Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/14/96 AGENDABREMERTON cITY COUNCIL 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FEBRUARY 14 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 24, 1996 #AB96-032 I B. Minutes - January 31, 1996 3. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 5. MAYORtS REPORT 6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) NEW BUSINESS A. One Year YMCA Membership For Ail Qualified City Employees And officials ORDINANCES A. Ordinance #4543 (Second Reading)Restricting Storage Of Oversize Vehicles #AB96-030 J~ (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE) PUBLIC HEARING - 6;00 P.M. OR LATER Continued Public Hearing Tracyton Beach Pre-Annexation Zoning And Comprehensive Plan Designation; And Ordinance (First Reading) Resolution #2535, Regarding Recovery Of Fees For The Removal Of Garbage On The Property At 1340 Hayward Avenue Ordinance (First Reading) To Amend The City's Comprehensive Plan To Comply With The Final Decision And Order Of The Growth Management Hearings Board #AB96-031 ~ AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1996 FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: February 14, 1996 City Council John Law, President 2-6-96 ~:' (comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: RECOMMENDATION: 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: ?ULLED TABLED 20UMCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOT~CE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: AMENDED 11. AGENDA -KILL NO: TAPE #1351 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES J~%NUARY 24t 1996 #0015 #0036 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 24, 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 L on 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 Randy Wilkinson of St. Paul's Episcopal Church. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes -- December 27, 1995 #AB96-013 B. Minutes -- January 3, 1996 #AB96-014 M/S/C/U(Neville/Farr) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. 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 24, 1996, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 194253, 194498 through 194621 in the amount of $189,288.99; and Regular Payroll for the period ending 1-15-96, in the amount of $670,836.26. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Fart announced Districts #6, #7 and #8 will hold a combined Neighborhood Meeting on February 1, 1996, 7:00 P.M., at the Bremerton School District Office. The main topic that evening will be a presentation of the various aspects of the downtown redevelopment -Fletcher Wright/Sinclair Landing project. He encouraged the public to attend that meeting in order to get first hand factual information and to offer their suggestions or register their concerns. Even though this project is located downtown, it will affect everyone in the City, i.e. one way might be increasing revenue to the tax base that would afford a lot more services the citizens would like to have provided by the City. There will also be time for residents of the three districts to ask questions or TAPE #1351 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 24, 1996 Page 2 of 10 register concerns. Mr. Montaomez~ stated he hoped Travis Baker of The Sun would attend the joint Districts Neighborhood Meeting to report on neighborhood news. Mr. Colvin announced the next District #1 Neighborhood Meeting is scheduled for February 22, 1996, 7:00 P.M., at the Parks and Recreation Center. The main topic for that meeting will be the Fletcher Wright proposal for developing the downtown waterfront. He encouraged his fellow Council members to take a tour of the City's wastewater treatment plant with Councilman Montgomery as tour guide. Again, he has been contacted by a citizen requesting he do something about the Scotch broom problem. His response to that question was that he was not going to do anything, but he did want to know what others want to do about it. He encouraged anyone with a solution to the Scotch broom problem to attend the February 22 meeting. Mr. Winters noted the Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Meeting of January 18 was canceled due to the snow and was rescheduled for February 1, 6:30 P.M., at the Cascade Natural Gas Building. The subject of discussion at that meeting will be the weed problem in Kitsap Lake. He encouraged the youth of our community, if they are 18 years or older, to register to vote. Mr. Law reminded everyone Council will hold a Study Session following the Council meeting and the topics to be discussed are: Contract for Ben Pollock and the revised SLA agreement. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Horton reported she and other City representatives are about to start some legislative rounds in Olympic to address the passenger-only ferry service to Bremerton. She encouraged those interested in the passenger-only ferry service to contact their Legislators to let them know how they feel about passenger-only service. She believes all of the components exist, it is just a collective will to see that Bremerton gets the two passenger-only boats and operating funds. She believes the funding is available in various areas and just needs to be pulled together. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Don Larson, President Washington Scuba Alliance, reported he received an interesting piece of mail from Receptacle World, which he passed onto the City Council. He was still concerned that the green garbage can in from of the Pennys building was without a liner and he hoped it could be fixed before the tourist season starts. He pointed out Thursday, January 25, is Citizens Lobby Day in Olympia and if people couldn't go to Olympia they can voice TAPE #1351 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 24, 1996 Page 3 of 10 their concerns and ideas by call 1-800-562-6000. He would like to see Substitute Senate Bill 5332 for underwater parks passed by the Legislature. Funding for underwater parks has not been approved, but on a more positive note his group has a meeting with State Parks and Department Of Fisheries on February 1, at Saltwater State Park, where they will work out a plan of action to proceed with getting some underwater parks. As everyone knows, his ultimate dream is to have an underwater park in Bremerton or nearby. Carol ~tkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, reported they held the first official Blackberry Festival Committee meeting on January 11. And, on this date they held their first official St. Patrick's Day celebration committee meeting planning for the parade and evening event. Their next committee meeting is scheduled for January 29, 9:00 A.M., in the Main Street Office. Bremerton Main Street Association conducted a survey of all property owners in the downtown core area and are developing an updated study on how much available space is in downtown for both office and retail. That information will be available to the public. Evelyn Mosh&y reminded everyone that the "What Black History Means To Me Panel" will be at the Bremerton School District Office on January 30, at 3:45 P.M. As the Publicity Chairman for the Christmas In April Program, she announced Christmas In April will be held April 27th. If an individual or a group would like to volunteer to work on this event, they can call 478-0364 or the Home Builders Association. Margie Singleton, 820 Pacific Avenue, asked when she could expect an answer from the City in response to her letter that addressed two issues (1) Kitsap County locating a facility at the southwest corner of National Avenue and Kitsap Way and whether or not a traffic study was needed to allow such use at that location; (2) a Building Permit requirement for remodeling work at her brothers store at 820 Pacific Avenue. Mayor morton stated Ms. Singleton has two separate issues: (1) a Special Use Permit was applied for in September 1995, by Kitsap County, which did go through an Administrative Special Use Permit process and the property was then posted on October 23. The Special Use Permit was granted and the use listed by the County on the application was for a Street Maintenance Facility. She noted they may have paint on site for stripping roads, but other than that the City is not aware of any hazardous materials to be stored on that site. In talking with Jack Allingham, of the Planning Department, he indicated this use would be greater or less than many other uses allowable and equal to or less than the previous use. It was not her place to comment on why the County chose that site, nor is it the City's place to dictate where someone wants to locate, that is a matter of the private sector market. (2) The building on Pacific Avenue, it does TAPE #1351 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 24, 1996 Page 4 of 10 need a Building Permit to allow the remodel work. Some time ago the city received a complaint that building was being worked on without a permit, which is what triggered a site visit. At that time, there was a discussion with one of the owners. The City is sending a letter to the owners outlining that they do need to apply for a Building Permit. The city does inspections because of life safety issues that protect the owners of buildings as well as the public. Elizabeth.Buell, High Avenue, stated she has heard talk several times about wanting another passenger-only ferry, but she didn't know what kind of passenger-only ferry is wanted. The first passenger-only ferry was great, but the second one is terrible. Mayor Horton explained we are looking for two passenger-only boats that are low wake or no wake vessels that will not erode the shoreline along Rich Passage and thus be able to make the crossing commute in 35 minutes. Because the current boats create a high wake, they must run at reduced speeds that result in an hour crossing time. It is felt that a 35-minute crossing would encourage a lot of business and residential development in the City as well as Kitsap County. Del Knauss stated last Wednesday Mr. Charlie Brown brought up a question of a conflict of interest of Council members serving on the Sinclair Landing Association. He asked the city Attorney if State law was being violated with such an arrangement? Ian Sievers stated he would not respond with an answer because it would be in an Attorney-Client communication, which Mr. Knauss would not have access. ?A - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOUGH, BECK & BAIRD, INC. FOR EVERGREEN PARK SEAWALL REPAIR AND-~ABITAT PLANTING. #AB96-015 Hough, Beck & Baird, Inc. were selected last year, through the bidding process, to prepare the Evergreen Park Master Plan. Their professionalism and expertise have been excellent, resulting in a comprehensive document for the future development of this popular park. This professional service agreement allows them to design the architectural and engineering plans required to stabilize the eroding shoreline at Evergreen Park and prepare the permits necessary to accomplish this work. The action before the City Council is approval of the agreement. The cost of this project shall not exceed $12,484.00. Jim Spencer, Parks and Recreation Director, stated Hough, Beck & Baird, Inc., were the master planners for the development of Evergreen Park and the City has had good success with them in the redesign of the park. Council allocated $150,000 of Real Estate Excise Tax for Phase I development of the park and what they are proposing at this time is to use $12,484.00 as step i towards the TAPE #1351 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 24, 1996 Page 5 of 10 restoration of the shoreline, which is in disrepair. It is felt that Hough, Beck & Baird is in the best position to do the work because of their expertise in the master planning and they have already had contacts with the Department Of Fisheries and others, which could assist the project in a timely fashion. Public comment - none #0892 Mr. Neville stated he is very much in favor of this proposal, which will start the first step of Phase 1 of the expansion of Evergreen Park. Everyone has been aware of the shoreline deterioration for several years and he was pleased to see some progress being made to move forward on the improvement of Evergreen Park. Mr. Winters pointed out the City will be receiving a report within the first 30 days of the contract, if approved. He questioned if that report would be brought before Council at a Study Session? Mr. Spencer stated he anticipated it would be presented at a Study session. Mr. Overson asked if this was the same group that had designed and built facilities around the world? Mr. Spencer stated yes. Mr. Fart asked if restoration of the shoreline will be completed by August 19967 Mr. Spencer stated he believed that time frame was optimistic, but he hopes that is the case. Mr. Fart asked what would happen if the work isn't complete by that time and a final review is still due? Mr. Spencer explained the contract would need to be extended. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Winters) to authorize~and direct the Mayor to execute the professional service agreement with Hough, Beck & Baird, Inc. to provide the design and permit documents for construction and repair of Evergreen Park seawall and habitat planting. 7B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH R.W. BECK, INC. FOR McKENNA FALLS INTAKE/UNION RIVER PROJECTS DESIGN, ~AB96-016 A professional services agreement has been negotiated with R.W. Beck, Inc. to provide design and permitting assistance for three projects on the Union River. The projects are a new intake structure on the West Branch of the Union River, by-pass structure, and gate modifications at the McKenna Falls Intake Facility, and river bank stabilization on the Union River between McKenna Falls and Casad Dam. The services will include hydraulic modeling and design, permit drawings, and construction plans and specifications. R.W. Beck, Inc. was selected after reviewing qualifications of five firms on the City's Consultant Roster. R.W. Beck, Inc. is #1091 TAPE #1351 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 24, 1996 Page 6 of 10 qualified to perform all aspects of this project. The amount of the professional services agreement is $78,972.00. The action before the city Council is approval of the agreement. Tim Richard, Senior Engineer, explained all three projects identified in this proposal are related to the surface water intake facility associated with the Union River. The surface water intake on the west branch of the Union River was built during the 1930's and a number of maintenance problems have occurred and often times fills with debris. They have also experienced problems keeping the screens clean when using that intake facility. The proposed work is to construct a bypass structure so that the basin can be cleaned out in front of that intake. The McKenna Falls modifications are the addition of a bypass pipe also to allow routine maintenance, some stabilization of the downstream slope and modification to the sluice gate and weir to allow flow improvements through the intake basin. The third part of the project is for the Union River slope stabilization to correct some severe erosion problems along the Union River between Casad Dam and McKenna Falls intake, which is jeopardizing the access road to the valve house on Cascad Dam that is used to control the water flow. The professional services agreement includes the hydraulic analysis and modeling, permit systems and design of the projects, including contracts, plans and specifications. The total amount of the contract is $78,972.00, with approximately $15,000 for the stream stabilization work coming from the Water Forestry Operating Budget and $64,000 from the Water Capital Fund. Public comment - none. Mr. Winters asked the City Attorney to explain the recommended change in the contract as outlined in Section #7, which was given to the Council members prior to the meeting. Ian Sievers explained the change has to do with substitution of the 2nd and 3rd paragraph in Section 7 of the contract that addresses indemnity and hold harmless clause and substitutes the language for those obligations and duties of the consultant. He recommended the change be included in the motion substituting page 2 of the contract. Mr. Overson asked if there was a correlation between the Capital Fund portion and Tasks #1 and #2? Mr. Rich&rd stated Mr. Overson was correct, the $15,191.00 from the Forestry Operating Fund is Task #2, the bank stabilization project; and Tasks #1,#3, #4, #5 and #6 are funded out of the Water Capital Fund. M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Farr) to authorize and direct the Mayor to execute the professional service agreement with R.W. Beck, Inc., in the amount of $78,972.00 to provide engineering design services for TAPE #1351 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 24, 1996 Page 7 of 10 the Union River projects, including the amended page #2. 8A - ORDINANCE NO. 4542 (SECOND READING) INCREASING PENALTY FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE OF DISABLED PERSONS PARKING, ~B96-010 Ian Sievers, city Attorney, stated at the time of first reading of the ordinance Elizabeth Buell asked how citizens could get involved in illegal parking violations and he stated the City didn't favor citizen arrest. However, after looking at letters in the newspaper last week and Ms. Goodell's comments in the newspaper article in The Sun, he met with Ms. Goodell and Police Chief DuFrense. A decision was made to extend the program of citizen involvement that they have used for overtime parking around Olympic College at night when Parking Regulators are not available. This does enlist the support of the public in enforcing this ordinance. If the public witnesses violation of reserved parking, they need to simply note the time, description of the vehicle (make, model, license number) and a description of the particular space and call that information in to either the Parking Regulation Division or the City Attorney's office. That information would be taken over the phone and an affidavit prepared for their signature and then his office will issue and mail the infraction complaint. Ellzabeth Buell, High Avenue, stated at the previous Council meeting someone mentioned having the penalty of $175.00 placed on the Handicap Parking sign. She supported having that posted and felt it would be a deterrent to keep people from parking illegally. Mr. Fart asked if he were to turn in someone's license plate number along with the other necessary information to cause them to be cited he would be concerned that his identity would be revealed. He asked if there would be any guarantee of anonymity? Mr. Sievers explained the person needs to understand they will be identified and should be willing to make the commitment to possibly be a witness if the case is contested. It is not a case where they could take a confidential informant statement and verify and follow up with enough information through Police investigation. Mr. Winters asked what happens if someone gives false information to the city about a violation and is there any liability to the City in the event that person never committed the alleged violation? Mr. Sievers stated the city would be relying on a sworn affidavit and there is no liability for pursuing the charge because the City would have probably cause based on that affidavit. He would caution anyone from filing a false affidavit because there are penalties for perjury and an obstructing charge for providing false information that led to prosecution and both of those are misdemeanors. #1377 TAPE #1351 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 24, 1996 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Colvin asked how does the citizens participation for enforcement fit into second reading of the ordinance? Mr. Sievers stated it has nothing to do with the ordinance, but was a response to a question relating to this type offense. The ordinance only increases the penalty for the offense. He felt the enforcement techniques will be improved with the citizen involvement aspect. Mr. Col¥in stated what it boils down to is one persons' word against another, so he did not see much gain unless the person was actually caught parking illegal. Mr. Sievers stated that was not any different than a lot of the cases the City prosecutes. All parking infractions are the word of the Parking Regulator, who writes the ticket. Mr. Colvin pointed out the difference is the Parking Regulators are Officers. Mr. Neville emphasized the Police Department and Parking Regulators always need help from the citizenry of Bremerton and this is no different than any other case. M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to pass Ordinance No. 4542 on second reading, amending the parking code to increase penalties for disabled parking violations; and amending BMC Title 10. 9A - PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION NO. 2537, REGARDING RECOVERY OF FEES FOR THE REMOVAL OF GARBAGE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 833 10TH STREET, ~AB96-017 On November 27, 1995, the City was forced to remove garbage and debris from the property located at 833 10th Street, after the owners, Anthony and Regina Cora, failed to obey a Notice and Order to Remove Refuse within 72 hours. The abatement fund was charged $831.40 for the work. Janet Lunceford, Building Department, stated this complaint first came to her attention in August of 1995, when someone complained there was a sailboat with garbage and debris behind the residence at 833 10th Street. The inspection confirmed the reported condition of the site and she then attempted to contact the owners of the property asking them to remove the garbage within two weeks. That attempt failed and the site was then posted with a 72-hour notice for removal of garbage. On October 16, Officer Moon of the Bremerton Police Department requested her to meet him at the site because there were other problems at that location. Upon her arrival, she found the garbage situation was much worse than before the 72-hour notice was posted. She then posted a second notice, which detailed more garbage so that everyone would be specific about what needed to be removed and it also named the tenant. No response was received from either the owners or the tenant; however, on January 23 she learned from the owner that the tenant is no longer living at the site. Since there was no response by the owner or tenant to remove the garbage, the City was forced to 1519 TAPE #1351 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 24, 1996 Page 9 of 10 perform the work. Ms. Lunceford passed out pictures showing the debris on the site prior to its removal. Public comment - none. Mr. Winters stated after viewing the pictures he estimated it would have cost the owner about $200.00 to clean up the debris, but because he chose to do nothing it was now costing him $831.40. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Winters) to approve Resolution No. 2537, ordering that the fees incurred for the abatement of the garbage and debris at 811 10th Street be collected as reasonable abatement costs, and become a personal obligation against the owners of the property, Anthony and Regina Cota, which if not collected within 30 days, will become a lien against the property. 9B - PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION NO. 2538, REGARDING RECOVERY OF FEES FOR THE REMOVAL OF GARBAGE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1915 #1609 10TH STREET, ~AB96-018 On November 28, 1995, the City was forced to remove garbage and debris from the property located at 1915 10th Street, after the tenant, Darrell Elliott, failed to obey a Notice and Order to Remove Refuse within 72 hours. The abatement fund was charged $546.40 for the work. Janet Lunceford, Building Department, described this situation as a person running a contracting business for mechanical equipment and was storing materials in the yard after being removed from a building/house. The owner was offered the opportunity to clean up the site, which he promised to do and was given two weeks to complete the clean up, but he failed to meet that requirement. Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve Resolution No. 2538, ordering that the fees incurred for the abatement of the garbage and debris at 1915 10th Street be collected as reasonable abatement costs, and become a personal obligation against the tenant of the property, Darrell Elliott and property owner Claude Patterson, which if not collected within 30 days, will become a lien against the property Mr. Farr noted in this instance the tenant is being given 30-days to pay the charges, but if not paid they then become a lien against the property, which doesn't involve the tenant. He asked if there was a notification circuit to the property owner so that they know what will happen to their property if the tenant does not pay? Ms. Lunoefor4 stated the property owner is the tenant's step-father and was involved in the contracting business until he suffered a stroke and confined to a nursing home. The property owner's care giver TAPE #1351 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 24, 1996 Page 10 of 10 was notified that this action was to be taken. Mr. Fart asked if the proposed Council action should include the name of the legal owner. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated yes. The procedure allows collection against either the owner or the person responsible, who may be the tenant. He believed it should be a joint obligation because that relationship is needed to make the lien against the site make sense. Mr. Winters asked when the first notice was sent out did it include both the owner of the property/and tenant? Ms. Lunceford explained the first notice went to the owner of the property until she was notified by his sister that he was confined to a nursing home and the property was occupied by his stepson, Mr. Elliott. Both the owner and the tenant were notified of the action. Mr. Winters questioned the importance of adding the owner's name to the motion? Councilman Montgomery and Councilman Colvin requested that the motion be amended to include Claude Patterson as owner of the property. Unanimous affirmative vote. With no further business meeting adjourned at 6:34 P.M. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk JOHN LAW, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/JL/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault AGENDA BILL 1. SUBJECT: BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 31, 1'996 FOR AGENDA OF: February ORIGINATING DEPT: C~y co,,nel ORIGINATOR: 3ohn Lmm: Pr~i~n~ DATE SUBMITTED: 2-7-96 2. CLEAiRANCES: (comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: ENDORSEMENT__ INFO1RlW~ATION__ APPROVED BY CoLINcIL ~~NT FOR SUBMITTAL: co cIL PRESIDENT' 4. S~Y STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR'COUNCIL ACTION: 8. RECOM/~ENDATION: 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: AMENDED TAPE #1352 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY $1t 1996 #0038 #0056 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 31, 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 Pastor Don Welt of Eastgate Assembly of God Church. President Law announced a Study Session to discuss "Utility Rates" will be held immediately following this meeting. On Monday, February 5, starting at 6:00 P.M., at the Public Works Complex Conference Room at the Oyster Bay Avenue facility there will be a joint meeting of the City Council and Bremerton Planning Commission to discuss the following: Mission of the Planning Commission, Decision Making Process and Terms Of Office. Also, Item 2B has been removed from the Consent Agenda and will be discussed under item 7H. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - January 10, 1996 #AB96-019 M/S/C/U(Neville/Winters) presented. to approve the Consent. Agenda as 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 31, 1996, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 194633, 194635 through 194783 in the amount of $296,484.40; and Retirees' Payroll for the period ending 1-31-96 in the amount of $62,336.27. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Winters announced the Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association will TAPE #1352 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 31, 1996 Page 2 of 14 hold a meeting on February 1, 1996, 6:30 P.M., at the Cascade Natural Gas building. The topic of that meeting will be the weed problem in Kitsap Lake. Mr. Winters plans to bring up for discussion the issue of sidewalks along Harlow Drive at that meeting. Mr. Colvin announced District #1 will hold a Neighborhood Meeting on February 22, 1996, 7:00 P.M., at the Parks and Recreation Center. The main topic at that meeting will be a presentation on the Sinclair Landing project. The issue of Scotch broom is a concern of many seniors and Evelyn Moshay has volunteered to take up that issue and solicit those supporting getting rid of the Scotch broom and what they are willing to do to help in that effort. He hoped Councilman McConnell would get involved with this issue since District #2 borders the affected area. Mr. McConnell pointed out to Mr. Colvin that his district boundary stops about two blocks before it gets to the Scotch broom problem area. He announced District #2 Neighborhood Meeting is scheduled for February 13, 6:30 P.M., at Fire State #3. Speakers at that meeting will be Bob Tulp, Public Works Operations Manager and Randy Witt, City Engineer, to answer questions and concerns relating to streets. If time permitted, they may discuss the issue of parking lot blower noise. Mr. Montgomery explained, for the benefit of those living around Forest Ridge Park, that on January 30 the Street Department crew pushed over a number of old alder trees because they were in danger of falling across power lines and causing a power outage up and down 6th Street. Street crews will continue to work in that area for the next couple of weeks getting the area cleaned up. Mrs. Huff-Menees reminded everyone that Council Districts #6, #7 and #8 will hold a joint Neighborhood Meeting on February 1, 1996, 7:00 P.M., at the Bremerton School District Office; and the program will be the Sinclair Landing project. This past weekend she attended a Growth Management Workshop, that was sponsored by the League Of Women Voters, which she found to be an extremely worthwhile experience. Such forums have been held around the County and have been well attended, bringing about a tremendous exchange of information. The wrap up to present the information complied from those workshops is scheduled for February 3, 9:30 A.M. - 12:30 P.M., at the Keyport Naval Museum Gymnasium. Mr. Fart extended an invitation to Mayor Horton to attend the combined District Neighborhood Meeting on February 1. He feels the Sinclair Landing project is the most important issue facing the City today and encouraged everyone to become familiar with what is being proposed because it directly affects the citizens of TAPE #1352 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 31, 1996 Page 3 of 14 Bremerton. The way he sees it affecting all citizens is having been through two of the City budget planning processes there is no secret this city lacks the same benefits that many Cities have, such as adequate tax base and revenues. In his humble opinion, the budget exercise was like shifting the under funding among the various departments and he believes the Administration does an excellent job of spreading around the money we have and the departments do an excellent job, but each one of those departments could use some more help. It was his understanding that the revenues primarily come from B&O Tax, Property Tax and Sales Tax. This is an opportunity to correct some revenue shortages and benefit all of the citizens and in addition restore some pride in the City. He firmly believes that the downtown is the City's heart and for to long Bremerton has suffered from an image that could be improved greatly. He encouraged people to get familiar with the project and he is confident the more they learn about the project the more exited they will become. He emphasized a lot of good people have put in many hours of effort and unfortunately it is much harder to make a project work than to sit back and criticize and nitpick a project to death. For us not to take advantage of this opportunity and make this project work, which will involve all of our support, would be a huge mistake that we would look back on in future years. He challenged the citizens of Bremerton to get familiar with the project and go to your own individual Council members and make sure they are on board and supportive of this project. Mr. ~eville extended a special "thank you" to the Street Department for their prompt response making City streets safer during the snow and to the citizens in Bremerton for their cautious and courteous driving through the ice and snow. He hoped it is a trend that continues. Mr. Ovmrson complimented the Street Department for keeping City streets in good conditions, especially the steeper ones like 6th Street. In respect to Mr. Farr's comments, he recognized that a lot of activity is picking up on the Sinclair Landing project and -it is every citizens interest to get knowledgeable about the project and to understand the extent of private involvement in this activity and how the public involvement is quite limited. He believes this project will benefit the City, County and the State. Mr. Law echoed the support for the Sinclair Landing project and he believes everyone is interested in getting downtown back on its feet. Having attended two of the Growth Management meetings, he echoed Councilman Huff-Menees' comments on their value and believed the public would enjoy attending the wrap up where they would have an opportunity to get real insight on the objectives of the TAPE #1352 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 31, 1996 Page 4 of 14 different groups. District #3 will hold a Neighborhood Meeting on February 20, 1996, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center and the guest speaker will be Russ Hauge, Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Lynn Horton reported she, along with Council President Law and Council member Huff-Menees, attended the Kitsap Regional Planning Council's workshop on January 30. The intent of that meeting was to determine the main focus of the Regional Planning Council, what is they are trying to achieve, and what specific things do they need to move forward. It was probably the most productive study session that she has been involved in at the KRPC level. There also seemed to be a real effort on the part of everyone that it is time to pull together and move forward to make Growth Management work in Kitsap County and to finally deal with some of the issues that have been bones of contention between the cities and the County for a long time. Primarily, what they talked about were things in the urban growth areas, such as coordinated standards, revenue sharing, what kind of services are provided and who provides them and how they are coordinated. She has great hopes that a lot of their differences can be put aside and finally take on issues that have been long standing and up to this point not dealt with. Mayor Horton announced she will be holding a meeting on Tuesday, February 6, at 5:00 P.M., in the Community Resource Center Office (245 4th Street Building), to discuss "downtown parking". It is her intent to deal primarily with the repark issue that people feel is unfair along with the possible increase in parking fines that would involve giving one-free warning ticket and to do away with the $5.00 ticket and move to a $10.00, and after that the ticket escalate to $25.00 and then $50.00. If someone has four overtime tickets they would be facing a $50.00 fine. The time frame for collecting parking fines would cover a 30-day period, so if one does not have further overtime occurrences in that 30-days then they would be eligible for another warning tickets. Potentially, a person could get 12 warning tickets in a year and never have to get penalized with a fine. It is the City's intent to encourage those who should be in long term parking lots to go into those lots and to encourage the short term turnover people to come downtown. The State Legislature is currently talking about a property tax rollback or lid. Representative Hargrove is proposing that a lid be placed on property taxes at 102-103%. At the present time, cities are allowed to levy up to 106%. If that percentage is changed, the City of Bremerton would be looking at missing a lot of revenues and her issue with that is the State will feel no pain and they will pass it onto cities, counties, School Districts, Fire TAPE #1352 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 31, 1996 Page 5 of 14 Districts and anyone else that is affected by the 106% tax lid. She felt it was only fair, if the State wants to do something with the property tax, they should also feel the pain as much as those other governmental entities. If the legislature succeeds in that attempt, it will affect the level of service provided to the Bremerton community. That kind of rollback would mean approximately $180,000 of lost revenue for the City of Bremerton. On Saturday, February 3, the Bremerton Symphony will be performing at the Bremerton High School Performing Arts Center. Lastly, Mayor Horton introduced Leo Danaher, who was attending the City Council meeting in order to earn his Boy Scout Citizen Community Merit Badge. Leo is the son of Captain Danaher, who is the Captain of the U.S.S. Rainier. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Charlene Burnett, Parks and Recreation Department, invited members of the public to attend a Father/Daughter Dance on February 10, at the Senior Recreation Center. She emphasized fathers and daughters of all ages are welcome to attend this event. Those purchasing their tickets for the dance by February 8 will be eligible for a drawing for a free limousine ride to the dance. Admission to the dance is $10.00 per couple and an additional $5.00 for more than one daughter. Pastor Danny Allen, Grace Pentecostal Church, stated they look forward to the day that Black History Month becomes American History Month and that the shortest day of the year no longer be celebrated as Black History Month. The African-American Museum Board is proud to bring to Kitsap County another exhibit at the Kitsap Mall on February 3, 6:00 P.M., that will honor extraordinary leaders, six African-American Mayors of the State of Washington, five of them will participate as guest speakers at that particular program. A reception for this particular program will be held in the old Hall Mark space at the mall. The exhibit will be located in what is called the old specialty space near J. C. Penneys. John Thomas stated two weeks ago he asked if a $175.00 parking penalty was enough to get a beat Police Officer out of their patrol car, if they were in the area, to enforce illegal parking in a handicap parking space. As of this date, he has still not received a reply to that request. He and his daughter are looking forward to attending the Father/Daughter Dance. Sean Green, Chairman of the TRI-Base Cultural Event Committee, announced a Parade will be held at Naval Submarine Base, Bangor on February 17 at 10;00 A.m.. In years past, that parade has been TAPE #1352 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 31, 1996 Page 6 of 14 perceived as one where only African-Americans can participate. He wished to dispel that idea and emphasized the idea is to honor African-Americans and by your presents there you will be doing just that. A Unity Banquet will be held on February 24, which is a conglomeration of the different Human Rights Organizations in the area. Dr. Jane Taylor, President of Federal Employed Women Worldwide, will be the keynote speaker at that event. Peter Myers, 4317 "D" Street, again expressed his concern that the City was not negotiating with all of the residents/property owners in the condemnation area near the wastewater treatment plant. Gordon McCord, Port Orchard, stated he owns a rental on Sunnyhill Road and he is concerned about the possibility of that property being annexed into the City. His renter of 10 years has horses at that site and he wanted to know if the property was brought into the City would she still be able to have her horses at that location? President Law stated he believed such questions should be directed, in a letter form, to the City. Mr. McCord noted he would like to have his property excluded from any annexation effort in that area. Eliz&~eth Buell, High Avenue, stated she was confused about the white domesticated Scotch broom and there was talk about getting rid of it and planting rhododendrons, but Mayor Horton responded that a more suitable plant would need to be used. As of this date, the public has not been told what might be suitable to replace the Scotch broom. Mayor Horton stated in response to Mr. Thomas' question, she has discussed with Police Chief Paul DuFresne the issues of Police Officers being called out, driving by or witnessing illegal parking in a handicap parking space and then either ticketing the vehicle or calling a Parking Regulator to the site. Past practices will be modified so that if a Police Office sees an infraction they should ticket the vehicle. If someone from the public witnesses a Police Office not writing out a ticket for illegal parking in a handicap parking space when they see the violation, they should call her office with the Patrol car license number as well as the date and time of day of the observation. In response to Mr. Myers comments regarding the purchase of homes in the condemnation area, the City has had several closings on properties and negotiating activities will continue as long as the City is in a negotiating posture. A problem did arise with a number of people, who filed a lawsuit against the City, and found it necessary to confirm with their attorney who was actually doing the negotiating, the attorney or the property owners. Mr. Myers fell into that last category. In reference to Scotch broom, she did not have a solution to the problem at this time; however, she was not sure whether the plants TAPE #1352 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 31, 1996 Page 7 of 14 would be removed or just pruned back and she is still working on trying to find a reasonable solution. #1355 7A - ~OLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE EXPANSION PHASE I, FORE, INC. -- CHANGE ORDER NO. 2, #AB96-02! This Change Order No. 2 includes several items that provides the new golf course the additional function-ability for maintenance, refinement, and overall manageability. The additive cost for this Change Order is $20,373.80. There is sufficient contingency to support this expenditure as highlighted on the accompanied "Sources & Uses of Funds". Dan Miller Project Manager, briefly reviewed the Summary Statement and was available to answer any questions. Public comment - none. Mr. Winters stated when this item was brought before Council Operations Committee he had a concern regarding what prompted the Change Order taking place. He asked Mr. Miller to explain what he saw on the site that brought about this Change Order. Mr. Miller explained these Change Orders are based on functionability and refinement of the earth work as well as how well the underground piping system functioned in relationship to the aesthetics of the golf course to the public. Several of the items are refinement, functionability and manageability for the golf course maintenance staff, making it easier for them as well as refine the system now while the sculpturing of the area is taking place. Taking action now will prevent having to come back to remedy something at a later date after the course has been completed. Mr. Winters noted Mt. Miller explained that by moving one of the pipes going into the man made lake it would prevent erosion of the embankment of the lake, which would be hazardous to the lake liner, which is plastic. The cost of moving the pipe at this stage is much less than what it would cost to repair the no-leak lake liner, if it was damaged in some way. M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the same, subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures. 7B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR SINCLAIR CONSULTANT BEN POLLOCK~ #AB96-022 Ben Pollock has been retained by the Mayor to assist in negotiation development agreements for the Sinclair Landing Project, and to date, has completed Phase I of the scope of work attached to the agreement under the Mayor's expenditure authority. TAPE #1352 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 31, 1996 Page 8 of 14 The proposed contract requires Council approval for continued support as outlined in Phases II and III. Phase II will provide preparation support for an Economic Development Initiative Grant and a Section 108 loan guarantee for funding of a parking structure and possible right-of-way improvements for the Project. Funding for this work is included in a City Community Development Block Grant allocation. Phase II will fund consultant services for negotiating a letter of Intent with Fletcher Wright, and development of final agreements and implementation actions necessary to complete the Project. Total fees are limited to $23,000.00, which includes work already invoiced. Mayor Lynn Horton explained the reason for this request is the full scope exceeds her spending authority and requires Council approval in order to go further with the process. Mr. Pollock has been tasked with essentially negotiating the City's business agreement with Fletcher Wright and that may include one main plan or possibly a couple paths, one with the City's piece of property specifically and there may be another if the parking structure is part of the plan. She was not sure what the final recommendation may be, but Council reviewed the guidelines/guiding principals for the business deal the City hopes to strike up with Fletcher Wright and as the process moves forward Mr. Pollock will be back before Council to discuss his recommendation. Mr. Pollock comes with a lot of credentials working with public/private partnerships. She urged Council's approval of the proposed contract as presented. Public comment - none. Mr. McConnell referenced Section 3 - Compensation of the contract and asked if there was any kind of limit set for travel expenses from Settle to Bremerton and how many trips might be made under this contract? Mayor Horton explained Mr. Pollock would commute on an as needed basis. Much of their communication is done by telephone and the City is not contracting to have him in Bremerton for full days. Mr. McConne11 asked if he understood correctly that Mr. Pollock had to come to Bremerton to perform the work? Mayor Horton stated no, a lot of the work is done at Mr. Pollock's place of business in Seattle. Mr. Neville asked for clarification of the term "DDA", found in Phase III (c) of the Scope of Work? Ian sievers, City Attorney, stated he wasn't sure if it was a typographical error nor was he sure how it fit into the contract. Mr. Neville stated he felt that should be stricken from the contract. Mr. Sievers stated the important point was to have those letters clarified in words in the final agreement. He emphasized it is one of many options Mr. #1689 TAPE #1352 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 31, 1996 Page 9 of 14 Pollock will proposed as a requirement of that section. Mr. Winters asked if he understood correctly that some of the work under Phases I, II and III had been completed? Mayor Horton stated yes, a lot of the work under Phase I has been completed. Mr. Pollock may or may not be involved with Phase II since the State H.U.D. agency has indicated the City is close to getting the final grant and loan finalized. She sees the bulk of Mr. Pollock's work revolving around Phase I(d) and all of Phase III. Mr. winters asked if Phase II may be phased out, will the $3,000 allocated for that task be utilized in some other way? Mayor Horton pointed out those funds come from Block Grant monies and if they are not spent, the City can reapportion it in some other direction for this project. M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Winters) to approve the Professional Services Agreement with Ben Pollock. 7C - APPOINTMENT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION -- ROBERT A. #1767 LEWIS, #AB96-023 There is a vacancy on the Civil Service Commission. recommended the vacancy be filled by Robert A. Lewis. It is Mayor Horton reviewed Mr. Lewis' professional background, which included his serving as a Chief Engineering Officer, Planning Officer, Scheduler, Senior Maintenance Scheduler and Planning Analyst. During her interview with Mr. Lewis, she was very impressed with his thought process on issues and felt that attribute would be of benefit on the Civil Service Commission. She believes because Mr. Lewis is a very analytical person, who would make sound judgements. She urged Council to confirm Mr. Lewis' appointment to the Civil Service Commission. Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to confirm the appointment of Robert A. Lewis to the Civil Service Commission. Mr. Lewis thanked the Mayor and City Council for his appointment and emphasized this was his first endeavor in this particular area, although he has had experience in the military as well as Civil Service for the past 25 years. The Lord gave him two years and one mouth, that means he will try to listen twice as much as he speaks. 7D - APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION -- CHARLB~ McWHORTER, #AB96-024 There are vacancies on the Parks & Recreation Commission. It is recommended that Charles McWhorter be appointed to the Commission. #1863 TAPE #1352 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 31, 1996 Page 10 of 14 Mayor Horton stated Mr. McWorter is a Computer Systems Analysis/Programmer and has been very involved with the Bremerton Soccer Club and Cub Scouting activities along with his children. She believes Mr. McWorter will be an asset to the Parks and Recreation Commission both as a resident of Bremerton and as a parent, who is involved in recreation programs within our community. She urged Council's confirmation of Mr. McWorter to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/McConnell) to confirm the appointment of Charles McWhorter to the Parks & Recreation Commission. 7E - APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKS & RECREATION COHMISSION -- BARRY N. COOK, #AB96-025 There are vacancies on the Parks & Recreation Commission. It is recommended that Barry N. Cook be appointed to the Commission. Mayor Horton stated Mr. Cook is not only involved in the aerospace industry, but has also spent a numerous amount of time coaching boys and girls sports and has been involved with a National Management Association. He is at a point in his childrens' lives where he feels he has some extra time to devote to community activities. He has been a long time sports enthusiast and involved in Bremerton recreation. Based on the above information, she urged council's confirmation of this appointment. Elizabeth Buell, High Avenue, expressed concern that not all of the people being appointed to Boards and Commissions were present. She felt the individuals being appointed should be present so that the public could see who they are. Mr. Winters supported Mrs. Buell's position on that point and would have liked the opportunity to meet Mr. Cook since he resides in his District. He acknowledged that Mr. Cook comes highly recommended. Mr. Colvin stated he tended to agree with Mr. Winters, but there may have been extenuating circumstances for some of the individuals to not be present at this meeting. Mrs. Huff-Menees stated she was sure if the City had made it mandatory for anyone applying for these positions they would have been present. We have never done so and very much appreciate their willingness to serve and rather than condemn them for not showing up for a meeting that we have not requested their appearance, they should be thanked for being willing to serve. Although one may categorize it as an honor, she categorizes it as something we that we should be immensely appreciative of - not everyone is willing to take on that kind of responsibility. She personally appreciates those individuals, who are willing to step up and take these tasks on. Mr. Law stated he agreed with Mrs. Huff-Menees having been appointed to a City committee three times #2119 #1307 TAPE #1352 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 31, 1996 Page 11 of 14 he was only advised to attend one of the three appointments. He did not feel those not in attendance could be faulted. He was pleased with the candidates being recommended and he would not dream of doing anything that would discourage them from taking part in City government. M/S/C/U(Farr/Montgomery) to confirm the appointment of Barry N. Cook to the Parks & Recreation Commission. 7F - APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS, HOUSING/BUILDING CODES -- ROBERT W. FOX, ~/%B96-026 There are vacancies on the Board of Appeals, Housing/Building Codes. It is recommended that Robert W. Fox be appointed to the Committee. Mayor Horton stated in response to earlier remarks by Council members regarding having appointees present at the time of their appointment, historically the appointee chooses to attend or to not attend, it has never been something that Council has requested. If the Council would like the appointees to be present at the time of their recommended appointment, that can be arranged; however, it has never been an issue up to this moment. Mr. Fox's professional background is as a Real Estate Appraiser and he has a lot of community ties. During her interview with Mr. Fox, she questioned him at length to make sure that he would be qualified to sit on the Appeals Board. Mr. Fox's response to her was that when he conducts real estate appraisals he does look at building conditions and he cited some instances where he found some things detrimental in a structure, which were identified in his report. She felt he would have a short learning period to become familiar with City codes and look at each instance and apply those codes toward individual appeals. Although it is not strictly in his line of work, he is familiar with process and building condition issues that would qualify him to take on this responsibility. She noted Mr. Fox was in attendance. She urged Council to confirm the appoint of Mr. Fox to the Appeals Board. Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Winters) to confirm the appointment of Robert W. Fox to the Board of Appeals, Housing/Building Codes. Robert Fox stated he appreciated the Mayor's and Council's confidence and will do everything he could to satisfy and service the community as best he can within his abilities. APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF APPEALSt HOUSINg/BUILDING CODES -- #2499 TAPE #1352 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 31, 1996 Page 12 of 14 J]%MES W. ENGLISH, ~AB96-027 There are vacancies on the Board of Appeals, Housing/Building Codes. It is recommended that James W. English be appointed to the Committee. Mayor Lynn Horton pointed out Mr. English is a Construction Inspector and has numerous memberships, including International Association Of Electrical Inspectors, and has been involved in the International Conference Of Building Officials and International Association Of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. With that kind of background, she feels Mr. English is highly qualified to fulfill this task. She urged Council's confirmation of Mr. English to this position. Public comment - none. Mr. Fart asked Mayor Horton to briefly describe the duties of the Appeals Board and asked when would a citizen get involved with this board? Mayor Horton explained when a citizen disagrees with the determination of one of the City's Building Officials they may appeal that determination to the Hearing Appeals Board. That Board then reviews the various codes that would apply to the specific case and make a determination whether or not the appellant was successful in appealing the Building Official decision or whether the Building Official prevailed. M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to confirm the appointment of James W. English to the Board of Appeals, Housing/Building Codes. 7H - Bid Award Recommendation - Gold Mountain Golf Course Primary Electrical Conduits & Telephone Conduit, #AB96-020 Bids were opened on Tuesday, January 16, 1996, for the installation of primary electrical conduits and telephone conduit,pulling, splice and transformer vaults to energize the irrigation pumps and ground maintenance buildings at Gold Mountain Golf Course. Three bids were received for this electrical project. The Iow bidder is RMA Lighting, Inc., for the bid amount of $72,967.50 including Washington State Tax. Dan Miller, Project Manager, pointed out the Engineer's estimate was $85,000 prior to going to bid. The three bids received ranged from $103,612.77 to $72,967.50, with the low bidder being RMA Lighting, Inc. He noted RMA was the firm that installed the underground high voltage power conduits, splice boxes and transformer vaults at Pendergast Regional Park. Because of their experience at Pendergast Regional Park, they are aware that the soil is much easier digging than what they experienced at #2791 TAPE #1352 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 31, 1996 Page 13 of 14 Pendergast, so their cost is reflective of that condition. RMA is presently in town doing work at Legion Field installing the outdoor lighting. And, Mr. Miller has worked with RMA over the past 3+ years on various smaller projects and based on that experience, he recommended approval of the bid award as presented. Public comment - none. Mr. Neville stated he was the person requesting this item be pulled off the Consent Agenda strictly for the fact that he wanted the public to be aware of the money trail on this project. He did not like the idea that the earlier Agenda item (7A), showed a contingency fund that did not include what was going to be spent on this work. M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to award the contract to RMA Lighting, Inc., in the amount of $72,967.50 and authorize the Mayor to execute the same, subject to city Administrative Policies and Procedures. 8A - RESOLUTION NO. 2539, TO REORGANIZE THE CITY'S LOSS & SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND TO REPEAL RESOLUTION NO. 2126, ~AB96-028 Effective January 1st, the City has added a part-time Safety Officer position which is staffed by an employee assigned to the Department of Public Works & Utilities. This resolution adds that position to the existing Safety & Health Committee, updates the committee membership to reflect organization changes, and eliminates the Executive Safety Committee. Pegq7 Lesser, Risk Manager, stated she would be available for any questions. Public comment - none. Mr. Neville stated when this item was brought before the Operations Committee it was brought to their attention the need for the Safety Manager position and that an individual had stepped forward and assumed the duties of the Safety Officer. That person should be recognized and extended a hearty "thank you" for assuming those responsibilities; and the Utility Department thanked for letting him take on these duties along with his other duties. Pegq~ Lesser stated the City is pleased to have Paul Lucas fill this position and is currently assigned to the Department Of Public Works and Utilities and has been working on developing additional procedures for the application in Public Works. When the City's need to step up its program was approved, the decision was made to tap into Mr. Lucas' expertise and enthusiasm for the topic. And, special thanks are extended to Gene Sampley, Public Works and Utilities Director, for making Paul available to take on these responsibilities. #3072 TAPE #1352 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes January 31, 1996 Page 14 of 14 Mr. Montqomer¥ stated recently he observed Mr. Lucas performing his duties on a construction project and found him to be very conscientious on instituting safety measures. Mr. Fart noted by this action it will eliminate the Executive Safety Committee, which would eliminate involvement of the Police Chief, Fire Chief and other higher level Managers in this process. He asked Ms. Lesser to explain the reasoning behind that change? Ms. Lesser stated when this initial Resolution (the one being repealed) was initially passed, the City was operating under a different Mayor and management practices. Our present Mayor meets weekly with all of the Department Heads and the discussion of safety concerns are conducted on a weekly basis, as needed, at that level and there is no additional need to require those Department Heads to meet again to discuss "safety". The two tiered system that was set up with the Safety Committee was designed to do two things: (1) meet the statute that requires an employee group with only a minority representation by Management, which has been left intact in this proposal; (2) to attain management focus on the issue of "safety". Mayor Horton brought about management focus on safety, which is one of the highest priorities; therefore, it does not have to be done at committee level. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/McConnell) to adopt Resolution No. 2539, to reorganize the City's Loss Prevention & Safety Management Program, and to repeal Resolution No. 2126. Mayor morton stated it may appear that Mr. Lucas is not "activity working" when he visits a project site, but he is working by observing mentally the safety functions of City workers, which is his task, making sure they comply with all safety regulations and rules. With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M.. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk JOHN E. LAW, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/JL/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CrT'Y COUNCIL 1. 5UB_IECT: One year YMCA Membership for all qualified City employees and Officials. (Comment on back if necessary) I4~an'ce B~nefit,,J~ommittee Wellness Q6n~ittee FOR AGENDA OF: February i~, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT: Human Resources ORIGINATOR: Mary Blanchard DATE SUBMITTED: February 8, I996 This item was discussed in a study session with City Council on 1/26/96. 3. EXHIBITS: Contract ENDORSEMENT~INFORMATION [] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: g. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: For the past nine months the Wellness Committee has devoted its time to developing a health/fitness program for ali city employees. Program goals included a cost effective program that provided a benefit for all employees. The YMCA was selected due to the quality and level of services provided for the employee's and their families. Some of these services include: Centrally located facility; reasonable rates for family members to join; well rounded family facility that includes family and youth programs for all Y members at little or no cost (scholarships for Iow income are available); use of the City pool; and reciprocating memberships with other YMCA's. Ordinance 6516 allows expenditures from the Employee Medical Insurance Reserve Fund for employee wellness programs, subject to the budgetary authorization of the City Council. 8. I~OMMENDATION: 1. Approve the expenditure of $30,000 from the Employee Medical Insurance Reserve Fund to pay for the cost of a YlvlCA membership for all "regular~' full and part time City employee's and Officials beginning March 1, 1996 - February 28, 1997. Expenditure to be paid in monthly installments of $2,500 per month. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Group Membership Agreement. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jim Meith ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Jim Meith EXPIRATION DATE: -- REVIEW DATE: -- 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED [] TABLED 0 APPROVED [] D~APPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE: COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: (OVER) CLEARANCES COMMENTS: IMPACT OF NON-PASSAIC,: A comprehensive health and fitness program for all City employees will not be implemented. Non-passage would not provide the City the ability to assess and evaluate if such a pro,'am would impact the use of sick leave, workers compensation claims and utilization of health insurance plans. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES. EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Funds are available in the Employee Medical Reserve Insurance Fund and will not have an impact on the 1996 budget. 7. RESEARCH 5OURCES: GROUP MF MBERSHTP AGREEMF NT The City ofBremerton (herein~er referred to as "City") and the Kitsap Family Y.M.C.A. (hereinafter referred to as "YMCA") mutually agree to the establishment of a City employee group memberghip subject to the general provisions embodied in thi.~ agreement. This agreement shall be in effect for the period of March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997. The YMCA will provide full membership privileges for any regular City employee or official of the City who is qualified for membership under the City's wellness program criteria. The City will provide the YMCA with a current listing of qualified employee's and officials, and will amend that list on a monthly basis for additions and deletions. The YMCA agrees that it will provide the City with a monthly printout of employee use of the program. It is understood that employees participating in this program are doing so on a voluntary basis and the City assumes no liability for any injuries that may result from participation in the program. In consideration of the above, the City shall pay the YMCA the sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($30,000). Payment shah be paid in monthly installments of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500) by the 15th of each month. In addition, the YMCA agrees to waive the one time building fund assessment fee of Eighty Dollars ($80.00) per qualified employee and the building fund assessment fee of Forty Dollars ($40.00) for spouses. There is no building fund assessment fee for youth (18 and under). Under thi~ contract the monthly rate for memberghip dues for a sponse wili be $17.00 and the rate for membership for youth (age 18 and under) will be $5.00 per child. A max/mum of three children are charged per family. If said contract is not renewed by the City after one year, those employee's who are cuzrent members, and wish to continue their membersl~, will be responsible to pay the YMCA's one time building fund assessment fee and the YMCA's regular monthly dues as set by the YMCA. All participat~g group members must sign the code of conduct attached as e~h~it "A'. All group participants will also be required to complete a membership application. Failure to comply with the rules of conduct may result in the individual's suspension of membership for thirty (30) days. For the Kitsap Family Y.M.C.A. For the City of Bremerton: Glen Godfrey, Executive Director Lynn Horton, Mayor Sim Meith, Human Resources Mgr. Received for Filing: Approved as to Form: Kathy McCluskey, City Clerk Ian R. Sievers, City Attorney Jen. 51 '96 1~:28 Bremerton YMCA FAX 206792179d P. 2 l,, ltsao Family YMCA Cgnduet Cotl,e Tha purpose of Ibis ennduet code is to ~uclbe appnq~ia~ behavior rot all membsll ~ in tim YMCA ImlMbl or wtmu participatin$ b a YMCA hnctJou, The Intent of lids conduct code is to em~ smd mdumim a Family nms~sp~ whe'e all membe, s will red e~mfo~tab~. *eNo one under use 7 is 0flowed in the hot tub. steam room or saun~ Users ~d 7.14 m~ h&ve their pm-em ~ them. **No one under asa 11 is ~owed to use ~he trick or axe.isa equiptnent on the second floor. °'No one under ISa 14 is aflowed in the weight room. Users used 14 & 15 must attend teen str~l~th truininS. Users 16 & 17 must attend on orientation. **Sweating nd/or wight l~nSua8~ is not allowed for any reason at say.e. *'P. owdy behavior is not allowed. This wo~td include trash t&lkins, arguin~ pushing others, rum~n$ in the hallways or spis~n8 in the hot tub or showers. '*Bask~tbe. lls are not to be bounced on ~ny surface ~xc.e~ the gYm floor. **Dunkin$ or ~ on the basketball rims is not allowed. TI~s ac~on damages the rim and backboard and is v~y costly. **Only Y?dCA buk~ball$ are allowed in thc facility n2~d that Y%4CA basketballs are not to lettve the fncili~ *'Loiter~ns and loud conversations in the lobby and locker rooms ar~ not allowed. **lnsLppropriate touching et' osher per~on$ is not ~owed. This would ~ncludo hu8~8, kissing, draping M'ms and leg~ around each other, etc. *$Eye ~uards must bc worn properly while in ~c hafldboJI/racque~balI court. **Revealin$ clothin$ is not a~lowed. This would include material that becomes tra~tsparent when wet. **Clothing displaying words or pictures tha~ ~e obucenc or in poor taat~ may not be worn, TWs includes tattoos. *' Shorts must be worn around the waist wi~ho~ unde'w~m' showing. **Persons under the influence et' slcohol or dru~s ~ be nked to lave the f~dli~. / f,/A~D£~V.~7'/~D 77~.47' ?,4.;/..U.q.~ 7'0 CO~V?O]~.~ ~0 ~/';~$ COD£ ~ ]LF~ULT'/.Al SUSP~.~/$/O.A/P/IT~Of/F I have r~ad and undtr~tnnd the above. I agree to follow this conduct code whenever in the YMCA hiding or on YMCA grounds, or when engaged in a YMCA activity off.pounds, Should ! be c#ed for an infraction, I wm accept the approprttto suspension, Name. pWase print Signature CH~CK ONE , Mem,be~ ~ Gues~ 1. SUBJECT: Ordinanc'~ Restricting Storage of Oversize Vehicles AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: Police ORIGINATOR: Ian R. Siever~s_'~C City Attorney DATE SUBMITTED: 2. , g, LEARANCES: _(Comment on back if necessary) CHIEF OF POLICE COUN~YL COmMiTTEE 3. EXHIBITS: Proposed Ordinance ENDORSEMENT ~] INFORMATION [] APPROVED BY COUNCIL~DENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ~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. 8. RECOMMENDATION: M~-~~~~ first rea~Ling--Q=d-inance_No. ....... Motion tc pass on second reading Ordinance No. Z/~'4/3 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) 8A 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS= IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: Continued fines and time limit regulations. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: PARKII~G2.AB - Agendas - I/~/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: · gross ....~, .... [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. Co) A person who owns or leases commercial property and actively engages in business activity within a residential parking permit area. Them 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 aw. civil infraction for any person to c actions: (1) Storage of Vehicles within Right-of-Way. mit any of the following 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 (10) 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 ATTEST: __day of , 1996. LYNN HORTON, Mayor KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk PARKING2.1RS - Ordinance Disk 2 - 1/3/96 2 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Tracyton Beach Pre-Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation. "J~lic Hearing/Ordinance Z. CLF~H~F~:(~omment on baok if necessa~~,~ city Attorne V , Community Dev. /~~ Council Committee: ~L/~-/V~~ FOR AGENDA OF: FEB. 7. 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT: Com Dev ORIGINATOR: Hough/O ' Ne il 1 DATE SUBMITTED:JAN 31. 199~ 3. E~WIBITa= * Staff Report * Ordinance * Planning Commission ~scts of ~indin~s COUNCIL PREB =/.~/~ -J"'c~'~ 4. SUMMARY 8TATRMENT ~ND REQUIREMENT 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 Annexation and zoning the area SF-2 upon. annexation. to be adopted~ 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= 2. ~LEA.RANCE COMMENTS~ 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: 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. FACILITIES. EOUIPMENT OR OTHER 7, RESEARCH SOURCES= 37 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 hearing 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 AT'FEST: Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk Riddell Ro; [] LDR C-G-- LDR S~vanWay MDR MDR Tracyton Beach Annexation Area S MU P MDR ('it)' o. f Bremerton COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Adopted: April 5, 1995 MDR Residential Desi~,nations: "~ LDR Low Residential Density 3 to 8 DU/acre Proposed Traeyton Beach Annexation Area MDR (Location Maps) Sylvan Way Tracyton Beach Annexation Area (?ia.' of Bremerron P MDR EXHIBIT NO" /C-( C-G J~ EXHIBIT NO." DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY BLVD. FOR ANNEXATION. NORTH OF SHERIDAN RD AND EASTERLY OF TPu~,CYTCN 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 1 of Section 11, T24N, RIE, WM; thence S1°08'50"W 53i 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°OS'50"E 531 ft: thence S89°41'25"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 ft 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"~,i 308.99 ft to the Govt. Meander Line: thence leaving the existing City Limits line and running Northwesterly along the Govt. Meander line to the TPOB. This area contains 15.22 acres. O23 /OSl ,' /08 .. 012 015 O/hO0 OlO-OO -CO O2/ 095 EXHIBIT NO." 0...,, FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW of the BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION OF B 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 staff to 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 I TOTAL: [ 15.22 acres I Proposed Tracyton Beach Annexation Area 2 or4 [] LDR SCvan Way Tracyton Beach Annexation Area ('ltv p]'Breme/'ton 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 MDR P C.GI LDR MDR MDR -- LDR, ,[~,, ,--, MDR" S MU Riddell Ro; MDR (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/acre", 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 #? o 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) City_ 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: va SF-1 (Single-family Residential) 3 DU/acre va SF-2 (Single-family Residential) 4 DU/acre va SF-3 (Single-family Residential) 9 DU/acre va 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 SF-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 & RECOMMENDATIONS 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 hearing, 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 SF-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 OI~SEN, Chair / Bremerton Planning Commission Date ~l~g~,R~p iT~T~n gE~/~ aU~ i rV)e Secretary 15:ZOA-96-1.SR 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 Olsen 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 Olsen intbrmed 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. R0n 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 maps, 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 th-st 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. Houeh stated that the schedule is pretty tight, but indicated that they are drafted and now it is a matter of notificatiom 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 heating 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 Olsen 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 fn'st hearing which is the Pre-Annexation Plan and Zoning 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 bias her decision. Commissioner Boyd 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 Iow 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 Dingfield 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. ProponenU: 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. Jerry_ Vergeer proceeded to the map and outlined the properties owned. Doug Berger, 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 $F2. 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 intruding 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. Ron Hough stated that 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- Ron Hough 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 McC0nahay, 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. Ron Hough 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. Cho. irman Olsen closed the public heating 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? Ron Hough 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. Hearing #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. Tom Triggs, 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'? R0n Hough indicated the old ones could be grandfathered in. The new ones would have to meet the standards. Ron Hough 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 u'eated 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 find 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. Hearing//3 - Our Lady Star of the Sea Parish Chairman Olsen announced the hearing 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. Jerry. Soriano 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 heating 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 from 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 Jack,son 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 Boyd. 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 corner 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 Olsen asked the appearance of fairness question. Shane Jen~en 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 Jensen 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 hearing was the Engineers endorsement and that the letter presented was a rather weak endorsement. Shane Jcnsen 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 hearing 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- Commissioner Hancock asked if we are still a "misguided" commission'? Commissioner Robinson answered that he would not be surprised. Steve Dick$on, 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 Dickson 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 fh-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 hearing 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 sate 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 tbr 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 fa'st 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 forward. Mr. Tennyson, by hiring an attorney has probably paid more that he would of had he done it right the first 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 Watert¥ont 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 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Public Heating Resolution #~53~ , regarding recovery of fees for the removal of garbage on the property located at 1340 Hayward Avenue. FOR AGENDA OF: T~~ ORIGINATING DEPT: Building Dept. ORIGINATOR: Janet Lunceford DATE SUBMITTED: 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) City Clerk ~ City Attorl~~,~~ r_ City Treasurer?z----- ~.. 3. EXHIBITS: 1. Resolution #-g~' $_5" 2. Clerk Report ENDORSEMENT X"iNFOIMMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRF~IDENT FOR_SIJBMITTAL: MAYOR~t~vJ~/' 3/~.-/._ -- COUNCIL PRESIDENT 4. SUM~Y STATEMENT ~D ~QUI~MENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: On 11/29/95, ~e City ~s forced to remove ~rbage and &bris ~om ~e prope~ lo~ted at 1340 Harm Avenue, a~er ~e o~er, Daniel C. Stenson, f~ed to ob~ a Noti~ and Order to Remove Re~se ~in 72 Ho~s. The abatement ~d ~s charg~ $319.80 for ~e work RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council, by resolution # ~ S- 3--q , order that the fees incurred for the abatement of the garbage and debris at 1340 Hayward Avenue, be collected as reasonable abatement costs, and become a personal obligation against the owner of the property, Daniel C. Stenson, which if not collected within 30 days will become a lien against the property. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Scott Erickson ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Scott Erickson EXPIRATION DATE: N/A REVIEW DATE: N/A PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED DATE: 1. AGENDA BILL NO.: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: o IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: The City would forfeit the costs of this abatement. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: The City's revolving abatement fund would suffer the deficit of not collecting these funds. o RESEARCH SOURCES: N/A RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION reviewing charges for the abatement of garbage and debris on the property at 1340 Hayward Avenue and determining means of collection. WHEREAS, the Cit-), of Bremerton incurred costs for the removal of garbage and debris at 1340 Hayward Avenue, Bremerton; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton Municipal Code allows the City to recoup these costs by personal obligation against the property owner, which if not collected within 30 days will become a lien against the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council is charged ~vith determining whether the fees are just and has considered the report of charges filed by the Building Official and any protests or objection filed; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton: That the City of Bremerton confirms the Building Official's report of charges as correct and just charges for garbage and debris removal from 1340 Hayward Avenue, Bremerton and directs the City Attorney to collect the charges as a personal obligation against the owner, Daniel C. Stenson, which if not collected within 30 days shall become a lien against the property. PASSED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this 1996. day of JOHN LAW Council President '~~ - OF BREMERTON 239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: RE: CC: Januaw 2,1996 Kathleen McCluskey, Dir. of Admin. Svcs. Janet Lunceford, Building Department~/~k_ Garbage abatement fees, 1340 Hayward Avenue Don Pratt, Scott Erickson On November 29, 1995, the Street Department removed garbage and debris from the property located at 1340 Hayward Avenue, after the owner, Daniel Stenson, failed to obey the Order to Remove Refuse within 72 Hours posted on the property on November 21, 1995. The fees incurred are as follows: Street Dept. Fees $264.40 Administrative Fees $ 55.40 Total Fees $319.80 I have scheduled a public hearing for January ITth and will submit an agenda bill for your approval. Celebrating 50 Years of Freedom &7 .d -Dsc Date 6, 1995 2:03 pm -- City of Bremerton - Streets ~- Billing Details Street Department Summary of Services for : November 1995 W.O. : Description Regular Overtime 11/17/95 SD950284 REMOVE FENCE SE CORNER LOXIE/ARSENAL COLEN COREY HADLEY KENTNER '94 JD410 BACKHOE '90 INT, 5 YARD DUMP TRUCK 11/20/95 SD950284 REMOVE FENCE SE CORNER LOXIE/ARSENL COLEN COREY '90 INT. 5 YARD DUMP TRUCK DUMP FEES FOR 1995 4.0 hr 3.0 hr 4.0 HR 3.0 HR 2.0 hr 2.0 HR 10.0 YD 11/21/95 SD950284 HAUL DEBRIS FROM REMOVAL OF FENCE SE CORNER LOXIE/ARSENAL JAY-PEE BAGE 2.0 hr '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK 3.0 HR DUMP FEES FOR 1995 10.0 YD 11/27/95 SD950288 ABATEMENT AT 833-10TH STREET/CLEAN YARD/DEBRIS STEVE BOWMAN 7 0 hr COLEN COREY 2 0 hr HADLEY KENTNER 7 0 hr RILEY THOMPSON 1 0 hr '91GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U 1 0 HR '94 JD410 BACKHOE 3 0 HR '90 INT. 5 YARD DUMP TRUCK 7 0 HR '92 GMC 1-TON P/U 2 0 HR DUMP FEES FOR 1995 !5 0 YD 11/28/95 SD950286 ABATEMENT AT 1915-10TH STREET/CLEAN UP GARBAGE BILL EDWARDS 3.0 hr '93 GMC 1-TON DUMP 3.0 HR HADLEY KENTNER 4.0 hr '94 JD410 BACKHOE 2.0 HR '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK 4.0 HR RILEY THOMPSON 1.0 hr '91GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U 1.0 HR DUMP FEES FOR 1995 10.0 YD 11/28/95 SD950291 ABATEMENT AT 1340 HAYWARD AVE. HAUL OFF DEBRIS BILL EDWARDS 3.0 hr '90 DODGE 1-TON (DIESEL) 3.0 HR 11/28/95 SD950290 ABATEMENT AT 3323 KITSAP WAY (BANNER CAR WASH) CLEAN UP DEBRIS BILL EDWARDS '90 DODGE 1-TON (DIESEL) 11/29/95 SD950291 ABATEMENT AT 1340 HAYWARD AVE. REMOVE DEBRIS BILL EDWARDS '93 GMC 1-TON DUMP RILEY THOMPSON '91 GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U DUMP FEES FOR 1996 3.0 hr 3.0 HR 2,0 hr 2.0 HR 1.0 hr 1.0 HR ?.0 YD PAGE BLAB Costs 104.00 78.00 128.00 39.00 52.00 26.00 82.00 52.00 78.00 82.00 !82.00 52.00 182.00 26.00 6,00 96.00 9!.00 18.00 123,00 78.00 27.00 i04.00 64.00 t04.00 26.00 6.00 82.00 78.00 27.00 78.O0 27.00 52.00 18.00 26.00 6.00 57.40 $2,357.40 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE To amend the City's Comprehensive Plan to comply with the Final Decision and Order of the Growth Mgmt. Hearings Board. FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: Feb. 14, 1996 DC, D/Planning Ron Hough .Feb. 6, 1996 2. CLEARANCES:~. back if necessary) ~iitr~ cAtot°mm. Dev. '~'~~ Growth Mgrnt. C~mm. ~ ~/~'/~~; 3. EXHIBITS: ,/ Staff Report ,/ Statement of' Actions Taken V' Ordinance ,/ Planning ComCnission Minutes ENDORSEMENIT~'- INFOFj[MATION - APPROVED BY cooNCIL PRESID.~.NT FOR SUBMITTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT>~~~- _~ - ._ .. -~-~-_.~z--- 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Bremerton's revised Comprehensive Plan was adopted on April 5, 1995. Portions of the Plan pertaining to the Anderson Creek area were appealed to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. The Board reviewed the Plan, conducted a public hearing on November 28, 1995, and issued its decision in December. The Hearings Board upheld the City's Plan but directed certain changes to correct some minor internal consistency problems. Those changes have t:~een drafted. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 30, 1996, and recommended City Council approval of the changes as presented. 8. RECOMMENDATION: City Council approval of the attached Ordinance on first reading. City Council passage of the Ordinance on second reading. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Donald Pratt 10. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The recommended changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan were directed by the Growth Management Headngs Board in its Final Decision and Order, issued in December 1995. The Board gave us a compliance deadling of 4:00 PM on February 26. The adopted amendments must be filed with the Hearings Board by March 4. If we don't adopt these corrections to our Plan, the Plan will remain internally inconsistent. That status could affect our eligibility for certain types of grants or other State funding for needed projects, and could also leave us vulnerable to other State-imposed sanctions. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: No anticipated impacts in these areas. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Appeal documents filed by the Association for the Protection of Anderson Creek (APAC) Final Decision and Order of the Central Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Headngs Board STAFF REPORT Ron W. Hough --- Long-range Planning Division --- Department of Community Development --- February 8, 1996 Comprehensive Plan Amendments: CPA-01-96 -- Growth Mgmt. Hearings Board Order Proposal: Background: To amend the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan to bring it into compliance with the requirements of the State Growth Management Act (GMA), in response to the December 1995 Final Decision and Order of the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. The City of Bremerton amended its Comprehensive Plan to comply with the GMA and adopted its revised Plan on April 5, 1995. The process of drafting the new Plan was long and tedious and included many public meetings by the Citizens Advisory Committee and Planning Commission during the two years prior to City Council final heatings and adoption. Following adoption of the City's revised Plan, three appeals were filed with the Growth Hearings Board; one by Kitsap County and two others by members of the Association to Protect Anderson Creek (APAC). The County appeal was later withdrawn and the other two continued through the appeal process. The two APAC appeals focused on 340 acres of City-owned lands in the Anderson Creek area east of Gorst. These lands were acquired by the Utility many years ago and annexed to Bremerton in 1987. The City Utility recently determined that ownership of all of the Anderson Creek lands was not necessary for the protection of existing wells or for other Utility purposes and most of the property was declared to be surplus and available for sale and/or other uses. The owners of an adjacent 76 acre parcel saw an oppommity to combine part of the City property with theirs to create a larger site for the development of an industrial complex. They asked to purchase the land. The City agreed with the general concept and entered into an agreement (option to purchase) on December 22, 1994. By December, 1994, most of the Comprehensive Plan revisions had been drafted and forwarded to the Planning Commission where study sessions and public hearings had already been conducted. The change resulting from the Anderson Creek surplus and sale agreement entered the comprehensive planning process in January 1995 when it was introduced as a map change. The change was from "Utility Land" to "Industrial Park". The change was introduced to the CAC at its January 24, 1995 meeting. Although the proposal was not available for CAC or Planning Commission review, it was the subject of close scrutiny and discussion during the public hearings before the City Council in March and April 1995. Also, since the text of the Comprehensive Plan had already been drafted, not all sections could be adjusted to accommodate the 340 acres of additional industrial land at that time. Rather than delay the planning process further, it was decided that those adjustments would be made later during our annual Plan amendment cycle. The Hearings Board Review & Decision: Following the July 1995 appeals, the City, appellants, and Hearings Board worked to prepare and assemble the necessary documents for review. The City's "index" included nearly 1,000 letters, memos, reports, maps, files, and other documents that were used in the preparation of the Plan. Briefs were written and followed by response briefs and other correspondence, leading up to the Board's public hearing on the merits of the legal issues, which was held on November 28, 1995. The issues specifically addressed in the Heatings Board's 31-page Order were: --- Public participation. --- Open space requirements. --- Capital facilities analysis of the change to "Industrial Park". --- Protection of critical areas. --- Destruction of aquifer resulting from the change to "IP". --- Consistency with Countywide Planning Policies. --- Internal and External consistency of the Plan. The Order: The Hearings Board found the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan to be in compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Act with some exceptions. The following are those exceptions and the Board's orders to bring them into compliance no later than March 4, 1996: Ao The Plan should have been adopted by ordinance rather than resolution. We must re-adopt the Plan by ordinance. Bo Co Do The "Land Use Inventory" table on page 41 of the Land Use Element is "internally inconsistent" because it shows only 142.9 acres of industrial land. We must either amend the table or add some text to explain why this table does not include the Anderson Creek "IP" lands. Page 43 of the Land Use Element includes a description of West Bremerton area industrial lands. It mentions 143 acres of industrial land use, but does not mention the 340 acres of proposed industrial use in the Anderson Creek area. This needs correction or clarification. Page 45 of the Land Use Element suggests that Anderson Creek is a watershed and owned by the Bremerton Water Utility. This needs to be clarified. Deadline for compliance with the Order: 4:00 PM, February 26, 1996. A statement of actions taken to comply with the Final Decision and Order of the Hearings Board must be filed by 4:00 PM, March 4, 1996. The Board will then schedule a compliance heating to determine whether the City has procedurally complied with the Order. Statement of Actions Taken: To comply with the Final Decision and Order of the Growth Hearings Board, the following actions are proposed: The Plan was adopted by resolution. It should have been adopted by ordinance. Action taken: The City has re-adopted the Comprehensive Plan by ordinance, a copy of which is attached hereto with exhibits. The "Land Use Inventory" table on page 41 of the Land Use Element is internally inconsistent because it shows only 142.9 acres of industrial land. It doesn't include the Anderson Creek area, which was designated "Industrial Park". The Hearings Board remanded portions of the Plan that are internally inconsistent with instructions to either update them with appropriate information for the Anderson Creek property as currently designated, add narrative explaining that the depicted information was compiled before the Anderson Creek property was designated as "industrial park", or otherwise make the Plan internally consistent. Explanation: The table on page 41 of the Land Use Element provides a summary breakdown of land uses throughout the West Bremerton sector. This data was obtained from a 1993 Land Use Inventory that was conducted prior to designation changes in the Anderson Creek area. This is an "existing" land use table and the industrial acreage figure of 142.9 acres reflects actual industrial use. The Anderson Creek property was not in industrial use at that time and still isn't. However, at the time the Plan was adopted, 340 acres of the Anderson Creek Utility property had been surplussed with the intent of sale and future development. The amount to be sold and developed has been reduced to 168 acres which, in mm, has been supplemented by the 76-acre Sciepko Annexation to the west. More of the area is now being retained in the "Utility Lands" designation than originally intended. This can be further clarified through the following actions. Actions Taken: A. Amend the following maps to include the 76-acre Sciepko Annexation area which was added adjacent to and west of the Anderson Creek property: (1) West Bremerton Sector description map. P. 40 of Land Use Element. (attached as Ordinance Exhibit "A") (2) Union River Watershed & Utility Lands map. P. 48 of L.U. Element. (attached as Ordinance Exhibit "D") (3) Anderson Creek Corporate Campus map. P. 76 of L.U. Element. (attached as Ordinance Exhibit "E") (4) Watershed & Utility, Lands Land Use Plan. P. 80 of L.U. Element. (attached as Ordinance Exhibit "F") Bo Amend the table on page 41 of the Land Use Element to reflect the recent changes in the Anderson Creek area: (See Ordinance Exhibit "B") (1) Remove 168 acres from the "Utility Lands" category and add it to the "Vacant" category. This is the undeveloped acreage to be sold for development. (2) The remaining 172 acres of the Anderson Creek area, which is the main corridor of Anderson Creek, remains in the "Utility Lands" category. (3) Add 76 acres to the "Vacant" category to accommodate the Sciepko annexation which occurred in 1995. This land is designated "Industrial Park" and will be combined with part of the 168 acres being sold for industrial development purposes. (4) Adjust the Total Acreage and Percent of Total figures in this table to reflect these changes. The adjusted table will appear as follows: W. BREMERTON PERCENT LAND USES TOTAL ACREAGE OF TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 382.4 3.4 COMMERCIAL 81.4 0.7 INDUSTRIAL 142.9 1.3 PARKS & O.S. 345.8 3.1 SCHOOLS 22.0 0.2 PUBLIC 226.5 2.0 WATERSHED 3,529.2 31.5 UTILITY LANDS 4,795.4 42.8 RIGHT-OF-WAY 387.6 3.5 VACANT 1,284.8 11.5 TOTALS: 11,198 100.0 °A of City = 75.9 An inconsistency exists in the text of page 43 of the Land Use Element. The Board noted that the first paragraph under the heading "E. Industrial Lands" refers to 143 acres designated as "industrial" but does not include the 340 acres proposed for "industrial park" in the Anderson Creek area. Explanation: The text on page 43 of the Land Use Element is referring to the 1993 Land Use Inventory of "existing" industrial development and not to lands designated for that use on the Comprehensive Plan. This needs to be clarified in the text. Action taken: Insert the word "existing" into the first sentence under section "E" on page 43 of the Land Use Element so that the sentence reads as follows: (also see Ordinance Exhibit "C") "Most of the area's 143 acres of existing industry are located..." The i'Water Resources" paragraph on page 45 of the Land Use Element indicates that the Anderson Creek property is still a watershed and/or owned by the Bremerton Water Utility. The paragraph reads as follows: Bremerton has a plan for the management of thousands of acres owned by the Bremerton Water Utility. These lands include the Union River, Anderson Creek, Gorst Creek, and Heins Creek watersheds as well as other Utility owned lands. 5 Explanation:. This statement remains accurate. Although the City Utility has declared part of the Anderson Creek property to be surplus, it has retained lands in the lower part of the creek corridor and will continue to maintain wells in that area. These wells will continue to be important to the City's overall water system. An aquifer recharge study was done last year to assist in the protection of the wells through land use controls upstream. Those controls will affect the use of the surplus lands. In bringing the City's Plan into compliance with the GMA, the City must also meet the requirements of RCW 36.70A.020(11) and 140, as well as any City adopted local public participation and notice procedures. Explanation: Both RCW references pertain to public participation in the process, including State Planning Goal #11 (Citizen participation and coordination) which is: "Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts." The Section 140 reference requires "early and continuous public participation" in the development and amendment of plans and regulations. Bremerton's Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was the primary participation body during the development of the Comprehensive Plan. The CAC no longer exists but the Citizen Involvement Element of the Comp. Plan remains in effect. Recommendation: Following its public hearing on January 30, 1996, the Bremerton Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendments contained in the section entitled "Statement of Actions Taken" to comply with the Growth Hearings Board order. 15 :CPA- 1-96 6 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE adopting the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and including amendments ordered by the Growth Hearings Board WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton adopted a revised Comprehensive Plan on April 5, 1995 by Resolution No. 2508, to comply with the Growth Management Act of 1990; and WHEREAS, the Plan was appealed to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board to review certain issues related to the Anderson Creek area of the City; and WHEREAS, the Hearings Board reviewed the City's Plan, conducted a public heating on November 28, 1995, and issued its Final Decision and Order on December 26, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Hearings Board identified specific intemal inconsistencies within the text and tables of the Comprehensive Plan and ordered that those inconsistencies be corrected by February 26, 1996 and filed with the Board by March 4, 1996; and WHEREAS, the ordered corrections were drafted and reviewed by the Bremerton Planning Commission, were the subject of a Commission public hearing on January 30, 1996, were included in a "Statement of Actions Taken", and were recommended by the Commission for City Council approval; now, therefore, THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. The Bremerton Comprehensive Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted in its entirety with the following pages amended as set forth in exhibits "A" through "G" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein: a. Land Use Element page 40 is amended as set forth in Exhibit "A"; b. Land Use Element page 41 is amended as set forth in Exhibit "B"; c. Land Use Element page 43 is amended as set forth in Exhibit "C"; 7'7 Land Use Element page 48 is amended as set forth in Exhibit .....D, Land Use Element page 76 is amended as set forth in Exhibit "E,"' Land Use Element page 80 is amended as set forth in Exhibit .....F, Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the summary of this Ordinance for publication attached hereto as Exhibit "G" pursuant to RCW 61.16.160. 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 LAW City Council President APPROVED this day of ,1996. LYNN HORTON, M~or ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY City Clerk Exhibit "A" 9. wESTBREMERTON PLAN A. WEST BREMERTON SECTOR DESCRIPTION The West Bremerton sector is, by far, the largest of the three with 11,198 acres, or about 76 percent of the City's total area. The urbanized portion accounts for about one-fifth of the sector and includes all areas west of National Avenue and Oyster Bay, the West Park and Jackson Park communities, the Naval Hospital, NAD Park, the developing Pendergast Sports Complex, Kitsap Lake, the City's sewage treatment plant, SR-3, and other points of interest. On the urban fringe are operating gravel extraction operations and undeveloped hills. The non-urbanized 4/5 of the West Sector consists mostly of City Utility-owned forest lands, the City's Union River Watershed, Gold Mountain Golf Course, and some smaller facilities. Also included in this sector, but physically separated, is the Anderson Creek utility lands east of Gorst and south of Sinclair Inlet. In December 1994, a portion of the Anderson Creek area (approximately 340 acres) was declared to be surplus utility land and has been designated for industrial use on the Comprehensive Plan. // Use -- Page 40 I I ! ! ! ! Exhibit "B" All lands were inventoried and existing uses and residential densities were determined. Only lands within the City limits or in City ownership will be addressed, with the understanding that Kitsap County will produce a consistent and coordinated land use plan for all unincorporated areas. B. LAND USE INVENTORY The City's land use inventory included only areas within the City limits. The following table provides a short summary of land uses within the City limits of West Bremerton. W. BREMERTON PERCENT LAND USES TOTAL ACREAGE OF TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 382.4 3.4 COMMERCIAL 81.4 0.7 INDUSTRIAL 142.9 1.3 PARKS & O.S. 345.8 3.1 SCHOOLS 22.0 0.2 PUBLIC 226.5 2.0 WATERSHED 3,529.2 31.5 UTILITY LANDS 4,795.4 42.8 RIGHT-OF-WAY 387.6 3.5 VACANT 1,284.8 11.5 TOTALS: 11,198.0 100.0 % of City = 75.9 C. RESIDENTIAL LANDS (1) Overall Character: Residential lands account for only 3.5 percent of the total land area and the overall residential density is a very Iow 2.3 dwellings per acre. Much of West Bremerton and adjacent unincorporated areas might be considered Bremerton's "urban fringe". These areas were originally rural and still retain much of their rural character and lifestyle. The neighborhoods surrounding Kitsap Lake have a character of their own and residents often express a sod of protective "pride of ownership" regarding the lake and its environs. West Bremerton is a very desirable place in which to live, as demonstrated by the success of the Dockside on Kitsap Lake community and other new investment and development. (2) Infill Capacity: The City's watershed and utility lands are important to the City's water source and forest resources and are not being considered for residential development. However, with the urbanized portions of the West Bremerton Land Use--- Page 41 Exhibit "C" Most of the commercial development is concentrated within the Auto Center District or the small neighborhood service center at the north end of Kitsap Lake. Restaurants, motels and other tourist-related uses are located along Kitsap Way on each side of SR-3. Only 12.6 acres of vacant commercial land remains in West Bremerton and the City will be looking for opportunities to increase commercial development opportunities, especially in areas that have good freeway visibility and easy access to SR-3. E. INDUSTRIAL LANDS Most of the area's 143 acres of existing industry is located within the Auto Center District, which is zoned for "General Industry", the City's "heavy industrial" zone. Mineral resource extraction operations are "industrial" land uses for planning and zoning purposes. Gravel extraction takes place at the west end of Werner Road and in other locations throughout the area. These sites have limited life expectancies and the next use of those lands is not yet clear. Some hilly sites offer excellent views and may be more desirable as residential sites. The Plan reflects the current industrial use and, at the owners' requests, will support the "Industrial Park" zoning that has been on these properties since 1988. It's apparent that all lands presently zoned for industrial use are not necessarily most suitable for for non-resource type industrial uses. Some have physical, Iocational, or other limitations. Some owners will request Plan amendments to allow more appropriate uses --- primarily residential. Lands that really are uniquely-suited to future industrial uses will be strongly protected by the City from competing non-industrial development pressures. The old Kitsap Lake Drive-in Theater, north of the lake was zoned for industrial development and will soon become a new Puget Power facility. Some adjacent (currently residential) lands to the east have been added to this industrial park district for future expansion. F. PARKS & SCHOOLS The West Bremerton sector is fortunate in having a great deal of undeveloped land and many opportunities for parks and recreational areas. The area already has Kitsap Lake Park, NAD Park, the new Pendergast Sports Park, Jarstad Park near Gorst, Gold Mountain Golf Course, and smaller parks and recreation facilities in Jackson Park, West Park and other areas. With the vast amount of total area, its surprising that there is very little public shoreline access. Jackson Park offers a shoreline park and beaches for its residents. Kitap Lake has the public park and two other small public access points. And, those fortunate enough to live in waterfront homes or condominiums have access to their shorelines. The Parks and Open Space Element of this Comprehensive Plan will explore ways in which NAD Park and other areas might be further developed to provide new access opportunities. Three public schools serve West Bremerton; Jackson Park and West Hills Elementaries, and a new elementary school just east of Kitsap Lake. Since West Bremerton has the greatest growth potential, it will also generate additional demands on the school system to provide more Land Use-- Page 43 Exhibit "D" City of Bremerton UNION RIVER WATERSHED and UTILITY LANDS Prepared by~ Bremerlon Planning I I A I& Land Use -- Page 48 Exhibit "E" S.1: :ANDERSON 'CRE EKCORPORATE !CAMpUS : I A. LOCATION ,,t~ST,~ ~ ;..:-.". An undeveloped area of approximately 400 acres, located east of Gorst, mostly south of SR-16, and west of Anderson Hill Road. B. AREA DESCRIPTION The subject area currently hosts City of Bremerton ground water supply sources. The terrain slopes upward from Sinclair Inlet and Highway 16 to an elevation of nearly 400 feet at the southwest corner. The area includes a system of streams and ravines. GORS'T C. SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSAL The owner of the site proposes a comprehensive development that would include a planned office, hotel, and warehouse distribution development. The mix of proposed uses on this single site represents un unfamiliar combination that is not readily processed through existing development regulations and zoning. The uniqueness of this proposal justifies further analysis to ensure a quality development as well as sensitivity to its neighbors and environmental characteristics. Included in this study should be an analysis of infrastructure availability and timing. The cities of Port Orchard and Bremerton have agreed to provide both sewer and water to support a large-scale corporate campus at this location. The details need to be completed. B:LAND-USE.E-E Land Use -- Page 76 in 9~IN3OI$3B A..USN30-Iv~39 NV-id B$1'! aNWI't ~pue-I ~!lp, n '~ -in ~.l. Nf~O ~ orlon) d ./ L //· SM ( h ,,A,, ~lq!qx2t Exhibit "G" For publication: ORDINANCE SUMMARY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Bremerton City Council passed Ordinance No. , entitled An Ordinance adopting the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and including amendments ordered by the Growth Hearings Board on February 21, 1996. This Ordinance consists of the following elements: A. INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN which outlines the need for planning, the requirements of the Growth Management Act of 1990, a description of the City's 1986 Plan, relationships between the Plan and its implementing regulations, and a program for periodic review and amendment. B. THE VISION FOR BREMERTON describes the community's vision of the future, broken down into vision statements pertaining to population growth, neighborhoods, human development/education, governmental services, economic diversification, tourism, and transportation and mobility. C. PLANNING GOALS includes a listing of the statewide (GMA) planning goals and supplementary City goals that will help to implement the vision statements and that also guided the preparation of all other Plan elements. D. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM was the first element to be written and adopted. It outlines the public process to be used in the development and period review of the Plan. E. LAND USE ELEMENT depicts the City's growth-related goals and visions for the next 20 years and includes the Plan maps on which zoning is based. It addresses development constraints, socio-economic considerations, the Urban Growth Area, density, City sector plans and outlines for Specific Area Plans. F. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT is closely linked to Land Use and identifies current conditions and deficiencies in the City's street system, traffic and transit data, travel demands, road improvement options, and other related data. It also establishes Levels of Service standards for City arterial streets, a financing and implementation plan, and a Concurrency Management Strategy. G. HOUSING ELEMENT includes goals, policies and strategies related to Bremerton's current and future housing needs. It addresses housing conditions, facilities and services, housing costs and affordability and related issues. H. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT consists of two parts, the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Facilities Program. The Plan outlines the GMA requirements, scope, goals and policies, and implementation strategies. The Program includes an inventory of capital facilities, forecast of future needs, and a six-year finance program for capital facilities. I. UTILITIES ELEMENT includes an inventory, analysis, and future needs assessment lbr various types of utilities, primarily natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications, and addresses levels of service, design and resource conservation. J. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT includes goals and policies related to critical lands, shorelines, air and water quality, energy conservation and historic preservation. K. IMPLEMENTATION, CONSISTENCY AND CONCURRENCY ELEMENT describes a number of Plan implementation tools, including zoning, subdivision regulations, shoreline management, urban renewal, area/neighborhood plans, countywide growth policies, interjurisdictional growth management agreement, and annexation policies. It also explains how the City will deal with issues of consistency and concurrency. The GLOSSARY includes definitions of terms commonly used in comprehensive planning under the Growth Management Act. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING UNAPPROYED DRAFT January 30, 1996 DRAFT The meeting began with the Secretary calling the roll: Those present were: Chairman Olsen, Commissioners Hancock. Goetze, Dingfield, Boyd, Stone, and Robinson. Absent was Commissioner Jackson. Staff Present: R0n Hough, Jack Allingham, and Marylyn Waibel. Chairman Olsen asked if there were any additions or deletions to the Agenda'? Commissioner Dingfield requested that a discussion be added to the Agenda regarding the joint study session with the City Council/Planning Commission. Motion by Commissioner Boyd and Seconded by Commissioner Goetze to approve the addition to the Agenda. Approved unanimously. Commissioner Stone expressed his concern about the absence of the minutes from December 19, 1995. Ron Hough indicated that he tried to find them -- the person who was to have done them was discharged about that time and they have not been transcribed. Ron Hough indicated that he would find someone to transcribe them. Chairman Olsen announced that this was the time for the Public Hearings. He went over the basic rules and procedures tbr the hearing process and indicated that the rules are on the back of the Agenda. Chairman Olsen expressed his concern about the format of the agenda. He indicated that the format on the agenda was changed six months ago and continues to be typed incorrectly. The hearings are supposed to be on the agenda before all other items. Ron Hough stated that the procedures for the Public Hearing did not get on the back of the agenda for this meeting. He indicated that his office was in turmoil. Chairman Olsen asked if there was anyone in the audience that was unaware of how the Planning Commission conducts Public Hearings'? Chairman Olsen again reviewed the procedures for the Public Hearing. Chairman Olsen requested that we hear the Director's Report. Motion by Commissioner Stone to .move aooroval of the model mo~lk0n, be it resolved, the Bremerton Planning Commissi6~, afte~ ~onsidering oral and3~ritten testimony, and staff report, recommends to th~City Council avoroval of the/Rieht-of-Way Vacation t}rooosal as the areas orovose/d to be vacated ar-e' no longer/neede-d tO be retained for ~ub'iic rieht-of-wav n~ed~/and that the oublic interest/~ill best be served bv 31.000 square feet of commercially developed land on/the tax rolls, The vacate ~t~ll subject to the follow)d~g conditionS: 1. The applic 11 compensate the City f0/r the t~ror~ertv in acc0r~lance?'~vith City and State regulations. ./~ .... .,/' ' 2. Easements necessary for ex~$tangrand future utahtaes shall be'reserved. Secofid~ed by Commissioner Bod ue n c 11 n / ' Bovd. yes: Olsen. ves:'~ Motion passed. Jack ..... s.ta~ed 7//// /// Allingham that with the Planning Co~.?ssion approval, the recgrfimendation will be forwarded to the/City Council. Public Noti~-~ will be given before the~aring. Chairman Olsen thanked the public foLtfieir participation. Chairman 01sen stated that we would go back to the minute~. Is there a call to the public tbr anything that is not on the agenda? No response. Any Old Business? No response. Chairman Olsen announced that we will begin the second Public Hearing. Chairman 01sen asked if he needed to ask the appearance of fairness questions? Ron Hough indicated no. Ron Hough stated that we are considering revisions to the Comprehensive Plan that are required by the Growth Management Hearings Board as a result of the appeals of our Comprehensive Plan that was adopted last April. The appeals were brought by the Anderson Creek Association. The focus of the appeals was the Anderson Creek area owned by the City Utilities, which is about 340 acres that the City Utility decided to surplus. Mr. Sciepko entered into an agreement with the City to purchase the property and combine it with his property and turn it into a large industrial development. It came to us late in the planning process just before we adopted the Comprehensive Plan and after the plan had gone through public heating before the CAC. The CAC did not get a chance to comment on it and the Planning Commission had already held its hearings on the Comprehensive Plan by the time this change came to us, it was on its Way to the City Council. It was put into the EIS that we prepared on the Comprehensive Plan, and also the subject of some lengthy public hearings before the Council last March and April. The Plan was adopted in April with the entire Anderson Creek area designated Industrial Park. The Anderson PAGE -5- Creek Association felt it was inappropriate and they appealed the Plan to the Growth Management Hearing Board. That appeal was filed last July. The public hearing was held last November and came out with a 3 ! page report, the final conclusions and order. Some issues addressed were Public Participation because of the late arrival; the appellants felt there wasn't adequate citizen participation, the Board felt there was considering the testimony at two City Council meetings; open space requirements--they reviewed capital facilities analysis-- the hearings Board felt we didn't need to do a capital facilities analysis until there is some sort of a proposal; protection of critical areas--they felt we did an adequate job of protecting those with the adoption of the critical lands ordinance in 1993, destruction of aquifers resulting from the change to IP--they felt we can't assume that an industrial development on top of the hill will automatically cause damage to the aquifers; the City was also in the process of doing an aquifer recharge study--the Water Utility--they determined the aquifer where we get our well water is recharged from the aquifer recharge area that extends to the south, consistency with the Countywide Comprehensive Plan and felt there wasn't a problem there. Internal and External consistency of the plan, they did find a few things that were not consistent internally and that was resulting from the late arrival of the amendment. We did not have time to adjust all of the tables and maps, etc. They found our plan to be consistent with the Growth Management Act--there weren't any major problems. The minor inconsistencies are required to be fixed by March 4th. Amendments were drafted by January 16th, the Staff Reports mailed out and Planning Commission hearing tonight, then it goes to the City Council Growth Management Committee on February 7th, City Council Public Hearing on February 14th, second reading on the 21st. The recommendation is written up in a statement of actions taken which is required to be submitted to the Hearings Board on March 4th and is drafted the way it might come out of the City Council after all of the changes are made. The Plan was adopted by Resolution, it should have been adopted by Ordinance. The action taken, the City has re-adopted the Comprehensive Plan by ordinance. The changes are not major, most are internal inconsistencies changes between maps and tables and in some cased the hearings board was wrong, assuming certain things said certain things that they didn't. For example, the West Sector they confused an existing land use table with a proposed land use table. So we wrote up a clarification. The major changes are to clarify what has happened in the City since the plan was adopted. The main thing that happened was that it went from 340 acres of industrial park to further negotiations that kept the central corridor open and will leave it in utility land designation-and reduce the area that is sold to Mr. Sciepko to about 168 acres which includes industrial park. The final product is much better than the original product because it leaves the open space through the center and creates a more appropriate industrial area to develop and leaves some residential and clarifies the maps and tables in the plan. We feel that by these actions we will meet the hearings board order on time. PAGE -6- Commissioner Stone asked if Mr. Sciepko's property has been annexed into the City'? Ron Hough indicated that it had been. Completed last November. Commissioner Stone stated that we had made a recommendation at the hearing in March to remand it back to the Director because he had recommended IP from County Business Park. Am I correct in the assumption that upon annexation the City Council changed it to IP? Ron Hough stated that in the zoning ordinance it allows for default zoning upon annexation. The default zoning says that when property comes into the City, you can bring it in without going through the pre-annexation planning and zoning process by just taking the City's zone that is most directly similar to the County's zoning on the property at the time. Within 60 days of annexation it goes to the Planning Commission to determine if that is the zoning the City wants to keep on the property or if there is some reason to change it. Rather than bring it to the Planning Commission after the annexation, it was brought to you before the annexation. Commissioner Stone stated that his question arose from the fact that was the area in which we had a difference of opinion as to the applicability, if we were following the Municipal Code. It seems to me we went pretty far astray. Ron Hough stated it did go astray--it shouldn't have come to the Planning Commission in the first place in his opinion. We should have had a study session and sat down and gone over the codes. Chairman Olsen stated that the City Council has taken in all of this property as IP? Ron Hough stated that they took it in as the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning is IP. Chairman Olsen stated that was the action by the City Council? Ron Hough indicated yes. The center piece remains utility land, the Anderson Creek corridor. Commissioner Robinson stated that is primarily to protect and insure the protection of the creek. Ron Hough stated that it might have looked this way anyway. The City could have sold Mr. Sciepko the whole thing and we may have ended up with a site plan that looked very similar to this. But to insure that this would happen, the City entered into an agreement of that sort rather than to assume the site plan would show something similar to it. Commissioner Robinson stated that what is here tonight is not a judicial matter, it is legislative housekeeping for what has already occurred and to answer the questions/reservations by the Growth Management Heatings Board. PAGE -7- Ron Hough stated that after the changes are made and sent back to the Hearings Board, the Board will schedule another public hearing to see if we are in compliance. This is a long process-probably a year or so from the time of the appeal to the time the final action is taken. Commissioner Robinson added that what may or may not occur on the pieces of property up there that are not designated utility land--that might be developed or not or by whom is completely academic to this situation'? Ron Hough indicated the decision has been made, we are just correcting the documents to reflect the decision. Commissioner Boyd asked if by making that center property utility land, doesn't that answer the protests we have had from the County residents'? Ron Hough indicated not entirely. We are hoping it will. Commissioner Boyd stated that mostly it covers their concerns. R0n Hough stated it removed the potential of industrial development in that corridor. Commissioner Boyd wondered why they were not here. Ron Hough stated that Mike and Helen and the folks that work with them provided additional environmental information that we can use in the processing of any applications. Commissioner Stone asked if he was correct in his impression that the Hearings Board-that this procedure had satisfactorily met the test of RCW 3670 on Public Participation. Ron Hough indicated that they didn't have any problems with the procedures. Chairman Olsen asked if there were any other questions? No response. Asked if there was any written testimony. None. Asked for any public in favor? Ron Sciepko stated that the merits of the Comprehensive Plan were reviewed, testified to, considered and decided by the City Council in the Winter and Spring of 1994 and 1995. The appellants took the matter to the hearings board, to which they submitted detailed briefs and numerous supporting documents. The actual hearing on their appeals lasted most of a full day before a hearings examiner who found that none of the arguments challenging the City's Comprehensive Plan had merit. Mr. Sciepko reiterated the process and how we got to where we are tonight. Chairman Olsen asked if there are any questions. No response. Any additional speakers in favor? No response. Anyone in the public who would like to speak in opposition'? PAGE -8- Dave Delarowve with the Association to Protect Anderson Creek. Presented history on how the Association got involved and what their position is. Concerned with the project "in his backyard", the process of surplusing the property, public notification and felt that the sale was a "done deal" before the hearing. Concerned that the Industrial Park is not consistent with the development around it, being residential, concerned with the water--residential wells. Also, had concerns with urban services; fire and police services, sewer capacity, as well as traffic access. Stated he would like to see the whole area left as utility land. If that recommendation is not possible would like to see other zoning options explored for the property. The area designated as Low Density Residential be consistent with the rural area using the City's designations. Chairman Olsen requested any additional speakers in opposition'? Mike McCuddin with the Association to Protect Anderson Creek. Stated he was here last year to discuss the appropriate zoning for the 75 acres being annexed. The proposal was presented to make it IP, and you reviewed the tables, the Commission agreed that the most similar zoning was not IP buy similar to Business Park and that was how you voted. Concerned that disappeared. Concerned about the public notification as well as environmental issues. Chairman Olsen stated that the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. The Council has already taken a vote. Also stated that the speakers are rehashing a rehash. The Commission is here to review the Comprehensive Plan and Map Amendment only. Mike McCuddin questioned what the Commissions role is in the matter? Chairman Olsen stated the Commission will make only a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Robinson stated that we are getting far afield. The opposition testimony is the same arguments that have been given before. It is not pertinent to this subject because we are not being asked to make any recommendation. What we are doing is administrative housekeeping that will go to the City Council to reconcile the definitions based on the appeal hearing, to clear up the numbers, tables, etc. Ron Hough stated the Hearing Board did not find a problem with the decisions made by the City. They found problems with the consistency in the text and the maps of the Comprehensive Plan. What we have are the corrections to the inconsistencies. We hold a public hearing to make sure we are correcting them the right way. Mike McCuddin wondered why they were here? If what we say has no impact? Commissioner Robinson stated it can't have under the circumstances. housekeeping. This is strictly R0n Hough stated that the questions we are trying to ask at this public hearing is if we are doing the right thing as directed by the hearings board to correct these inconsistencies. PAGE -9- Commissioner Robinson added in accordance with the actions taken by and voted on by the City Council. Commissioner Stone asked if he was correct in stating that the Council will have a public hearing on the 14th and 21 st'? Ron Hough indicated yes. Whenever we amend the comprehensive plan for any reason we hold a public heating at the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mike McCuddin questioned if it would do any good to come to those meetings. Ron Hough stated that the question again at that time is whether the City is doing what the board ordered them to do, not what it should be zoned at. Commissioner Robinson reiterated the purpose of the hearing. Chairman Olsen suggested that Mike finish up and stated that when things proceed they will hold hearings on zoning and some of the arguments you are using will be brought in then. Chairman Stone asked if Mike and his group attended the heatings board and all had an opportunity to speak? Recorded -- are we recording the same comments again? Mike McCuddin responded not necessarily. He and Mr. Sceipko were at the same meeting, but if you were to talk to both of them you would wonder if they were at the same meeting. The Growth Management Hearing Board in their review of the process understood why the group was upset. The question is did the City go through the proper procedures. Our point is that this was introduced late in the process, perhaps procedures were rushed and the public input was after the decision had already been made. Charlie Brown stated that he was concerned about the residential wells and supported the previous two speakers. Felt the proposed industrial park is only a couple of miles from the Port of Bremerton and felt there would be competition hurting the taxpayers. Also asked Commissioner Din~field is she was the one who testified at the Port of Bremerton in favor if the Sinclair Landing Association. Commissioner Dingfield responded she was. Adding that she did that on behalf of the Bremerton School District and as a private citizen. Charlie Brown stated that made no difference. You did not identify yourself as a Board Member of the Sinclair Landing Association, did not identify yourself as a member of the Planning Commission and that is opposition to the RCW. Chairman Olsen asked if there were any additional speakers? PAGE -10- Ron Houeh responded to Dave's questions about zoning. The City's lowest density zoning is single family l which has a minimum lot size of 15,400 square feet and allows about 3 units and acre. Chairman Olsen stated that those speaking in opposition will have opportunities to speak at City Council. R0n Hough stated on the 14th of February. at the Council Hearing. Chairman Olsen stated that when it gets into the planning stages of the development there will be public input. Ron Hough indicated yes. Commissioner Hancock indicated that Paragraph D on page 3 states Page 45 of the land use elements suggests that Anderson Creek is a Watershed owned by the City of Bremerton Water Utility. This needs to be clarified. What needs to be clarified? R0n Hough answered that the statement is still accurate. It just needed to be clarified. I think they assumed we were selling the entire watershed which is not true. Commissioner Hancock asked if we are going to amend the table, page 41 from 142.9 acres. Ron Hough answered that we are amending the table on page 41 in several ways and reviewed them. Commissioner Goetz asked on Page 3, item c, if once the public hearing is achieved we have completed the requirement? R0n Hough answered that was just one step. Discussion followed on whether a motion was necessary. Commissioner Robinson moved that the required Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that ha~; been drafted and ready to be adopted along with the entire Plan by ordinance and exhibits attached to the ordinance show these changes which came from staff, The accompanied ordinance and amendments are recommended for approval by the City Council and pass these on ~econd reading to comply with the Growth Hearings Board order, Seconded by Commission Boyd. Question: Robinson. yes: Hancock, yes: Dingfield, yes; Goetze. yes; Boyd. yes: Stone, yes; Olsen, abstain, Motion passes. Discussion followed on the format of the agenda. Commissioner B0yd reiterated that the Hearing should be first. PAGE - 11-