is not satisfied, they can request a refund. At that time he chose to remain and at the end of the presentation was told it will only cost an additional $2,240. He cautioned everyone to be aware of "get rich schemes". He congratulated all of the newly elected Council members. TAPE #1350 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 17, 1996 Page 6 of 12 John Thomas noted the last City Council meeting was very interesting and included election of Council positions and a contract where one of the City's prime consultants made an error on a bid; however, none of those issues were reported in The Sun. He felt it was a shame that the public unable to watch City Council meetings on Channel 12 were not informed of those issues because they were not covered in the local newspaper. He agreed with Mr. Overson that City Council internal business belongs internally, not publicly and hoped the individual, who filed the complaint, will be as public as the Council members' votes. He congratulated Mr. McConnell on his being elected to the City Council. It was his hope that more Bremerton residents would attend City Council .meetings. 7A - CAMBRIAN SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT -- CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, ~AB96-008 Change Order #1 for the Cambrian Sewer Replacement Project consists of four items. Item 1, 2, and 3 are for work proposed in Cambrian from 15th Street south to mid-block between 13th & 15th Streets. Item i is for replacing a deteriorated 4" watermain with a 8" watermain at a cost of $36,064.25. Item 2 is for complete street reconstruction at a cost of $10,219.77. Item 3 is for construction of storm drainage in accordance with the Callow Avenue Basin CSO Reduction Plan at a cost of $10,535.70. Item 4 is to increase the original contracts "Bank Run Gravel", "6" PVC Side Sewer", "6" Clean out", and "Crushed Surfacing Top Course" in the amount of $30,860.00. The total amount of this change order is $87,679.72. Tim Richard, Senior Engineer, briefly reviewed the four items in the Change Order and gave the following explanation: Item #1 - during excavation for the sewer main replacement it was found that the existing watermain in that street was leaking and in poor condition. That main was not on the substandard watermain list and was not anticipated to need replacement. Installation of the 8- inch watermain will allow flows for fire protection in this long block. Cost for this work amounted to $36,064.25 and funding source is out of the Water Capital budget. Item #2 - is for additional cost to reconstruct Cambrian from the beginning of the project, which is mid block between 13th to 15th Street, a distance of approximately 350 feet. Reconstruction will be in accordance with City standards, including regrading, base material and 3-inch asphalt. During construction it was found that the half of the block worked in consisted of multiple layers of thin asphalt with soil placed in between them resulting in no base for the road. The original project included an overlay of the entire road; however, because there was no base material, the City was concerned the overlay would have a very short life and not worth the expenditure; therefore, they requested a proposal from the contractor to reconstruct that portion. This proposal was provided to the Public #1440 #1512 TAPE #1350 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 17, 1996 Page 7 of 12 Works Operation Manager and was found to be acceptable. The additional cost of this work is $10,219.77 and funded from the Street Maintenance Fund. Item #3 - consists of installing 150 linear feet of storm drain within the street reconstruction limits. This storm sewer was identified in the Callow Avenue CSO Plan and the work was proposed to avoid digging up the newly constructed street proposed in Item #2 above. This portion of the CSO separation is anticipated to occur within the next few years. The cost of the work is $10,535.70 and funding source is from the Stormwater Capital Fund. Item #4 - consists of increased quantities of bank run gravel, 6" PVC pipe, 6" cleanout and crushed surfacing top course in the amount of $30,860.00. The majority of this cost ($25,000) is for additional bank run gravel for trench backfill. It was estimated that 50% of the existing material excavated from the trench would be replaced in the trench during construction; however, poor soils along the entire length of the project required that they use 100% imported bank run gravel. The additional cost for this work will come from the Wastewater Capital Fund. Public comment - none. Mr. Neville stated even though the Change Order is a substantial amount, it is truly a combined effort of the four different funds and good coordination of the City's time. Mr. Colvin asked how the Change Order impacts the 1996 budget? Mr. Richard explained for the additional dollars shown there is adequate funding in all of the budgets for the required work. Mr. Fart echoed Mr. Neville's comments regarding the excellent coordination to handle the various repairs. M/S/C/U(Farr/Montgomery) to approve Change Order No. 1 for Cambrian Avenue Sewer Replacement Project in the amount of $87,679.72, and authorize the Mayor to execute the same. 8A - ORDINANCE NO. 4540 (SECOND READING) CORRECTING A NAPPING ERROR ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANt ~AB96-006 Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to pass Ordinance No. 4540, on second reading, correcting a mapping error on the Comprehensive Plan. 8B - ORDINANCE NO. 4541 (EMERGENCY READING) AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF A $1,250,000 TAX B/TTICIPATION NOTE, ACCEPTING THE PURCHASE OFFER OF SE/tFIRST BANKt AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCYt ~AB96-009 AS indicated in the exhibits attached, the City's General Fund will TAPE #1350 City Council 'Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 17, 1996 Page 8 of 12 run a cash deficit for several months during the year unless some form of cash flow financing is provided. Analysis indicates that a Tax Anticipation Note is the most advantageous method of providing the necessary cash flow financing. Emergency passage of this ordinance is needed in order that the City and Seafirst can minimize their market risk in executing the note sale and thereby provide the lowest cost financing possible. Rich Hanna, city Treasurer, briefly reviewed the Summary Statement and emphasized the City's General Fund Budget is balanced and what is being addressed, at this time, is the timing of the receipt of funds, most particularly property taxes, which are paid in two installments at the end of April and end of October. Because of the irregular nature of the City's cash receipts, the General Fund operates without this financing in a deficit cash position for several months during the course of the year, which is not an appropriate way to run the fund, it does need to be in a positive situation at all times. An analysis conducted by Mr. Hanna and members of his staff indicated the issuance of a Tax Anticipation Note is the most economical means by which the City can finance that cash flow. The ordinance was prepared by Bond Counsel and does the following three things: (1) authorizes the issuance of the notes; (2) accepts the purchase offer, which he just passed out to Council from Seafirst, following the pricing action that were taken this date. He tentatively accepted the offer tendered by Seafirst, subject to the passage of the Note Ordinance; (3) it declare an emergency and will require a unanimous vote of the City Council in order for it to be approved. Public comment - none. Mr. Neville questioned the number of years the City has used the Tax Anticipation Note? Mr. Hanna stated his tenure with the City runs to 10 years and in that span of time the City has used this method for 9 years. Mr. Neville questioned if during the one remaining year did the City have a significant reserve? Mr. Hanna stated the City had a modest reserve. Mr. Neville asked if there were plans to create a reserve again so that in future years the City would not have the need to rely on the TAN? Mr. Hanna stated as Mr. Neville may recall both in the passage of an ordinance creating a Contingency Reserve Fund in 1995, and as part of the budget presentation, there have been discussions along those lines. Everyone would like to see larger cash reserves in the General Fund than are presently available, but obviously the only way surplus cash accumulates in the General Fund is for the City to levy taxes at a rate greater than money is spent delivering municipal services. Mr. Winters questioned for clarification the meaning of "price #1834 TAPE #1350 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 17, 1996 Page 9 of 12 $100", as noted across from "RATE? Mr. Hanna explained the meaning of that is 100% of the par value...notes are not being sold at either a premium or a discount. Mr. Colvln asked the term of the TAN and total cost to the City? Mr. Hanna noted the term as shown on the purchase offer matures on January 31, 1997, and the coupon on the note at maturity would be approximately $49,000. Mr. Colvin asked if the City made money off the TAN when deposited in the City's account? Mr. Hanna stated to the extent that all of the proceeds of the TAN are not needed in all months of the year, that money will be invested and hopefully at a taxable rate that will be higher than the coupon the City is paying on the note. M/S/C/U(Overson/Montgomery) to pass Ordinance No. 4541, on an emergency basis, authorizing the issuance of tax anticipation notes for the purpose of paying City expenses pending the receipt of general City taxes; creating a note redemption fund; providing for the sale of those notes to Seattle First National Bank of Seattle, Washington; and, because of it urgency, providing that this ordinance shall take effect immediately. 8C - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) INCREASING PENALTY FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE OF DISABLED PERSONS PARKING~ ~AB96-010 The proposed ordinance increases penalty for the parking infraction of parking in a disabled person space from $50.00 to $175.00 as required by 1995 state law amendments. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, added the Parking Regulation Program for Disabled Persons is a State-wide program and this proposal is a matter of housekeeping to bring the City's fines up to what is required by State law. The Director Of Licensing sets the criteria and qualifications for those placards and issues licensing and also sets the regulations on use of spaces. An essential part of the regulated program is enforcement and if the City had a lower penalty it would be eroding the State program by not having that higher penalty on the infraction. He urged Council to approve the increase according to the 1995 law change. Elizabeth Buell, High Avenue, asked if this was only for on-street parking or did it also apply on private property, such as shopping center parking lots? Mr. Sievers explained the State law makes it an infraction for using disabled parking reserved spots, both on private property and public right-of-way, without a proper license. Mrs. Buell asked what should be done if you see someone parking illegally? Mr. Sievers stated he would not suggest a citizens arrest, but they could report it to either the business owner or the Police Department and will enforce and write infractions on private property on this offense. Mr. Montgomery stated when this /0 #2195 TAPE #1350 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 17, 1996 Page 10 of 12 item came before Council Committee he asked the Parking Enforcement Officer about the off-street parking and he was told the City does go out, upon request, and tickets the offerers provided the business maintains their handicap spots appropriately, i.e. signed and painted on the parking stall. John Thomas stated this item is very important to him due to the fact his wife is handicapped and has a handicap license. He questioned if $175.00 is enough to get the Police Officers out of their vehicle to give the ticket or will the handicap person required to block the offending vehicle in the spot until the Parking Regulator arrives? He suggested maybe it would be worth the effort to suggest to the State that they use the same penalty as that in Carson City, Nevada - $250.00 first offense, $500.00 second offense and loss of vehicle on third offense. It was his opinion that a business owner would not chase a customer out of a handicap parking spot if he things he'll make money off of them in his establishment; therefore, the Police need to become more active in enforcement. Mr. Fart noted on the top of the RCW change in addition to the underlying change increasing the fine from $50.00 to $175.00, it changed the infraction from a Traffic Infraction to a Parking Infraction. He asked if there was some significance to that factor? Mr. Sievers stated he did not think so, but rather a convention they recently adopted in the Model Traffic Ordinance that differentiates Traffic Infractions from Parking Infractions. They do have separate Court rules for proceedings and enforcement and how those are issued and burdens of proof. Mr. Fart stated he would personally like to see the areas that are signed for Handicap Parking on public property include a special sticker designating Handicap Parking violators are subject to a $175.00 fine. Mr. Colvin asked if there was any provision for posting the cost of the fine on the Handicap Parking signs? Mr. Sievers stated he believed there would be room on the signs to include the penalty cost, which would not dilute or erode the mandatory markings. Mr. Montgomery expressed concern that people are misusing the handicap stickers and he cautioned the public to not always believe that someone parking in a Handicap Parking spot is handicapped. He supported having a higher penalty starting at $500.00. M/S/C(Montgomery/Overson) to approve ordinance, on first reading, amending the parking code to increase penalties for disabled parking violations; and amending BMC Title 10. Vote on motion: In Favor: Overson, Neville, Farr, Huff-Menees, Montgomery, McConnell, Law, Winters TAPE #1350 city Council-Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 17, 1996 Page 11 of 12 Motion carried. Abstain: Colvin 9B - PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION NO. 2536, REGARDING RECOVERY OF FEES FOR THE REMOVAL OF GARBAGE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3323 KITSAP WAYt ~AB96-012 On November 28, 1995, the City was forced to remove garbage and debris from the property located at 3323 Kitsap Way, after the owners, Lloyd and Paula Anderson, failed to obey a Notice and Order to Remove Refuse within 72 hours. The abatement fund was charged $160.40 for the work. Janet Lunceford, Building Department, explained the site is the old Banner Car Wash where there was a problem with overflowing barrels full of garbage. Effort was made to contact the owner of the property three times, but without success, so the City did the clean up work. Jack Lefcoski, Kitsap Lake, stated he felt the charge should be doubled. President Law explained by law the City does not have the privilege or flexibility to charge more than actual cost incurred by the City. Mr. Colvin asked the City Attorney to address that point. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, explained this matter is to collect reasonable charges and is a matter of compensation, not a penalty. There is a certain violation for accumulation of garbage, which would be processed through the Municipal Court and that penalty would be set by the Municipal Judge. Andy PazTDa, Hayward Avenue, stated he was against throwing rubbish on the streets, but about six months ago he observed a significant amount of trash strewn in his neighborhood, which prompted him to call the Health Department and they took care of the matter. He suggested that possibly the use of the Health Department should be used prior to the City taking any action. Ms. Luncefor4 explained the Health Department goes through the same process as that used by the City... notice is sent to the property owner giving them a certain number of days to clean up the problem, and if they don't, the Health Department turns to the City to do the actual work. Mr. Neville re-emphasized this request is not a fine, but rather reimbursement for the cost incurred by the City in the clean up of the area. Mr. Winters asked the total number of days that this property owner was given to remedy the problem prior to the City taking action? Ms. Lunceford stated the first time she tries to contact the owner she allowed them at least three weeks to do the clean up. If she receives a call from the owner and they have a good excuse why they can't do the work in that time frame, she is always willing to be #2510 TAPE #1350 City Council 'Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 17, 1996 Page 12 of 12 reasonable and extend the time. In this case, no response was made to any of her attempts to make contact. Typically, if she does not receive a response from the owner after the two weeks, then she posts an order to remove the debris within 72 hours, which includes a Certified Mailing of that notice to the owner. The owner of the subject property did receive a letter, which was sent by Certified Mail, but she did not receive any kind of response. Therefore, several days after the 72-hour period the Street Department was sent out to clean up the garbage. Mr. Montqommry noted the subject site is in his District and he was contacted by some of his constituents about the garbage problem at the site. He acknowledge the owner of the property probably did not make the mess and the offenders may have been Air Express. Ms. Luncefor4 stated it was a freight company, based on the kind of debris identified. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve Resolution No. 2536, ordering that the fees incurred for the abatement of the garbage and debris at 3323 Kitsap Way be collected as reasonable abatement costs, and become a personal obligation against the owners of the property, Lloyd and Paula Anderson, which if not collected within 30 days, will become a lien against the property. With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:55 P.M.. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk SHERRIL HUFF-MENEES, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/JL/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Ordinance Restricting Storage of Oversize Vehicles FOR AGENDA OF: c~- 7- 9~ ORIGINATING DEPT: Police ORIGINATOR: Ian R. Sieve~,/ City Attorney DATE SUBMITTED: 2. g. LEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) CHIEF OF POLICE COUN~k L COmMiTTEE 3. EXHIBITS: Proposed Ordinance ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORMATION [] APPROVED BY COUNCIL~DENT FOR SUBMITTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT k~~-~/~~ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ~C. TION: The proposed ordinance restricts reparking oversized-vehicles over 10,000 lbs or 22 feet in length to 120 hours in any 30 day period. The restriction will not apply to motor homes. S. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve on first reading Ordinance No. Motion tc pass on second reading Ordinance No. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE: COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: (OVER) 7A '2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: Continued fines and time limit regulations. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFINGt BUDGETSt FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: PARKING2.AB - Agendas - 1/~/96 - ORDINANCE - AN ORDINANCE amending the parking code to restrict reparking of oversize vehicles; and amending BMC Title 10. THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Amendment. Section 10.09.020 is amended to read as follows: 10.09.020 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the words and phrases set forth in this section are defined as follows: [b-f renumbered] Section 2. Amendment. Section 10.09.050 is amended to read as follows: ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA. Parking permits may be issued for motor vehicles not in excess of ten thousand pounds only upon application of the following persons: (a) A legal resident of the residential parking permit area who has a motor vehicle registered in his name, or who has a motor vehicle for his exclusive use and under his control. (b) A person who owns or leases commercial property and actively engages in business activity within a residential parking permit area. There shall be a limit of two (2) residential permits issued per dwelling unit, unless parking availability allows a greater number. No more than one parking permit may be issued for each business establishment for a motor vehicle registered to or under the control of such person. Section 3. 10.11.010 Amendment. Section 10.11.010(1) is amended to read as follows: ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS. In addition to those statutes adopted by reference in BMC 10.04.010 restricting standing, stopping and parking of vehicles, it shall be PARKING2.IRS - Ordinance Disk 2 - 1/3/96 1 unlawful and punishable actions: t civil infraction for any person to ( ~mit any of the following (1) Storage of Vehicles within Right-of-Way. Parking in excess of seventy-two (72) consecutive hours, of non-motorized conveyances or motor vehicles in a public right-of-way shall be unlawful without a right-of-way use permit. Motor vehicles or non-motorized conveyances exceeding ten thousand pounds (10,000 lbs.) gross vehicle weight or twenty-two (22) feet in length, except motor homes, may not repark in excess of one hundred twenty (120) hours within any consecutive thirty (30) day period. As used in this section motor homes are vehicles, originally manufactured as a recreational vehicle, which do not require a special permit for highway travel. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective ten (I0) days from passage and publication. APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this~ day of _ ,1996. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ~ day of ,1996. JOHN E. LAW, Council President APPROVED this ~day of ,1996. LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk PARKING2.IRS - Ordinance Disk 2 - 1/3/96 2 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Tracyton Beach Pre-Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation. -~"Pu~lic Hearing/Ordinance Z. ~F~P~H~:(comment on baok if neoessa~~,,.~ Community Dev. .~~ Council Co~ittee: FOR AGENDA OF: FEB. 7~ 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT:Com Dev ORIGINATOR:Hough/O'Neill DATE SUBMITTED:JAN 31. 1996 * Staff Report * Ordinance * Planning Commission Facts of Findings MAYOR - COUNCIL PRES: ~' / 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT ~ REOUIREMENT FO~'COUNCIL ACTION: The City of Bremerton is considering the annexation of properties located adjacent to the west of city limits and along Tracyton Beach Road. Prior to the final decisions on the annexation, the city must determine the most appropriate Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations for these parcels when they become part of Bremerton. On Jan. 16, 1996 the Bremerton Planning Commission held a public hearing and developed a recommendation for the area. It is recommended that, upon annexation, the area be designated 'Low Density Residential (LDR)" on the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. The Commission further recommended SF-2, which allows for a density of four dwelling units per acre. 8. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council pass, on the first reading, and approve, on the second reading, an ordinance causing the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the Bremerton Planning commission for the Tracyton Beach ADnexation to be adopted) and zoninq ~he are~ Si:-2 upon.annexation. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED TABLED APPROVED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 11. DISAPPROVED AMENDED DATE: AGENDA BILL NO: A 5. THP~CT O~ ~O~-~SS~GE: Kitsap County has a proposal for new zoning for the entire county in the works which is due for adoption in April. In that plan, this area is designated with a zone that is equal to the SF-3 designation. If the City Council chooses to designate this area as SF-2, the application for annexation will be with drawn by the owner of the property. 6. IMPACT ON ST]tFFING. BUDGETS. F~CILITIE8. EQUIPMENT OR OTHER 7, RESEARCH SOURCES; ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE amending the Official Comprehensive Plan and Zoning maps of the City of Bremerton for property located west of the city limits along Tracyton Beach Road. WHEREAS, a Letter of Intent to annex was submitted to the City Council on December 6, 1995; and WHEREAS, during that meeting the City Council determined that said area should be subject to Pre-Annexation land use designation; and WHEREAS the Bremerton Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 16, 1996 to accept public comments and to consider zoning designations, following which a recommendation that the land be designated low-density residential (LDR) on the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and that the zoning should be SF-2, which allows 4DU/acre; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 1996 the Bremerton City Council conducted a public heating and accepted additional comments and considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission; now therefore THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN Section 1. The Bremerton City Council adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the Bremerton Planning Commission, on the above application approved at its January 16, 1996 meeting. Section 2. The Official Comprehensive Plan Map of the City of Bremerton is hereby amended to designated the Tracyton Beach Annexation area (described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein), as "Low Density Residential (LDR)"; as shown on Exhibit "A".The Official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton is hereby amended for the subject property to Single Family 2 (SF-2)" as shown on Exhibit "B". APPROVED by the City council on the first reading this ,1996. day of PASSED by the Bremerton City Council this 1996. day of John Law, Council President APPROVED this day of ., 1996. Lynn S. Horton, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk Riddell Ro; [] LDR C-G-- LDR LDR ~ -- Way MDR MDR Tracyton Beach Annexation Area b P S MU MDR ( 'ilV ~fB/'emerton COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ,'\dopted: April 5, 1995 Residential Designations: '~ LDR Low Density Residential 3 to 8 DU/acre EXHIBIT NO, "~" Proposed Tracyton Beach Annexation Area MDR (Location Maps) Sylvan Way Tracyton Beach Annexation Area 4 oJ4 oo6 \\ P MDR EXHIBIT NO.", ~ " C-G EXHIBIT NO." DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY BLVD. FOR ANNEXATION. NORTH OF SHERIDAN RD AND EASTERLY OF TRACYTON 14 NOVEMBER 1995 BY GERRY THORNBURGH CHECKED BY NED LEVER. Beginning at a point 647.58 ft south and 727.48 ft west of the NE corner of Govt Lot i of Section 11. T24N, RIE, WM; thence S1°08'50"W 531 ft: thence S0°00'36"E 304.14 ft to the Govt. Meander line and the TPOB; thence NO°OO'36"W 304.14 ft: thence N1°O8'50"E 531 ft: thence S89°41'35"E to a point on the southerly extension of the west line of the Plat of Sheridan Hills Estates as recorded in Vol. 23. pg. 15 of Plats Kitsap County Washington. said point being on the existing City limits line: thence following the existing City limits line south along said west line and its southerly extension of said Plat to a point 666 ft south of the north line of said Govt. Lot 1: thence east to the east margin of said Govt. Lot 1: thence south along said east margin of said Govt. Lot 1 to a point 25 ~t south of the SW corner of Lot 9 of the Plat of Sierra Terrace Addition as recorded in Vol. 8. pg. 45. of Plats Kitsap County Washington: thence east parallel to the south line of said plat a distance of 136.60 ft: thence south parallel to the east line of said Govt. Lot 1 to a point 1515.92 ft south of the North line of said Govt. Lot 1 extended east: thence N88°O6'OO"W 463.90 ft: thence Nl°O9'50"E 45.35 ft: thence S60°57'30"W 308.99 ft to the Govt. Meander Line: thence leaving the existing City Lim~s line and running Northwesterly along the Govt. Meander line to the TPOB, This area contains 15.22 acres. t07 'x EXHIBIT NO." ~ 0/4 .,,,, z_or ~2M-O/ ,'~ Ei~ST OIAO0 t2.c, 005-C0 021 FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW of the BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION OF .© Pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Tracyton Beach Annexation --- File: PAZ-01-96 Ron W. Hough --- Long-range Planning Division --- Department of Community Development --- Jan. 31, 1995 SUMMARY The City of Bremerton received a Letter of Intent to annex specific property into the City. The City Council reviewed the initial proposal on December 6, 1995, accepted the letter of intent, and directed staffto proceed with the annexation. This step in the annexation process involves the review of the proposed annexation area to determine the most appropriate City Comprehensive Plan designation and City zone to be applied upon annexation. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. APPLICANT: Owners of property within the Annexation Area submitted a Letter of Intent to annex their property into the City of Bremerton. 2. LOCATION: East Bremerton vicinity.., mostly inland of Tracyton Beach Boulevard, west of Sheridan Road, and immediately west of and abutting the Bremerton City limits. 3. DESCRIPTION: (a) Size: 15.22 acres. (b) Lots: Fifteen parcels of different shapes and sizes. (c) Development: Six existing dwellings, as shown in the following table and map: LOT NUMBER LOT SIZE CURRENT LAND USE 005 0.08 ac. Vacant 006 4.07 ac. Single-family residence 012 0.60 ac. Single-family residence 014 4.22 ac. Single-family residence 015 1.78 ac. Single-family residence 021 0.83 ac. Vacant 080 0.15 ac. Single-family residence 093 0.23 ac. Vacant 107 0.58 ac. Single-family residence 108 0.42 ac. Vacant 109 0.46 ac. Vacant 112 0.44 ac. Vacant 113 0.43 ac. Vacant 114 0.43 ac. Vacant 115 0.43 ac. Vacant UNK 0.07 ac. Vacant TOTAL: 15.22 acres Proposed Tracyton Beach Annexation Area or4 \ 2 \ E~SF 29~'$~- ~z!S T 73' MDR OS Riddell [] LDR C.GI LDR Sylvan Way MDR MDR S Tracyton Beach Annexation Area MU P MDR ( Yity o. fBremerton COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Adopted: April 5, 1995 Residential Designations: LDR Low Density Residential 3 to 8 DU/acre MDR Medium Density Residential 8 to 18 DU/acre HDR High Density Residential More than 18 DU/acre 3 (d) Access: (e) Topography: (f) Utilities: Tracyton Beach Road. E. 29th Street (stubbed out to provide access to this area). Area slopes toward Washington Narrows to the southwest with mild to steep slopes. Sewer: The area is within the City of Bremerton sewer service area and future development can be served. Water: The area is within the City's Water service area and can be served with City water. Police and Fire: Upon annexation, this area will be served by City police, fire, and emergency medical services. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS: (a) Kitsap County: Kitsap County's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in December 1994. It designated the Tracyton Beach area "Urban Low Residential, 1-9 DU/acre". The County Comprehensive Plan was appealed and found to be invalid by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board in October 1995. The County later adopted interim Urban Growth Areas that included areas most obviously urban in nature and most suitable for urban development. The subject annexation area is within the interim UGA and is not considered to be a disputed urban area. (b) City of Bremerton: The City's 1986 Comprehensive Plan was revised in April 1995. Prior to the new amendments, the City's Plan included unincorporated areas surrounding the City. The Tracyton Beach Annexation area was designated on that Plan as "Residential, 0-7 DU/aere", which was the City's lowest-density designation. The City's revised Plan does not claim jurisdiction beyond the City limits, but does recognize the general land use designations of Kitsap County. The City and County plans must be consistent with each other. 4 ZONING: (a) Kitsap County_: The "interim" zoning of the subject area is "UR-6" (Urban Residential) which allows up to six dwellings per acre. (b) ¢i_ty of Bremerton: City zoning will apply upon annexation. If the recommended Plan designation of "LDR" is approved, the City could apply any one of four zones that allow densities within the 0-8 units per acre range. The City's Zoning Ordinance is currently being revised and the residential zones may soon be adjusted to be directly consistent with the Plan designations. At the present time, any of the following zones could be applied to this annexation area: $ SF-1 (Single-family Residential) 3 DU/acre :1: SF-2 (Single-family Residential) 4 DU/acre ~ SF-3 (Single-family Residential) 9 DU/acre ~ DR (Duplex Residential) 9 DU/acre The SF-1 and SF-2 are very low density zones that are generally applied where access is difficult, where utilities are deficient or non-existent, in unique waterfront locations, or in other areas where a lower-than-normal density is necessary or desirable. The SF-3 zone is the City's most efficient and desirable low-density zone. It is designed to accommodate typical single-family home subdivisions, with moderate sized lots (4,800 sq.ft, minimum), and at a density that is consistent with the needs, lifestyles and typical characteristics of today's modem neighborhoods. The DR zone is essentially the same as the SF-3 zone, but allows duplex structures in addition to single homes. The overall density is the same. The DR zone is applied most often to existing duplex neighborhoods. PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL This annexation is being processed in accordance with the 75% Petition Method as outlined in RCW 35.13.125. The final annexation proposal and 75 percent petition will be considered by the City Council for approval by ordinance. The annexation area was reviewed by City staff, which recommended a Comprehensive Plan designation of LDR (Low Density Residential) and $F-3 (Single-family 5 o Residential) zoning. The Bremerton Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 16, 1996, accepted public comments on the staff proposals, deliberated, and formulated its Plan and Zoning recommendations to the City Council. In most situations, the City's Comprehensive Plan can be amended only once per year. However, there are exemptions for emergencies and for annexations so that the Plan Amendment needed to complete this annexation can be approved as part of the annexation package and will not delay the annexation process. Environmental Review (SEPA) is not required for annexations, but is required when Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Maps are amended. The required SEPA Checklist was completed for these amendments and a Determination ofNonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the City's SEPA official on Jan. 4, 1996. CONCLUSIONS & COMMENDATIONS 1. CONCLUSIONS: Following acceptance and consideration of the information and recommendations provided in the staff report, and the public testimony offered during the January 16 public heating, the Bremerton Planning Commission arrived at the following conclusions and recommendations: (a) The proposed SF-3 zone has a minimum lot size of 4,800 sq.ft. It could allow as many as 120 homes within the 15 acre annexation area. An even higher density may be possible through a Planned Unit Development and density bonus. The Commission concluded that this could result in a neighborhood having more than twice the density of the adjacent neighborhoods to the east and north. Within a 300 ft. radius of the annexation area, the average lot size is 8,028 sq.ft, in the neighborhood to the east (28th and 29th Streets) and 10,508 sq.ft, in the Pawnee Drive neighborhood to the north. Thus, the proposed $F-3 zone would not be consistent with the densities of those adjacent neighborhoods. (b) Other than the Tracyton Road frontage, the anexation area's only access point is East 29th Street. This street was "stubbed out" to provide access to a future development in this area and would carry traffic east to Rickey Road, a distance of about 650 feet. The traffic would pass 16 existing single-family homes. Based on the testimony received at its public hearing, the Commission concluded that the traffic generated by a residential development of more than 100 homes (potentially) on the subject site could have adverse traffic-related noise and safety 6 impacts on the existing neighborhood and that a lower density in the annexation area would be more acceptable. (c) Property owners in neighborhoods adjacent to the annexation area testified that their properties are long-term investments and that a higher-density residential development on the annexation area site could adversely affect their views, could be of lower quality design, and may adversely affect their property values. The Commission concluded that a lower-density residential zone with larger lots would be more likely to take better advantage of the location and its amenities and result in larger homes with higher values. 2. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information provided and public testimony offered at its January 16 public hearing, the Bremerton Planning Commisson recommends the following Comprehensive Plan designation and Zone for the Tracyton Beach Annexation Area: Comprehensive Plan: LDR: Low Density Residential, 3-8 DU/acre. Zoning: SF-2: Single-familyResidential. WAYNE OXI~SEN, Chair / Bremerton Planning Commission Date for~ ooNALDPRATT,Secretary L. Executive n W. Hough, Planning Manager) 15:ZOA-96-1.SR 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 16, 1996 The meeting began with the Secretary calling the roll: Those present were: Chairman Olsen. Commissioners Hancock. Jackson. Dingfield. Boyd. Stone, and Robinson. Absent was Commissioner Goetze. Staff Present: Ron Hough, Shane Jensen. Jack Allingham and Marylyn Waibel. Chairman 01sen asked if there was a quorum'? The Secretary responded yes. Chairman Olsen stated that on the back of the meeting agenda for tonight are the procedures for holding a public hearing. The Chairman requested that everyone read it carefully because the Commission follows the procedure listed. Chairman Olsen called the meeting to order. Chairman Olsen requested approval of the Agenda. Motion to approve agenda was made by Commissioner Stone and seconded by Commissioner Jackson. Approved unanimously. Chairman Olsen requested approval of the December 19, 1995 minutes. Commissioner Stone stated that since he had not received the minutes that this item be deferred until the next meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Boyd. Approved unanimously. .Chairman Olsen requested any public input from any item that was not on the agenda: Doug Berger: wants to speak about the Tracyton Beach annexation. Chairman O15¢n informed Mr. Berger that this item was on the agenda and he would have the opportunity to speak to the issue at that time. Director's Report: Ron Hough reported that regarding Pope Resources, the Commission had made a recommendation to City Council to approve a minor map amendment on the Comprehensive Plan to include about a 25 acre industrial area near Pendergast Regional Park. That was approved by the City Council on January 10, 1996 and it goes to second reading tomorrow night. Ron Hough reported that the Growth Management Hearings Board made its decision at the end of December on the appeals of our Comprehensive Plan. They gave us about two months to make some changes in the Anderson Creek area to Comprehensive Plan niaps, texts and tables, etc. We have drafted those changes and will bring them back for a public hearing in two weeks with the Planning Commission. February 7th it will go to the Council Operations PAGE -1- Committee as an agenda bill and then to the City Council for first reading on the ordinance on February 14th. February 21st will be the Council second reading, February 26th is the deadline to comply and March 4th is the deadline to file the amendments. Mr. Hough stated that the schedule is pretty tight, but indicated that they are drafted and now it is a matter of notification, advertising the hearings and getting them through the process so they can get the changes submitted on time. Commissioner Boyd asked if they are substantive? Mr. Hough indicated that they were very minor -- adding a couple of map amendments to the Anderson Creek area to show the Sciepko Annexation area to clarify the issues there. What exactly is involved in wetlands or are we actually designating for industrial which by agreement is actually less by 168 acres compared to 340 acres originally designated as industrial. We trimmed it back after looking at the terrain, environmental features, etc.--should clarify the city's issues. There are also some related changes to text of tables, acreage of industrial land, etc. Mr. Hough stated that he was hoping to have a study session tonight regarding zoning, but because of the length of the agenda, would not have time tonight. Hopes to have a public hearing on January 30th on the basic zoning atlas and proposed designations for residential zones and the land use tables. Mr. Hough stated that with regard to our staff, Shane Jensen will be leaving the City of Bremerton to take a position at the City of University Place near Tacoma. Mr. Hough also stated that until Don Pratt returns, the Mayor is serving as the Department Head for Community Development. Mr. Hough reminded the Commission about the APA Winter Conference coming up this Saturday, January 20th in Port Townsend. Stated he mailed updated Conference programs to all of the Commissioners. Discussion followed regarding the logistics of car pooling, etc. Chairman Olsen requested that this discussion continue after the public hearings, under Old Business. Chairman 01sen asked R0n Hough if he had any information on Don Pratt. Ron indicated that he had talked to him this morning and that we was in good spirits, but tired. Said he was very appreciative of all of the flowers, card, support, etc. Stated he would be in the hospital at least through this week. PUBLIC HEARINGS Hearing #1 - Pre-Annexation Plan and Zoning (Tracyton Beach Annexation) Chairman Olsen announced the first hearing which is the Pre-Annexation Plan and Zotiing of the Tracyton Beach Annexation. The proponent for this hearing is the City of Bremerton. Chairman Olsen asked the appearance of fairness issue. Commissioner Boyd stated that she felt PAGE -2- she may have an appearance of fairness issue because the area in question was her former neighborhood. Chairman Olsen recommended that Commissioner Boyd remain seated because this hearing was for rezone only and that the City Council had already taken this issue under advisement for annexation. Chairman Olsen asked Ron Hough if he concurred with his recommendation and Ron Hough stated he did as long as Commissioner Boyd felt that she could be fair and that it would not 10ias her decision. Commissioner B0yd indicated that it would. Ron Hough indicated that she should not vote on the issue. Chairman Olsen indicated that she could stay. Ron Hough began his presentation by stating that this was a pre-annexation plan and zoning using the overhead to show the area in question. The area is a 15.22 acre area, currently in the County, consisting of about 15 properties. The City has received a letter of intent to annex the property into the City and the City is processing this in accordance with the 75% petition method, which is the method we typically use for annexation. Before it is annexed into the City, we hold a public hearing to determine what the most appropriate comprehensive plan designation should be after it enters the City as well as what the City zoning for the property should be. In this case we are not proposing to change the Comprehensive Plan radically, we are proposing to designate it LDR (low density residential). Mr. Hough presented an overhead map showing the lot sizes as well as what is currently on the lots, indicating that most of the lots are vacant, approximately 6 have a single family home on them. Most of the area is vacant and would probably be proposed for a residential development of some type. The issue tonight is what Comprehensive Plan and Zoning should be upon annexation. We are not reviewing the design of the sub-division. The Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan currently show Urban Low Residential, which is a density of 1 to 9 dwelling units per acre. The City's consistent Comp Plan designation is 1 to 8 dwelling units per acre. This is slightly lower in density and this is the recommendation to designate it low density residential when it comes into the City. Within in that category, we have several zones that could be applied that go up to 8 units per acre, single family 1, 2, 3 and duplex are the primary zones. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council and that recommendation will go into the annexation package which then goes to the boundary review board for their approval and eventually get adopted as far as the annexation. Any questions? Commissioner Dingfield asked regarding the list of lot numbers, number 5 and the unknown one, are we to assume that those are the two pieces on the waterfront? Ron Hough indicated on the map the location of the unknown one Commissioner Dinefield was unable to locate lot number 5. Ron Hough indicated that lot 5 was also a small strip. Ron Hough indicated that we should have some testimony on this issue as he received several phone calls today. Commissioner Robinson wanted clarification that this proposal before us tonight is not to PAGE -3- consider the value or merit of the annexation into the City. We are only to recommend that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to bring it into compliance and consistency with the City and County. This is the zoning designation of an already approved LDR. Ron Hough indicated that the LDR is in the County jurisdiction. Chairman Olsen asked if this was under the new Comprehensive Plan of the County or the Old Comprehensive Plan. Mr Hough indicated it was the one they adopted in December 1994 which was declared invalid. Chairman Olsen asked what it was before the invalid one? R0n Hough was unsure, he thought it was about the same, urban designation, low density residential designation. Not sure on the density figure, as it was over a year ago. The County's designation now have interim zoning on the area and the interim zoning is also Urban Residential. Therefore, any way it goes it is about the same density whether it is inside the City or not, of course, when it comes into the City, the City has the ability to change the zoning on it and we could up zone it or down zone it or whatever else is most appropriate. In this case it is surrounded by multiple family designation, an apartment complex, and mostly single family suburban type subdivisions around the East side. If we zoned it single family 3, chances are we would end up with a similar type of subdivision in this area, maybe more than one, it depends on how it is designed. Proponents: David Smith, with Randall, Alexander and Smith and resides in Poulsbo. Mr. Smith is the proponent for the annexation and Mr. Vergeer is the seller of the properties. Our objective is to eventually establish a residential project to provide predominately housing for sale to aim basically at the incoming working people that are being shifted here from other ports throughout the western United States, and that is basically our target market. Chairman Olsen asked if this was not a zoning only issue? Ron Hough stated that it was Comprehensive Plan and Zoning only. Chairman Olsen stated that what he builds or doesn't build is that something we deal with now? Ron Hough answered no--that we are talking about the density and the type of development that would go in the zone that you would be approving or recommending, single family 3, that zone allows only single family homes, it doesn't allow duplexes or apartments, gas stations or anything like that--that is what we are considering. Jerry. vergeer, owner of the majority of the property that we are dealing with and is available for any questions. PAGE -4- Commissioner Stone asked what properties do you own--would you mind pointing out on the map. vie, ri:y__Y_e~g~ proceeded to the map and outlined the properties owned. D_9.11g_~e!g~, lives north of the annexation area, wants to say that he supports the basic annexation process and thinks it is appropriate to have the property in the City under growth management and all of those issues Concerns with the level of the zoning, the SF3 designation, as well as the impact on the neighbors around the property. Supports SF2. Jim McDonald, resident of the area stated his concern with regard to the traffic in the area. Supports SF2. Thinks it should be a PUD. John McConnell, resident of the area, concerned with the traffic in the area and the impact on the schools. Denise West, resident of the area concerned with the traffic and supports SF2. Margaret Vamvas, resident of the area, concerned with the height of the dwellings and supports SF2. Gary. Clauson, resident of the area, concerned with access and potential for increased vandalism. Evie Clauson, resident of the area was concerned with devaluation of her property. Carl Shulmer, resident of the area and is conerned about intxuding on his property for access and what his rights are a the owner. Ron Hough asked if it is 10 feet wide? Carl Shulmer answered yes it is. R_.o..o__~o_u_gh stated flaat it may provide access to that one lot or something but it would not be the access to a subdivision. It is much to substandard to provide access to the subdivision. The only real access to this whole area is either on Tracyton Beach Road or 29th Street. Those are the two access points. John McConnell asked how do you prevent people from accessing the road. Ron Hough asked which road, the little 10 foot wide road? If the road is privately owned I guess you can put a gate on it. It is not a public street, it is a private way of some sort, I guess. The gentleman that just spoke said he owned it, I believe. He can put a gate on it." Carl Shulmer reiterated his concerns about people accessing his property. PAGE -5- R n_.Q_q__.~Lq~ stated that we are not sure the access right to all of those properties. There are about 15 properties there and I am not sure that all of them have good access for development and if someone wanted to build a house on any particular one of them we would want to know how they are going to get in and out. That is sort of a design issue rather than a zoning issue. Those things are going up further down the road when we get some sort of a plan for development and that will show what kind of an access program they are going to develop along with the plan. That is not what we are considering tonight, because we do not have proposal. This is really an annexation issue. Chairman Olsen stated that the owner of the property will not access through Mr. Shulmer's property. Dick McConahay, resident of the area, concerned with SF3 designation, value of their property, quality of the neighborhood, supports SF2. Jerome Nelson, resident of the area, concerned with impact on sewer system. ~ indicated that from hearing the speakers it appeared the consensus was for SF2. Stated building heights are the same SF1, SF2, and SF3--30 feet. Stated reason for recommendation of SF3 was because it is efficient density for providing public services. Stated pros and cons for higher and lower density. Chairman Olsen closed the public hearing to the Commission. Commissioner Robinson reiterated the purpose of the hearing was zoning only. Commissioner Dingfield asked Ron Hough what the sizes of the lots that are located around E. 28th and E. 29th? indicated that he was unsure. Chairman Olsen asked Ron Hough if the area already located in the City if in fact it is. SF2? Ron Houeh indicated that it was indicated SF3. Commissioner Stone stated he felt it is important to look at compatibility with the neighborhood. Motion by Commissioner Stone to forward a recommendation to the City Council that the area to be included in the Tracyton Beach Annexation be designated as follows upon annexation, Comprehensive Plan Designation LDR with Zoning Map reference of SF2. Motion seconded by Debra Jackson. Question called: Olsen, yes; Boyd, abstain; Stone, yes; Robinson, no; Hancock, no; Jackson, yes; Dingfield, yes. Motion passes. Heating//2 - Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Chairman Olsen announced the second hearing and asked the appearance of fairness questions. PAGE -6- Ron Hough presented the staff report with regard to the zoning text amendment as it pertains to recycling centers. 'Definitions were drafted for recycling terms. Proposing to amend the land use tables of the zoning ordinance to allow recycling centers in the Industrial Park Zone by special use permit and in addition to where it is allowed in the Industrial General Zone and General Business Zone. Amend the same table to allow recycling collection stations by special use permit in the General Business Zone/Shopping Center Zone and the Industrial Park Zone and the Industrial General Zone. The recycling collection station limited is proposed to allow that outright in all zones when it meets recycling collection station design standards. These are for public use facilities only. Chairman Olsen requested public input. T m_.o_w_T_fi_g~, Bremerton resident, agrees with 99 % of the proposal. Concern with the collection stations turning into garbage dumps. Chairman Olsen closed the public hearing to the Commission. Commissioner Stone in response to Mr. Triggs remarks questioned paper and cardboard bins'? Ron Hough indicated that there are already paper and cardboard bins throughout the City and it would be difficult to require them to landscape around them and added that they are not really a problem. Commissioner B0yd asked if there are any controls over the bins to require them to empty them? Commissioner Stone indicated that the Lion's club has several bins and that Brem-Air is good about emptying them. Also questioned recycling center design centers, with regard to the landscaping. Ron Hough indicated the landscaping requirements are for the public facilities, not for example, apartment complexes. Commissioner Robinson questioned definition #3, recycling center and recycling collection both have attached to them approval of a SUP, the collections station limited does not. Ron Hough indicated that it is good to be able to review them under the SUP, because you are never sure what that are going to look like. Commissioner Stone asked that the limited situation applies primarily to apartment complex, etc.? Ron Hough responded not necessarily, it could be a private operation on a vacant lot, limited to lighter weight recyclables. Commissioner Dingfield asked if the City were to establish public recycling collection centers, would that open up the door for removing the mandatory paid requirements for residential residents? PAGE -7- Ron Hough indicated that was not the intent, but would supplement the program. Commissioner Robinson asked Ron Hough what the down side of including cardboard and paper'? R n H__Q_q__H_9_.O_~ indicated the old ones could be grandfathered in. The new ones would have to meet the standards. R n_.o.g__H__o, ggh reminded the Commission of Mr. Triggs concern with regard to the landscaping. Chairman Olsen asked if that would be taken care of by staff?. Ron Hough indicated that it would be treated like a new parking lot going in. Chairman Olsen recommended that paper and cardboard be added to any motion made. Motion by Robinson, after reviewing and considering the proposed amendments and input provided by the public and by City staff, I f'md the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to meet the City's approval criteria with the addition of accommodating both paper and cardboard recyclable products and I move that these amendment be recommended for City Council for approval. Second by Commissioner Stone. Question Called. Boyd, yes; Stone, yes; Robinson, yes; Hancock, yes; Jackson, yes; Dingfield, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes. Heating//3 - Our Lady Star of the Sea Parish Chairman 01sen announced the heating and asked the appearance of fairness question. Commissioner Hancock indicated that he is a member of the parish and asked the audience if he should remove himself or stay. ~ stated that the audience should not have to object and that if anyone on the Commission has a conflict they should remove themself. Ron Hough added that Commissioner Hancock had abstained on the first decision a couple of weeks ago. Commissioner Hancock left the room. Jack Allingham presented the staff presentation. Redevelop a school at their current location on 6th Street. Changes have been made to the plan since the hearing in November. Application for a site plan review and special use permit and a zoning ordinance special exception for a reduced front yard setback. Also the parish plans to use a security fence which exceeds height limits. Vacation and relocation of the alley. Planning staff recommends approval of the right- of-way vacation. PAGE -8- Jerry Soriano stated his area of concern is that the hedge and fence get put in as well as that the alley will be in existence before construction of the building. Additional concerns with the location of the dumpster as well as the timing of the dumpster dumping. Also, he would like to see the work done during reasonable hours. Expressed concern about receiving notifications fi.om the Planning Department. Dave Fergus, architect for the project indicated that all parties have agreed to the site plan proposed. Indicated that there are still some sequence construction issues that need to be worked through. Sylvia Wilson, resident of the area indicated that all of her concerns have been resolved. Gentleman from the Church, appreciates the efforts of the architect and the neighbors to come to an agreement. Chairman Olsen closed the hearing to the Commission. Commissioner Stone asked the staff if this would require separate motions for the vacation and the site plan review. Jack Allingham indicated yes. Commissioner Robinson questioned the purpose of the Special Use requirement is because of the nature of the proposal for the school and the Special Exception stipulation concerns the set back variance and the fence/hedge height that exceed the current zoning definition. Jack Allingham indicated that was correct. Commissioner Jackson added that she was happy to see the two parties come to an agreement. Commissioner Stone moved approval of the model motion on the vacation of the right-of-way. Seconded by Commissioner Boy& Question: Stone, yes; Robinson, yes; Jackson, yes; Dingfield, yes; Boyd, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes. Commissioner Dingfield stated she was happy to see that the neighbors and the church were able to work this out and that all the safety issues were addressed and feels it will be a delightful addition to the City and neighborhood. Commissioner Dingfield moved approval of the Special Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Zoning Ordinance Special Exception for Our Lady Star of the Sea School subject to the following conditions: that the properly drawn legal document be filed on the parking agreement with the County Auditor, that the applicant provide a landscape plan prior to the issuance of building permits as outlined in the model motion and that the applicant provide the handicapped ramps on their site plan, that the school sign located in the right-of-way on the comer of 6th and Veneta PAGE -9- be moved out of the right-of-way and that a storm water management plan be submitted tbr review by the City 'Engineer. Seconded by Commissioner Stone. Question called: Jackson, yes; Dingfield, yes; Boyd, yes; Stone, yes; Robinson, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes. Jack Allingham reiterated what the Commission approved and went over the appeal process. Public Hearing//4. - Tennyson Special Exception Commissioner 0Ben asked the appearance of fairness question. Shane Jen$¢n presented the staff report. Original hearing was held back in August. Commission denied the Special Exception and the Tennyson's appealed it to the City Council. In the mean time the Tennyson presented the Planning Staff with documents showing some neighbors endorsement of the project, as well as a letter from an Engineer supporting the retaining wall. In light of the new information the City Council remanded it back to the Planning Commission to hear the new information. Staff recommendation is approval. Ron Hough asked if staff had reviewed the additional information and if that had any impact on the original recommendation. Shane Jenscn indicated that it would not, since staff had already recommended approval. The additional information confirmed approval. Commissioner Stone indicated that one issue they had concerns with during the last heating was the Engineers endorsement and that the letter presented was a rather weak endorsement. Shane Jensen indicated that as far as the Building Department is concerned that if the wall is 4 feet or higher that the design needs an Engineer's stamp and if that stamp is there, it is fine with them. Commissioner Boyd indicated that in the original heating discussion was held regarding the safety of children with regard to the height of the wall. Shane Jensen indicated that the Engineer stamp is simply to verify structure stability and has nothing to do with safety of children climbing on the wall. Commissioner Stone read from a letter from Mr. Holland concerning the excavation for the wall. Commissioner Robinson stated the importance of the Engineer's stamp and that the stamp is not to be taken lightly. He also recapped the past hearing and the conflicts between the neighbors and indicated that it appears that the neighbors have come to an agreement. PAGE -10- ¢3-- Commissioner Hancock asked if we are still a "misguided" commission? Commissioner Robinson answered that he would not be surprised. Steve Dickson, attorney for the Tennyson's, reiterated how this issue got back to the Planning Commission. Indicated that the neighbor's have come to an agreement. Stated that rather than look at the Engineer's letter, look at the Engineer's stamp on the plans. Stated that the neighbor's are recommending that the Commission approve the special exception. Requested the Commission to approve. Commissioner Dingfield expressed concern over the fact that the Tennyson's had they gone through the proper permitting steps to begin with, this issue would not be before the Commission. Also stated that the Tennyson's have a history of ignoring the permitting process. Steve Dicks0n disagreed with the statement of a history of not complying with the permitting process. He agreed that they did not seek the proper permits in this particular case and they ordinarily should have. Discussion followed regarding the set-back requirements. Davis West, attorney representing the Williams and Bushnell families in this matter. With regard to the issue of Mr. Holland's letter, he wanted to point out that there is no set back issue that he is aware of. Stated that Mrs. Williams concern was not that her son would climb on the wall. Her concern was that her son plays next to the wall and was concerned that the wall would collapse onto her son. The Engineer's stamp answers her concern. Suggested looking at this as if it was coming before you for the f'n'st time with support from the neighbors. The settlement agreement that the neighbors have is contingent on the Tennyson's being able to keep the rock wall as is. It is in the best interest of all parties to grant the permission. Commissioner Stone discussed the matter at the last meeting on behalf of the Williams. Wondered if that issue will come to the Commission next if they approve this exception. David West assured the Commission that it would not because the Williams's purchased the lot behind them and moved the boundary line such that the corner of their garage meets the set back requirement, they have final approval from the City for their garage. Chairman Olsen closed the heating to the Commission. Commissioner Stone discussed the fact that the previous staff report, there was a reference to the fact that retaining walls are very common in the area and that there have been violations of the set back and height requirements, etc. Were most of these sites referred to built prior to the 83 zoning. Shane Jensen indicated that it is hard to tell. We don't require permits for walls under 4 feet high and many of them are under that. Shane Jensen stated that this issue should be looked at as if the wall had not been built. Are PAGE - 11- there special circumstances, are they compatible with surrounding areas, would they be safe as proposed. Commissioner Stone asked if the Commission should totally overlook what appeared to be and contrary to the th'st attorney, it seems to me that this is not a first experience for Mr. Tennyson. The wall was built without a permit and does not meet the set back requirements. We have documents attached, which I assume are somewhat correct, that would lead us to believe that Mr. Tennyson does have a knowledge of Building Code requirements in both the City and County and in the past has chosen to ignore them. I, as a person, find this a little bit offensive and I am asking you as staff if this is something we should be totally insensitive to and is it not part of the issue? Commissioner Boyd stated that there is the matter of the movement of land, bulldozing was done without a permit. Shane Jensen stated that all of those thing have happened and that is why this has been so difficult, because we know there have been some things done without permits, whether they were done that way I can't say. The applicants have said they did not understand the set back requirements for retaining walls, well I have listed that because I do not know otherwise. I know what they told me so I put it in the staff report. Commissioner Stone asked Mr. West if the Commission does not grant this special exception, what will happen? David West stated that he believed the agreement that they have will not work and this could drag on for years. Commissioner Dingfield asked about the other people that Mr. West referred to that would appeal in the blatant ignoring of the permitting process. This hurts the people of Bremerton by not following the rules. David West agreed, that maybe there should be some sanctions for not going through the proper process but agreed with Shane's recommended approach that none of this happened and this is your first time with this issue. Commissioner Dingfield stated that it is difficult to set aside a wall this big with all the bulldozing that went on. David West stated he understood but it would be pointless to make them tear it down and have them come back asking for permission to put it back up. Commissioner Robinson reiterated Shane's directive of considering the issue as though the wall as not there. Shane Jensen stated that had it came in today with the proper information it would have been an PAGE -12- administrative decision and the Commissioner would never have seen it. Chairman Olsen stated that last time the neighbors were taking sides. Now, as the attorney have stated, the neighbors have worked it out and we should move tbrward. Mr. Tennyson, by hiring an attorney has probably paid more that he would of had he done it right the th-st time. Commissioner Stone commented that his families relationship or knowledge of Mr. Tennyson goes far back beyond the attorneys acquaintanceship with them. It is with a great deal of disgust, however, that I recommend approval of the exception request. Second by Commissioner Boyd. Question called: Dingfield, no; Boyd, yes; Stone, yes; Robinson, yes; Hancock, yes; Jackson, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes. Shane Jensen stated that this decision is subject to the appeal period. Old Business: Chairman Olsen discussed a letter that was received from Don Pratt. Chairman Olsen invited anyone to attend the downtown Waterfront Task Force meeting. Asked for a volunteer to attend the Downtown Merchants Association. Discussion followed regarding the various committees that the Commission is on. Commissioner Dingfield disccused the proposed Council/Commission workshop. Mr. Hough said he would work with the Council to set up a date. Commissioner Stone discussed the terms of the Commission. Stated he researched the Ordinance creating the Commission and wondered where the April 1st expiration date came from. Chairman Olsen discussed the January 20th Port Townsend meeting. Ron is going to look into getting a van from Kitsap Transit. Commissioner Robinson was appointed to coordinate the travel plans. Meeting Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Marylyn Waibel, Acting Secretary