HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/23/96 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
239 4TH STREET
BREMERTON, WA 98337
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
OCTOBER 23t 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 a~
the request of a Council member.
A. Minutes - September 25, 1996
B. Minutes - October 2, 1996
C. Amended Professional Services Contract For
Retained Counsel
#AB96-233 ~
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
5. MAYORWS REPORT
6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes)
NEW BUSINESS
A. Confirmation Of Building Development Permit
Manager (Building official) Appointee Judith
M. Johnson
#AB96-236 33
RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution #2564, Approving Final Plat for 42
Lot Single Family Residential Subdivision On Two
Adjoining Parcels totaling 3.7 Acres; Applicant
FPH Management Construction Inc.
Resolution #2565 Supporting Veterans' Request #AB96-238 51
To Obtain USS Missouri
(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)
PUBLIC BEARING - 6:00 PM OR LATER
A. Closed Record Public Hearing to Hear Appeal
Of A Planning Commission Denial Of An
Application For Zoning Ordinance Special
Exception; Appellant Paul & L.G. Gaddis
#AB96-239 53
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT:
MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 25,~ 1996
FOR AGEND~ OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ORIGINATOR:
DATE SUBMITTED:
October 23~ i996
City Council
John Law~ President
10-18-96
2. CLEASAANCES: (comment on back
if necessary)
3. ~XHIBIT$:
ENDORSEMENT__ INFORMATION__
MAYOR
PROVBD COUNCIL
coUNCIL PRESIDENT~/~
4. SII~Y STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR'COUNCIL ACTION:
8. RECOM2~ENDAT!ON:
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFF!CIAZ~:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
AMENDED
DATE:~
11. AGENDA '~ILL
TAPE #1411 UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER Z5t 1996
#0031
#0051
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, September 25, 1996, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present
were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, David
Farr, Richard Neville, Cecil McConnell, and A1 Colvin. Council
member Lon Overson was absent. 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 Council member A1 Colvin.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - August 28, 1996
#AB96-214
B. Confirmation of Jim Spencer as Interim
Director of Parks & Recreation
#AB96-215
M/S/C(Neville/Montgomery) to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
Vote on motion:
In favor: Colvin, McConnell, Law, Neville,
Farr, Huff-Menees, Montgomery
Opposed: Winters
Motion carried.
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 September 25, 1996, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: EFT 3882, 201827 through 202013 in the amount of
$339,725.53; and Regular Payroll for the period ending 9-15-96.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Winters commented on the nice weather and reminded everyone to
support local funding raising efforts.
Mr. Montqomery reported on Sunday he had the opportunity to view
the salmon run at Gorst Creek and was surprised over the number of
grandparents bringing their grandchildren to see the salmon
TAPE #1411
City Council Reg. Mtg.
September 25, 1996
Page 2 of 18
Minutes
spawning. He attended the meeting sponsored by Mayor Horton and the
Bremerton School District at Crownhill Elementary School, which was
well attended.
Mrs. Huff-Menees reminded residents of the Charleston neighborhood,
local business owners and concerned citizens of the meeting to
discuss the Charleston Neighborhood plan on October 3, 7:00 P.M.,
at the Bremerton School District Administration Office.
Mr. Fart invited everyone to the grand opening and dedication of
Arvon Park, 1512 Arvon Street, 3:00 P.M., on September 27, 1996.
He noted the development of this park is an example of how
concerned citizens can make a difference within the community. The
park site was donated by the National Spiritualist Association of
Churches, but was solicited by a neighborhood activities Mary Sump.
He commended the Parks Department for their part in developing the
park. Parking for this event is limited and alternate parking can
be found on 15th Street.
Mr. Colvin reported District #1 had a well attended Neighborhood
meeting on September 19, where Mayor Horton and Sinclair Landing
Association made excellent presentations.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Lynn Horton read a Proclamation recognizing September
October 4, 1996, as DISPUTE RESOLUTION WEEK.
30 -
Mayor Horton thanked the Poggie Club for helping educate people on
the fish runs at Gorst Creek; and she thanked the community for
their excellent behavior when visiting the Gorst Creek area.
Mayor Horton thanked the Bremerton School District Administration
and Crownhill Elementary School for hosting the City/School forum.
she also thanked those that attended that event bringing with them
a good cross section of questions. Similar future events will be
held in various schools throughout the City.
In regard to the concerns raised about the "No Trespass" orders at
Westpark, Police Chief Paul Du Frense will provide additional
comments; however, the "No Trespass" issue is supported by the
Housing Authority, residents of Westpark and the City
Administration and Police Department. It is something that has
come down from President Clinton as "one strike and your out,"
which means as long as someone is a law abiding citizen there would
be no restriction on entering Westpark. If someone is not a law
abiding citizen, they will have their access to Westpark
restricted, which is what happened to several individuals, who
spoke before Council at the September 18 Council meeting. The
Housing Authority does have an appeal process and as such the
TAPE #1411
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 25, 1996
Page 3 of 18
Housing Authority is the right body to resolve disputes over the
"No Trespass" order. The City of Bremerton has no authority over
the Housing Authority.
Police Chief Paul Du Fresne stated his first response would be to
Patricia Anderson, who raised a concern abut the "No Trespass"
signs and what the Trespass Law states. He cited RCW 9A 52.080,
Criminal Trespass In The Second Degree, which is a crime that is
committed when someone goes on the premise of someone without their
permission or after being warned not to; and it is misdemeanor
charge. The Bremerton Housing Authority has the right to issue
warnings to people, who are on their property without their
permission, that they cannot return to Westpark. Those warnings
center around people, who have been involved in criminal
activities, drug sales or some other activity that Westpark
residents do not want to be subjected to. Chief Du Frensne will be
forwarding this information to Ms. Anderson.
In regard to the concerns raised by Annette Taylor and Mark Miller,
Ms. Taylor was a resident of Westpark because she was placed in
Emergency Housing by Kitsap Community Action Program. Ms. Taylor
would not otherwise qualify for residency at Westpark due to an
outstanding bill owned when she resided in Westpark over a year
ago. Sadly, Ms. Taylor is still in a situation where she needed
some assistance and KCAP placed her in that emergency housing.
While she was temporarily placed at Westpark, Mr. Miller, who is
the father of two of Ms. Taylor's children, arrived in an
intoxicated condition and assaulted her, resulting in her calling
the Police for assistance. The Police arrived, confirmed Mr.
Miller had assaulted Ms. Taylor and then took action to arrest him.
Chief Du Frense talked with Mr. Miller after he was served a "No
Trespass" notice, and he advised Chief Du Frensne that he had been
before the Judge and was attempting to go through a 12-step program
and improve his situation. Ms. Taylor was relocated by KCAP to
another emergency housing location due to her problem with Mr.
Miller. By moving Ms. Taylor out of Westpark, Mr. Miller will not
be restricted from seeing his children. Information as to how to
process a complaint against the Housing Authority was given to Mr.
Miller.
In response to concerns raised by Anthony Robinson and Maria
DeVitto, they both alleged they were being harassed by the Police,
which is simply not the case. When he investigated their
allegations, he learned Mr. Robinson and Ms. DeVitto are both under
order of eviction at Westpark because of criminal activity
involving both of their residence. Mr. Robinson has been convicted
and will be sentenced in October for conspiracy to sell crack
cocaine and Ms. DeVitto's property was the property being used by
Mr. Robinson's juvenile son for selling crack cocaine. Ms. DeVitto
TAPE #1411
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 25, 1996
Page 4 of 18
complained that her telephone was being tapped, which it was not,
although the conversations between Mr. Robinson, his son and the
police when he was engaging in the drug transactions were properly
recorded under a limited warrant authorized by the Superior Court
of the State of Washington. This is an unfortunate situation and
both Mr. Robinson and Ms. DeVitto were quite upset about being
harassed by the Police, but the reality is they were engaged in
activity that will not be tolerated in Westpark or in the city and
people will be prosecuted for such actions. Unfortunately, Mr.
Robinson's young son is now serving a sentence after a conviction
for selling drugs. President Law thanked Chief Du Frense and his
staff for researching all of the questions and accusations made at
the September 18 city Council meeting.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Gordy Byrd apologized for a statement he may have made at the
September 18 city Council meeting that hoodlum type people could be
found at the Skill Center. He could not recall ever having made
such a statement because he believes in sticking up for people.
John Thomas, Bremerton resident, reported he and his daughter had
fun the fish run at Gorst Creek. He found the TCI presentation
during the September 18 Council meeting to be interesting.
Approximately 3-4 months ago he enjoyed a dinner at a west
Bremerton restaurant where he ran into a few TCI contractors, at
which time he asked them when they would be working on Bremerton's
system. Their response was "we're never going to get into
Bremerton because Bremerton refuses to negotiate with them". Mr.
Thomas believed just the opposite...that TCI refuses to negotiate
with the City. He thanked Kathleen McCluskey for doing her job and
very shortly his family will be a very satisfied non-TCI customer.
Paul Thompson, Bremerton resident, stated he was representing three
apartment complexes on 5th Street and requesting the City allow
residential parking along the north side of 5th Street for those
living in those apartments He has paid $200-300 per month in
parking tickets in front of his apartment.
John Ryan, Bremerton resident, stated he was representing teens of
Bremerton regarding the Teckno Dance on Callow that was closed down
by the City because they had not obtained a proper license;
however, three weeks prior that establishment was declared a
private club. He wanted to know the reason why the City shut down
the club. President Law stated someone would look into the matter
and contact him. Mr. Ryan stated he was a me~%ber of the club and
it was a way to keep teens off the street and out of trouble and
felt this activity should be supported by the City.
TAPE #1411
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 25, 1996
Page 5 of 18
Glenn Jarstad, Bremerton resident, talked about the successful
salmon run in Gorst Creek. He too was amazed over the public's
response to viewing this annual migration of fish. He commended
the Poggie Club members for their help educating the public at the
viewing site and the City employees for their being safety
conscious in setting up barriers for walkways and parking.
Doyle Detroit, Executive Director of Westsound Community Access TV,
handed out copies of their new Users Handbook, which has been
revised and broadened. As a result of those policies, there is now
more political programming on TCI Channel 12 than ever before.
Today, all of the certified candidates were invited to film a 30
minute program on October 3, 4, 5 and showing on October 12 for the
first time. She encouraged Council members to think of ways to use
the Access Channel in addition to their normal Council meeting
being telecast, she wanted the City Council members and viewers
know that they are working to improve the transmission of City
Council meetings from the Council Chambers.
9A - PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DENYING SHORELINE PERMIT FOR PRIVATE RECREATIONAL DOCK AT 1542
MADRONA POINT DRIVE (DON HOLTZ)~ ~AB96-221
After a public hearing conducted on May 25, 1996 and June 18, 1996,
the Planning Commission overturned a decision by the Director of
Community Development, denying a shoreline substantial development
permit which would have allowed a private recreational dock to be
constructed at 1542 Madrona Point Drive.
This decision is being appealed by the proponents for the dock, Don
Holtz and Lora Short, on the grounds stated in their written
arguments received at the Council's office September 9, 1996.
The City Council, when hearing an appeal, shall either: 1) Affirm
the decision under review; 2) Reverse the decision under review;
3) Modify in whole or part the decision under review; or 4) Remand
the matter back to the approving authority for further
consideration. Such action shall be decided by a majority vote of
the members present. That vote may be taken at the same or any
subsequent meeting.
President Law asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all Council members being seated.
President Law asked if anyone on the council did not review the
record from the Planning Hearing? No one responded. He asked if
any Council member had viewed the permit site since they reviewed
the documentation in the Agenda packet? No one responded.
Ian Sievers, city Attorney, stated this is a closed record hearing
#1510
TAPE #1411
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 25, 1996
Page 6 of 18
based on information presented at the Planning Commission hearing.
Council has reviewed those materials and according to Council's
direction to exclude any new evidence, but limit their
consideration to simply argument in writing at this stage, he made
certain expunges from some of the arguments and exhibits submitted
that he found not to be in the record before the Planning
Commission. There is a portion of the record that will be
presented in the form of slides, which will conclude the record.
also, Council should have reviewed a late submittal that came in
after the Agenda packet was produced, which he attached to his
memorandum.
Jack Allinqham, Planner, stated this is an appeal of a Planning
Commission action. The request is for a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit and the applicants are Don Holtz and Lora Short.
The proposed project was for a private recreational dock to be
constructed at 1542 Madrona Point Drive. The Director of Community
Development approved the permit on March 28, 1996. Subsequent
appeals were filed by Wayne Iverson, Kathy Gallagher, Susan and
Bernard Holland, Maynard Hoffman and Sandra Verhelst. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on May 21 and continued to
June 18, 1996. The slides shown to the City Council were shown
during the Planning Commission hearing.
M/S/C(Montgomery/McConnell) to sustain the Planning Commissions'
findings and decision to deny the Shoreline Development Permit to
develop a dock at 1542 Madrona Point.
Mr. Neville stated having grown up in this area, he had spent
considerable time on the water in the subject area. He noted Mr.
Holt's own attorney commented on the impact of the project as
follows: "near shore navigation will be somewhat impacted, usable
water service will be reduced and visual impact of aesthetic
quality of the existing shoreline will occur." He emphasized
docks are fine in an appropriate area; however, he did not find
that this channel was an appropriate area for a dock as that
proposed by Mr. Holtz. The water access on this waterway is very
unique to this area...a narrow entrance opening into a large bay
that is heavily used for recreational uses. It is for that reason
he will support the Planning Commission not to allow the dock in
the subject area.
Mr. Montqomer¥ stated he too was very familiar with the waterway
and the problems one might encounter during various tide levels.
Adding any kind of a pier in that area would further restrict the
passageway to the point it would be unsafe for anyone to travel
through those waters. He felt it did not make good sense to put in
an obstruction and let the City be liable for an accident waiting
to happen.
TAPE #1411
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 25, 1996
Page 7 of 18
Mr. Farr asked the City Attorney's opinion on Mr. Montgomery's
comment that the City could be held liable in the event of an
accident, if the City allowed the pier to be built? Ian Sievers,
city Attorney, stated he did not think the fact the City does not
enforce general state provision on speed that is appropriate for
conditions under the public duty doctrine would create any
liability whether this was approved or not. People are suppose to
use an appropriate speed in these conditions whether there are
other obstructions, other boats, docks, etc..
Mr. Winters quoted from the documentation (Agenda packet Page 175)
under GOAL - "to assure that adequate water access and moorage
facilities are available to the public and individuals, without
adversely impacting the natural aesthetic qualities of the
shoreline." He asked if anyone from the Department Of community
Development, who actually wrote the City's Shoreline Master
Program, actually visited the sites within the City in order to
determine who is to rule what is "natural aesthetic quality to the
shoreline?" Donald Pratt, Director of Community Development,
stated in this case the permit is administratively approved over
his signature and he originally found to approve the dock and was
overturned by the Planning Commission. The Shoreline Master
program contains several policies, which in some cases appear to be
conflicting and can be used to make either side of the case for or
against the dock. It was his responsiblity in the initial case to
determine on which policy to place the most emphasis, which he did.
But, the Planning Commission overturned that decision and found the
emphasis should be placed on other policies. Mr. Winters stated
there were some concerns in this document regarding tidelands and
who has the right to put a piling out onto the shore and build. He
asked if Mr. Holtz's proposal follow the State's recommendations
and City standards? Mr. Pratt stated yes, with one relatively
minor exception, which could have been changed. Mr. Holtz
presented an application that Mr. Pratt initially believed could be
approved, but the planning Commission disagreed with him because of
their interpretation of the policy. From a structural standpoint
with one exception the dock met the City's basis guidelines.
Mr. Colvin raised the issue of the City being liable if the dock
was approved. Mr. Slevers restated his position on any liability
to the City and agreed with Mr. Colvin that anyone can bring a
suit.
Mr. Farr asked Mr. Pratt to give a brief history of the permit
application. Mr. Pratt explained Mr. Holtz made an original
submittal for a dock, which could have administratively been
approved by him. Several meetings were held with Mr. Holtz where
he was advised that the submittal he originally made was not
approvable for several reasons: (1) not an adequate SEPA Checklist
TAPE #1411
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 25, 1996
Page 8 of 18
and he was advised the City may require an Environmental Impact
Statement unless he improved that Checklist. Mr. Holtz withdrew
the Checklist and submitted a subsequent Checklist that provided
further information agreed upon would be adequate to make the
environmental review. (2) Mr. Holtz was told the design he prepared
for the application was not adequate for approval, which he changed
and brought in what he determined to be an approval dock on his
reading of the Shoreline Master plan. He approved the proposal and
notice was given. The approval was appealed and went before the
Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission meeting on the
appeal, there was an error made in the order of testimony and in
order to correct that error the Planning Commission chair continued
the meeting to a following date the next month, resulting in a
portion being heard in May and a portion was held in June. In
June, the Planning Commission voted to overturn his decision and
the issue was subsequently appealed to the City Council. Mr. Parr
asked what the next step would be if Council upheld the Planning
Commissions' decision? Mr. Pratt stated if one of the parties felt
there was a procedural error they could appeal it to Superior
Court. Mr. sievers stated there are new State guidelines for
appeals of this kind of land use permits, some are procedural,
constitutional issues not supported by substantial evidence and are
appealable to Superior Court. Mr. Parr urged Council members to
take their personal desires out and whether or not he would choose
to run into a pier or moored float should not enter into the
decision. He hoped this decision is made on strictly whether or
not the applicant has a legal right to construct a pier in front of
his property.
Mr. Winters. asked when this is a closed record hearing does it mean
the public will not be heard outside what is in the public record?
Mr. sievers stated no oral argument or additional evidence will be
submitted by the public according to Council's own rule. Mr.
Winters stated he was having trouble interpreting Mr. Pratt's
comments about something being rate by criteria, but other things
come into play that we must make a decision. He felt there was a
contradiction between the City and the staff. But, if a person
applies and is within the criteria to be approved, he tended to
believe that was the right approach. After reading the
documentation, he feels it is a neighborhood issue as well.
Mr. Montqomer¥ stated he was not basing his decision on his
personal opinions, but rather the facts brought out by the Planning
Commission. He pointed out the record states the dock will not be
a joint use facility, which is one of the criteria, and it would
add to all the proliferation of new docks consuming limited
shorelines. He found the Planning Commissions' findings
appropriate and according to the law. President Law pointed out
that within the documentation the Holtz's expressed their
TAPE #1411
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 25, 1996
Page 9 of 18
willingness to share the dock with other people. Mr. Montqomer¥
stated there are many findings by the Planning Commission that do
not support approving the dock.
Mr. Colvln asked if there was anything to prevent other people from
the subject area applying for a permit to build a dock? Mr. Pratt
stated the Shoreline Program carries many policies, some of which
in some particular application are conflicting and the question is
which policy is emphasized for that particular application. After
tonight, someone can apply for a dock and still expect to have an
Administrative approval or denial. He will make a determination
whether to approve or disapprove and which policy to emphasize and
which not to emphasize on the basis of Council's decision on this
issue. Council's decision will be guiding future actions on how
docks are approved in that area until the administration comes back
with an amendment to the Shoreline Master Program that states docks
shall only be a certain size.
Mr. McConnell stated his approach was to read all of the testimony
from the hearing and then made a tentative decision, which he then
checked against the Planning Commissions' Findings Of Facts and
Conclusions. He found he agreed with the Commissions' last four
conclusions, i.e. impact on navigation, create a safety hazard in
some cases, does not comply with State Shoreline Management Act or
Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program.
Mr. Neville rebutted Mr. Farr's comments in that he was not against
all docks, but they do need to be looked at on a case-by-case
basis, and take into consideration the long term affect they would
have on a particular area. Mr. Winters rebutted Mr. Neville's
comment based on his opinion that 80 percent of the documentation
is about safe boating. He believes there is a self-enforcement
problem on all the waterways of Kitsap County. Someone being
reckless can hit a dock no matter how long or short. A lot of the
concerns are about the safety and navigational hazard.
President Law referenced Page 270 of the Agenda Packet and asked if
that was a document prepared by the appellants? Mr. Sievers stated
yes. President Law quoted from that page as follows: "because the
dock achieves a usable depth of water, obstruction od navigable
waters will only rarely occur." In his opinion, that shows there
would be an exposure for someone getting hurt. That issue along
with the adverse aesthetic impact on the area convinces him that
the proposed dock would not be appropriate in that area.
Vote on Motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Opposed:
Neville, McConnell, Colvin, Montgomery
Law
Winters, Huff-Menees, Farr
TAPE #1411
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 25, 1996
Page 10 of 18
7A - SCHOOL RESOURCE PROGRAM CONTRACT RENEWALt ~AB96-216
This is a renewal of the contract for school resource officer
service with the Bremerton school district. This agreement pays
half the salary for one officer (entry level) and provides for some
additional overtime hours to enhance coverage to the district.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Winters stressed this program is vital to the communication
between the Bremerton Police Department and School District in that
there is an open line of understanding on how to deal with
particular incidents where students and teachers have a
communication program. He strongly supports approving this
request.
Mrs. Huff-Menees stated she also supports this proposal and one of
the things she learned when the issue was discussed in committee is
that we do not have an officer at Bremerton High School on a
regular basis. When she inquired why not when other High Schools
in Kitsap County do have law enforcement officials on site, she was
told there has not been a need at Bremerton High School and one of
the reasons for that is because of programs like this that teaches
rules and regulations to the students prior to their getting to the
High School.
Mr. McConne11 noted the contract will not exceed $37,000 and the
School District will be paying half of that cost.
Mr. Fart stated he had contact with a young person, who had contact
with a resource Officer Fatt, and his response was Officer Fatt was
very professional, effective and appears to have a real rapport
with the youth.
Mr. Neville asked the City Clerk to read the seven issues listed on
the Scope of Work in the contract: Kathleen McCluske¥ read as
follows:
1. The Bremerton Police Department will provide a School resource
Officer to assist faculty, staff, students, and families of
Bremerton Junior High School and Mountain View Middle School. an
Officer will be assigned to this duty full time.
2. The Bremerton Police Department will provide a part-time School
Resource Officer to assist faculty, staff, students and families as
needed in schools throughout the Bremerton School District.
3. The School Resource officers along with Henry Mincey, Manager,
Community resource Division, and Chief of the Bremerton Police
Department, Paul Du Fresne, will work with the Bremerton School
District and Building Administrators to provide a positive, safe
#2765
TAPE #1411
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 25, 1996
Page 11 of 18
environment for students and employees.
4. The officers will work with individual students, small groups
of students, and large groups of students to encourage positive
behavioral choices.
5. The Bremerton Police Department Officials will work with the
Bremerton School District Administration to plan and carry out
inservices for staff which will help staff learn to identify safety
risks and learn appropriate responses in unsafe situations.
6. The Bremerton Police Officers will at all times conduct
themselves according to procedures laid out by Building Principals.
7. Bremerton Building administrators will work closely with the
Police officers and the Manager of the Community Resource Division
to plan and implement specific activities designed to improve
student behavioral choices at each site. All parties agree to meet
together on a regularly scheduled basis.
Police chief Paul Du Fresne pointed out this is the second year for
the project, which has provided good connections with the schools
and is a way to offset some General Fund expenses.
M/S/C/U(Winters/McConnell) to approve signing of this contract.
7B - AMENDMENT ~3 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH ABEYTA
& ASSOCIATES, $AB96-217
Since approval of Anmendment No. 1, Ms. Abeyta has been the primary
contract with all owners, agents, lawyers, etc. of properties in
the area approved for condemnation around the WWTP. The scope of
her responsibilities and time required in the acquisition process
has increased significantly. At present, the project is
approximately 70% complete and the amount of the agreement has been
reached. An increase in the Professional Services Agreement with
Abeyta & Associates to an amount not to exceed $60,000 is
requested. Ms. Abeyta's role with this project will continue in
the closing process and obtaining of title records for all
transactions.
Paul Lucas, Public Works and Utilities Department, stated he is the
person directly responsible working with Ms. Abeyta. Some delays
were encountered, one being the City trying to deal more directly
with the people in the subject area rather than going to court to
initiate the condemnation process at an earlier point of time.
Another reason for the delay had to do with the city having to deal
directly with an attorney for all transactions. Currently, Ms.
Abeyta is involved in approximately 17 on going transactions and
has been directly responsible for the closing of 38 transactions
#3086
TAPE #1411
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 25, 1996
Page 12 of 18
accomplished this year.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Winters stated all along he has had some concerns about what
has been going on in this particular project. He asked if it will
be necessary to use condemnation for any of the remaining
properties? Mr. Lucas stated yes, approximately 12.
Mr. Neville stated during the committee discussion on this issue
Mr. Lucas was asked to give an honest appraisal of the performance
of Ms. Abeyta and he asked Mr. Lucas to share that data with the
public. Mr. Lucas stated he communicates with Ms. Abeyta 3-4 times
each week and discusses any on going transaction before making
contact with the people in the subject area. Ms. Abeyta has met
directly with Gene Sampley, Director of Public Works and Utilities,
Mayor Horton, Ian Sievers, City Attorney and all of them are
unanimous in their feelings that her performance has been well
above what they expected. He stressed Ms. Abeyta has gone over and
beyond the scope of her contract to provide assistance to the
people within the zone to relocate.
Mr. M¢Oonnell stated he also has reservations about the
condemnation portion; however, this proposal is not a part of the
condemnation action.
Mr. Winters asked if Ms. Abeyta is a licensed Real Estate Broker in
the State of Washington? Mr. Lucas stated yes. Mr. Winters asked
if Ms. Abeyta received a commission in the event she assists
someone to relocate? Mr. Lucas stated no.
Mr. Mcconnell pointed out the $60,000 figure is the total for the
contract, not an additional increase.
M/S/C(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to approve an amendment to the
Professional Services Agreement between the City and Abeyta &
Associates for an amount not to exceed $60,000 and authorize the
Mayor to execute the same, subject to City Administrative Policies
and Procedures.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Opposed:
Neville, McConnell,
Huff-Menees, Fart,
Winters
Colvin, Montgomery,
Law
7C - TO APPROVE CONSULT/%NT CONTRACT WITH KATO & WARRENt INC. t FOR
CONSULTING ASSISTANCE WITH THE CHARLESTON COMMUNITY PLAN (UNDER
STATE PERF GRANT), ~AB96-218
The City has been awarded a $40,000 State Planning and
TAPE
TAPE #1411
City Council Reg. Mtg.
September 25, 1996
Page 13 of 18
Minutes
Environmental Assistance (PERF) grant to assist with preparation of
the Charleston Community Plan. $30,000 is earmarked for consultant
help with five components of the project: (1) EIS; (2) poster-
brochure; (3) videotape; (4) regulations; (5) monitoring system.
The City issued a Request for Proposals, which resulted in the
submittal of proposals by five firms. Three were selected for
interviews by an interview committee consisting of a Planning
Commissioner, a Charleston District business owner, a Charleston
area property owner, and city staff. The interview committee
unanimously recommended that the contract be awarded to Kato &
Warren, Inc.
Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, stated there are and
have been major changes in the Charleston neighborhood starting
with the Gorst-Bremerton project, which significantly alters the
southern portion of this neighborhood. Secondly, Puget Sound Naval
shipyard has completed construction of some residential quarters
adjacent to the neighborhood. Lastly, the new Safeway Store is a
very positive impact on the neighborhood. As this project goes
along, there will be changes and initiatives as to how we do
neighborhood planning. It is hoped this project will be a product
of regulatory reform. If we do this planning project the way it is
envisioned and if the environmental work is done the way the State
has funded it and the way this contract is proposed to the council,
anyone building a project in this neighborhood that conforms with
the plan would not have to go through the State Environmental
Policy Act process. Secondly, it is a relatively strong feeling
#1412
that frequently too much money is put into the technical planning,
and not enough into the communications effort. With this plan, a
lot of money was put into the communications effort, at the expense
of good technical planning. There will now be a new effort to
communicate with the neighborhood and business owners about what is
in the plan. Second, a video tape will be used to help show the
neighbors what is envisioned for the future, and help show people
intending to do projects how they want the project done. The first
neighborhood meeting to get this project kicked off is scheduled
for October 3, 7:00 P.M., at the Bremerton School District
Administration Building, located at the corner of Burwell &
Montgomery. The public is invited and encouraged to attend.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Winters commended Mr. Pratt and his department for this
program. From his discussions with business owners and citizens
from that area, they will welcome this chance to participate and
have some input. He also looks forward to attending the meeting.
Mr. Farr asked for an elaboration of item 12, "Regulation Review"
#0230
TAPE #1412
City Council Reg. Mtg.
Septe~Lber 25, 1996
Page 14 of 18
Minutes
found on page 46. Mr. Pratt stated the "Regulation Review" refers
to two things: 1) Once the department comes up with a concept of
what kind of development they want to occur in that neighborhood,
they will look at what kinds of things can be put in place to
deliver what they envision (like set-backs, uses, heights, and
other development standards); and 2) Ways to cut out regulations
that are impediments to getting things done, such as set-backs in
some neighborhoods do not deliver a "folksy" neighborhood feel like
is envisioned, so it will be considered to move some front porches
closer to the street in a particular neighborhood. Mr. Fart asked
if these can be proposed as changes to both the building code and
zoning code; and would they be unique to this particular area? Mr.
Pratt answered probably just to the zoning code, and you could
possibly see specific standards applicable only to this "sub-area"
or neighborhood, and nowhere else in the City. These changes would
certainly still be in the general theme of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. M¢Connell asked if these changes would be brought before
Council? Mr. Pratt stated any changes to the zoning code and
Comprehensive Plan must come before Council. Mr. McConnell asked
what criteria was used to interview the five firms submitting
proposals? Mr. Pratt stated first of all, whether or not the firm
responded to the actual proposal narrowed the selection to three.
Pricing was a factor, such as would they deliver the basic product
desired, plus include some extras. They looked at technical
experience, and for a "fit", including the attitude and demeanor of
the consulting firm.
M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Colvin) to approve contract with Kato & Warren,
Inc.
7D - REAL ESTATE PURCHASE A/~D SALE ~GREEMENT FOR 1708 PARK AVENUEt
#AB96-219
The property proposed for purchase is an undeveloped parcel located
immediately adjacent to the City's wastewater pump station CE-1.
This is the primary pump station within the wastewater system.
This property is desired to provide a site for future construction
of additional pump station failure and can be used as storage to
reduce combined sewer overflows. The storage would be located
below ground and allow the area to be used by the public. The
property has an area of 0.13 acres. The assessed value of the
property is $55,000. It is recommended that Council approve the
attached Real Estate Purchase Agreement to allow acquisition of
this property.
Paul Lucas, Public Works & Utilities, stated the primary use of
this property is to build an underground "vault" to accommodate any
overflows from the current pump station CE-1. The capacity of the
tank is estimated to be 125,000 gallons. The cost of the project
#0352
#0384
TAPE #1412
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 25, 1996
Page 15 of 18
will come out of Wastewater & Utility funds, and no exact date for
construction has been set. This additional pump station will give
the City a lot of leeway should alarms fail, and an overflow
occurs.
Public comment none.
Mr. Farr asked how long does it take to fill the maximum capacity
of the 125,000 gallon storage tank? Mr. Lucas stated 8,000 gallons
are pumped per minute, so approximately 20 minutes, which is more
than enough time to get to the treatment plant if an alarm sounds.
He assumes there will also be an alarm on the upper limit of the
storage tank.
Mr. MoConnell noted the data states they would pay any delinquent
property taxes and questioned is an amount known? Mr. Lucas
responded there is none right now.
Mr. Neville finds this unique, in that it seems to be a "win-win"
situation. The City can put in a tank to handle any overflow, so
that it will not go into the Narrows, and from the tank, it will go
back to the sewer system and treatment plant. In addition, because
this will all take place underground, it will allow an additional
use for the property.
M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to approve the Real Estate Purchase and
Sale Agreement with Mr. Paul Brons for property commonly known as
1708 Park Avenue, and authorize the Mayor to execute the same.
8A - ORDINANCE NO. 4571 (SECOND READING) REORGANIZING HEALT~
DISTRICT, ~AB96-210
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) to pass Ordinance No. 4571 on second
reading, reorganizing the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District.
8B - ORDINANCE NO. 4572 (SECOND READING) ADOPTING THE HARRISON
DISTRICT PLAN AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE BRRWRRTON COMPP~WRNSIVE PLAN,
~AB96-213
Public comment - none.
#0417
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) to pass Ordinance No. 4572 on second
reading, adopting the Harrison District Plan as an Amendment to the
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.
8C ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING B.M.C. CHAPTER 2.88,
DISABILITY ACTION COMMITTEE, #AB96-220
There is a need to revise the terminology used in the current
Chapter and give greater flexibility in selecting members for the
TAPE #1412
City Council Reg. Mtg.
September 25, 1996
Page 16 of 18
Minutes
committee. Also, the requirement to meet once a month has proved
unrealistic. These changes are recommended by the Disability
Action Committee.
Jim Meith, Director of Human Resources, stated four of seven
members of the current Disability Action Committee met two months
ago, which was their first meeting in approximately two years. An
attempt is now being made to revive this committee, which is why
they are requesting these amendments.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Neville asked if they were attempting to increase membership?
Mr. Meith stated membership will stay where at 7 members. The
proposed ordinance is just proposing the flexibility to be able to
fill all 7 positions. There are currently four members taking
part, but they have had problems getting additional members.
Several people have expressed interest, but unfortunately live just
outside the City limits. This is one area they would like some
flexibility. Mr. Neville thanked Mr. Meith for the work put into
this endeavor because he feels it is a very important committee and
should be taken seriously. He encouraged citizens to contact the
Mayor's office for an application, if they are interested in
participating on this committee.
Mr. Fart asked for clarification on the changes made to the number
of meetings to be held. Mr. Meith stated the requested change is
to meet quarterly, rather than monthly.
Mr. McConnell asked what criteria is used to find a qualified
candidate? Mr. Meith stated basically, anyone who is interested in
the subject matter of the committee, but ideally, someone who has
a vocational interest. Present committee members are people who
are either involved in a professional career, or working with the
disabled community in some aspect. A candidate also must have the
willingness to put in the time.
Mr. McConnell questioned if it was so difficult to find committee
members, shouldn't the committee be reduced from 7 to 5 members?
Mr. Meith stated the committee discussed that possibility, but
decided with the added flexibility they could keep it at 7. Also,
with 7 members, you may actually only get 5 at any given meeting
because not all members can always make every meeting.
Mr. McConnell noted the previous ordinance only allowed 2
representatives of advocacy groups, who could live outside the City
limits, while this proposal would be extending it to all 7 members
of this committee. In his thinking, if you can not find 7 or 5
people to serve on a committee of this apparent importance,
#0709
TAPE #1412
City Council Reg. Mtg.
September 25, 1996
Page 17 of 18
Minutes
especially when it would benefit them, maybe it is not as important
as it is made out to be. He just finds it strange that not enough
people can be found from inside the City to serve on this
committee. Mr. Meith stated their first preference and priority
is for people living in the City. However, there is an example
right now of a person interested in being on the committee, who
works at Olympic College in the disability program, but actually
lives just outside the City limits. He is an excellent candidate,
but could not be considered for the committee under the present
constrictions. Mr. M¢Connell stated he still did not understand
why there weren't enough Bremerton residents who had the same level
of interest.
Mayor Horton reminded Council this is a minority population,
probably less than 15% for all of Kitsap County. If people in
advocacy roles are added, that bumps the number up a little bit,
but there is still a very small, limited range of people
interested.
Mrs. Huff-Menees concurred with the comments made earlier by Mr.
Neville on this issue, and also appreciates the fact that this item
is being brought to the Council's attention. She is willing to
accept the changes recommended by the committee, and would be very
grateful to any resident living outside the City, who would be
willing to give of their time because the city could only benefit
from such a relationship.
M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Farr) to approve ordinance on first reading,
reorganizing the Disability Action Committee, which will assist the
City of Bremerton's implementation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.
Mr. Colvin pointed out the proposed ordinance states that members
may reside outside the City, if solicitation procedures fail to
find qualified candidates in the City, so he could support the
proposal as presented.
President Law thanked the TV camera crew for their services:
Nadine Price, Erin Daniels, and Rob Luke.
TAPE #1412
City Council Reg. Mtg.
September 25, 1996
Page 18 of 18
Minutes
With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:38 P.M.
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
JOHN E. LAW, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/JL/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault
1. SUBJECT:
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES - OCTOBER 2, I996
FOR AGEND~ OF: OCTOBER 23, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Co,,n~']
ORIGINATOR: T~h. T,~w, ~-~
DATE SUBMITTED: ]0-~8-96
2. CLEA3LANCES: (comment on back
if necessary)
3. EXHIBITS:
ENDORSEMENT__ INFOR3!ATION__
MAYOR
4. SUMI4ARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR'COUNCIL ACTION:
8. RECOMNENDATION:
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED __ DISAPPROVED
DATE:
AMENDED
TAPE #1413 UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 2t 1996
#0031
#0052
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, October 2, 1996, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present
were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, David
Farr, Richard Neville, Lon Overson, Cecil McConnell, and A1 Colvin.
Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Treasurer
Rich Hanna.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Law and Invocation given by Reverend Cleveland Williams
of Ebenezer A.M.E. Church.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - September 4, 1996
#AB96-222
M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to approve 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 October 2, 1996, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows:
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Colvin reported that John Poppe, Wastewater Manager, gave an
excellent report at the Lions Club Luncheon today. He is pleased
to have such quality people in managerial positions at the City.
Mr. Mcconnell reminded citizens of the District 2 Neighborhood
meeting October 8, 1996, at Fire Station No. 3, at Olympus Drive
and E. 31st Street. The new starting time is 6:30 P.M. He
encouraged citizens bring their comments and concerns.
Mr. Neville announced the 24th Annual Senior Fair will be held
October 18-19, at the Sheridan Park Recreation Center.
Mr. Fart reported he participated in the opening of the City's
newest park - Arvon Park, and both the City and the neighbors can
TAPE #1413
City Council Reg. Mtg.
October 2, 1996
Page 2 of 8
Minutes
be proud of the new addition.
Mrs. ~uff-Menees reminded everyone of the Charleston Neighborhood
Planning meeting scheduled for October 3, 7:00 P.M., at the
Bremerton School District Administration Building, 300 Montgomery
avenue. She stressed this is an opportunity to be part of what
goes into the Charleston Neighborhood Plan. She encourages
residents of Districts 6, 7 and 8 to participate at that meeting
since their areas will be affected in some way.
Mr. Montqomery agreed that the dedication of Arvon Park was an
excellent example of a small community park and wished more could
be located throughout the City. Last week he had the opportunity
to ride with a Police Officers, which he found to be very
informative and recommended that his fellow Council members
schedule a similar ride-a-long.
Mr. Winters thanked the City staff for putting together responses
to constituents from District #9. He announced the Olympic College
Student Body is sponsoring a "Rock The Vote" fund raising event at
Olympic College Student Center Lounge on October 11. This event
will promote student voter registration. Recently, he had a very
informative conversation with Police Officer Emm and he encouraged
others to take the time to talk with our Officers and find out what
is happening within our community and to become familiar with them
on a first name basis.
Mr. Law stated he believed most of the Council members had gone on
a ride-a-long with a Police Officer and he agreed it is an
impressive experience. District #3 Neighborhood Meeting will be
held october 15, 1996, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center.
MAYOR,S REPORT
Mayor Lynn Horton referenced the recent death of Howard S. Wright
and assured the public that Mr. Wright had no affiliation with the
new Howard S. Wright Construction Company; therefore, his passing
does not affect either the corporation or the Sinclair Landing
project.
Mayor Horton stated on the issue of the condemnation suit, the
issue has been before the court and a ruling came down in the
city's favor that the City can condemn for use and necessity.
However, of the 90-100 properties that are in the affected area,
the City has been able to negotiate agreeable sales with all but 8
of the properties. One property was excused from the condemnation
action. That record shows the city tried diligently to come up
with workable situations for both the City and the property owners
and some of that meant relocating people and some people are being
allowed to stay for a period of time while they find alternate
TAPE #1413
City Council Reg.
October 2, 1996
Page 3 of 8
Mtg. Minutes
housing. The final phase is obtaining the value assessment on the
remaining 8 properties and up until that point the city will
continue to work out negotiated sales.
Mayor Horton read the following Proclamations:
(1) October 5, 1996, WORLD 0STOMY DAY, which was accepted
Butler, Secretary of the Kitsap County Ostomy Association.
by A1
(2) October 14-18, 1996, RIDE SHARE WEEK, which was accepted by
Mark Souza, City of Bremerton Senior Engineer.
Mayor Horton welcomed Bremerton High School student John Fletcher
as a City Council meeting viewer via Channel 12. She encouraged
more students to tune in to learn more about their government at
work.
Rich Hanna, Acting City Clerk, read into the record Council
President Law's response to a concern raised by Shirley Howerton
having to do with a gathering of people for a rally along Wheaton
Way. President Law's explanation cited the fact the City does not
require a Parade Permit when people assemble or march along the
sidewalk.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Shirley Howerton thanked the Council for taking the time to
research and answer her questions, she also thanked Councilman
Colvin and Mayor Horton for their courtesy at the District
Neighborhood meetings when answering her questions. She
complimented the Mayor and City Council on the high caliber of City
employees she recently encountered, they were fine young men.
Don Larson, President Washington Scuba Alliance, reported on the
successful Sinclair Inlet Clean Up and Marine Fair held on
September 21. It was his hope that Bremerton would work toward
more beautification, such as the City of Tacoma has along Rustin
Way. He offered City Council members the opportunity for free
diving lessons through Puget Sound Dive. He is continuing his
efforts to locate an underwater park in the Bremerton area.
Tracy Nelson, President of Westpark Resident Council, invited
everyone to the second annual Unity Day at Westpark on October 5,
11:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
Don Atkinso~, KITZ, announced today the Washington State Department
Of Transportation is running four ferries on the Bremerton-Seattle
run. He announced a new KITZ program called "TALK THURSDAY"
will provide continuous talk from 2:00 PM - 10:00 PM. This
programming includes: Seniors program from 2:00- 3:00 PM; Mike
Siegel 3:00 - 6:00 PM; totally local talk show by Mark Moshay 6:00
TAPE #1413
City Council Reg. Mtg.
October 2, 1996
Page 4 of 8
Minutes
- 8:00 PM; High School students with their minor issues 8:00 - 9:00
P.M., and Dr. Susan Love, a family counselor 9:00 - 10:00 PM. All
of the programs have call-in capability.
Anthony Robinson, Westpark resident, expressed concern that even
after talking with Mayor Horton and Police Chief Paul Du Frense he
has not received answers from the City Council on the issues he
raised at a previous Council meeting. He believes the children of
Westpark are afraid of the Police Officers and that there is
harassment towards Westpark residents by the Police Department.
Again, he asked the Council to look into the problems he cited
previously and help the solve them for the residents of Westpark.
Mark Miller, Seattle resident, stated he was before Council 14 days
but as of this date he had not received a response to the concerns
he raised relating to the "No Trespass" order in Westpark. Mayor
Horton told him that the City had nothing to do with the management
of Westpark, but come election day they may have nothing to do with
her. He stressed the fact that, as of this date, Municipal Court
Judge Bruce Martin had not found him guilty of anything. He has
yet to find out why he was given the "No Trespass" warning. He
will not be allowed to attend Unity Day at Westpark with his
family, which saddens him. He asked that someone from the city
contact him.
Cora Lee Alexander expressed concern that the management of
Westpark has done away with the citizen patrol. She volunteered in
that program and strongly believed it was effective to deterring
crime.
Kevin J. Thurston brought several issues before the Council that
were of a personal nature.
Annette Taylor, former resident of Westpark, expressed her
appreciation that people have listened to their complaints.
However, it is her hope that the community can come together for
the benefit of all people. She believes there is a problem in
Westpark having to do with a language barrier among some residents,
i.e. Vietnamese. She does not want her Constitutional rights
trampled on and she believes there is a problem with the management
at Westpark.
Mr. Colvln stated he believed Mayor Horton was misquoted. Mayor
Horton stated the City has no jurisdiction over the Housing
Authority or their employees. There is a separate Housing
Authority Board, who are a separate governmental entity and are
funded through the Federal Government, with the exception she, as
Mayor appoints board members, she does support the "No Trespass"
order and is something the Westpark Resident Council has requested
TAPE #1413
City Council Reg. Mtg.
October 2, 1996
Page 5 of 8
Minutes
and it is supported by Westpark management. She believes with
rights there are responsibilities and that means as long as people
want to be law abiding citizens then they are more than welcome to
visit Westpark. She cares very much about the residents of
Westpark, but the rules in Westpark are strictly regulated by the
Bremerton Housing Authority.
7A BID AWARD TO ACE PAVING COMPANY FOR SYLVAN WAY STREET
#1489
IMPROVEMENTS: WHEATON WAY TO OLYMPUS DRIVE, #AB96-22a
Bids were opened for the Sylvan Way Street Improvement Project on
August 26, 1996. One bid was received for this project from Ace
Paving Company, Inc. in the amount of $231,514.55. The Engineer's
estimate for this project was $221,365.22. Total project
construction cost including construction inspection, surveying,
management and contingency is $265,666.00. The action before the
City Council is approval of a contract for the construction of the
Sylvan Way Street Improvements with Ace Paving Company, Inc.
Mark souza, Senior Engineer, explained the project area is Sylvan
Way between Olympus Drive and Wheaton Way. The work will entail
replacing curb/gutter/sidewalk and overlaying the street. The
project is weather dependent, will take 30 working days to complete
and should be completed by 12-31-96.
Public comment - none.
Mr. McConnell asked if the street would be totally closed down any
time during the 30 work period? Mr. Souza stated the work will be
done in sections with part of the lane closed to traffic at various
times.
M/S/C/U(Farr/Montgomery) to approve a contract for $231,514.55 Ace
Paving Company, Inc. for construction of the Sylvan Way Street
Improvement Project and authorize the Mayor to execute the same.
7B - 10% PETITION/LETTER OF INTENT TO ANNEX THE SCHULTZ AREAt
#AB96-224
The City of Bremerton has been presented with a Letter of Intent to
annex from Donald C. Schultz, owner of properties located between
Kitsap Way and Northlake Way. The request is submitted in
accordance with R.C.W. 35.13.125 to commence annexation proceedings
of the site. The petition is signed by property owners in excess
of ten percent of the value of the land proposed for annexation as
required by said statute.
The City Council is to determine the outcome of the following three
issues: One, will the City accept, reject, or geographically modify
the proposed annexation area; two will the Council require the
simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive plan or elect to use the
TAPE #1413
City Council Reg. Mtg.
October 2, 1996
Page 6 of 8
Minutes
administrative assignment of provisional zoning as allowed in the
Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC 21.02.260); and, finally, will the
Council require tax payers of the area to assume a proportional
share of all or any portion of existing city indebtedness (i.e.
outstanding bonds).
Terrie O,Neill, Municipal Services Coordinator, stated the city has
been requested to look at a letter of intent from Mr. Donald
Schultz, whose property lies between Kitsap Way and Northlake. The
annexation area is only 1.82 acres encompassing Mr. Schultz's lots
and a couple of additional lots. The annexation is at the 10%
phase for the 75% method of annexation. The City Council needs to
decide if they wish to accept, reject or geographically modify the
annexation area as proposed; if the area should under go a pre-
annexation hearing to determine the appropriate land use
designations; and decide whether or not the property owners in the
area should assume a proportional share of existing City
indebtedness.
The City received an additional request to have property included
in the annexation area from an adjoining property owner, so staff
is changing their recommendation to accept the annexation as
proposed to modify the area to include parcels 223, 222 and 057.
There are no roadways in the annexation area; however, the
population for the area is 3 and is within an urban growth
boundary. The County Land Use Plan shows the zoning as RM5, which
means residential one home per five acres and there is no County
Comprehensive Plan in place at the current time. There is no City
Comprehensive Plan or zoning for the area. The Schultz property
has been subdivided into lots that are much smaller than the five
acres per residential unit. For that reason and because there is
no Comprehensive Plan, City staff recommends going through a pre-
annexation hearing to determine the appropriate Comprehensive Plan
and land use designations. Ms. O'Neill noted under the issue of
real property assuming a proportional share of existing
indebtedness, the outstanding indebtedness is a bond issue to cover
the cost of Fire Department equipment.
Dale Clar¥, 1980 Chico Way NW, stated his desire to annex his
property (lots 15 and 16) into the City at this time.
Roy McInnis, Bremerton resident, asked if Mr. Clary's request
related to the Agenda item being discussed? Ms. O'Neill explained
it is appropriate since this proposal is the 10% petition and
letter of intent to annex the Schultz's property and during this
portion of the annexation there are three items that council must
decide, one being whether to accept, reject or geographically
modify the annexation area.
TAPE #1413
city Council Reg.
October 2, 1996
Page 7 of 8
Mtg. Minutes
Mr. Winters asked if there would have to be any modifications in
the dollar amount in the letter of intent, if Council approves the
recommended modification? Ms. O'Neill explained she needed the 10%
in order to bring it before the City Council; however, the Council
can make modifications at this time. Mr. Winters referenced Mr.
Clary's lots and questioned their present use? Mr. Clar¥ stated he
runs a mobile home business along with a residence on the site. He
also has mobile home moving equipment and vehicles on the site.
Mr. winters asked the number of vehicles on the site? Mr. Clary
stated 8-10, but he would like to phase out of the mobile home
moving business. His long term plan would be to put a mini storage
facility on the property along with a couple of residences. Mr.
Winters asked if the current zoning on his property was
residential? Mr. Clar¥ stated yes.
Mr. McConnell stated it appears that there is a lot in between lots
222 and 223 and questioned if the area belonged to lot 222? Ms.
O'Neill explained that area connects the two lots and makes them
one parcel.
Mr. Overson stated Council needed to refer Mr. Clary's request for
consideration as part of the potential 75% petition for annexation.
He viewed that change should come in later as opposed to taking
action at this time. Ms. O'Neill stated Council could include Mr.
Clary's property in this annexation. She and Ron Hough, Planning
Manager, have been working with Mr. Clary since late 1994 to help
him with annexation of his property. All through this effort,
there have been concerns that brought about a site reviewed by the
Building Department, which found the operation of a junk yard on
that site. On September 24, 1996, a letter was sent to Mr. Clary
that stated: "The City Clerk has certified the letter of intent to
annex the area known as the Schultz's area, which is adjacent to
your Kitsap Way properties. As we discussed by telephone earlier
this summer, we have not recommended that your properties be
included into this annexation due to the current condition of your
sites. It is not the objective of the city to annex properties
that will, once annexed, immediately need code enforcement action."
Ms. O'Neill emphasized staff's recommendation is to not include Mr.
Clary's property in the annexation.
Mr. Colvin asked if the maps included in the Agenda packet were
subject to public scruteny? Ms. O'Neill stated yes. Mr. Colvin
asked if Mr. Clary's property could be annexed subject to certain
conditions? Ms. O'Neill stated yes. A few weeks ago, Mr. Schultz
came before Council and requested the City move ahead annexing his
properties. The City was holding up Mr. Schultz's annexation in
order to accommodate Mr. Clary's annexation, but out of courtesy to
Mr. Schultz the two areas have been broken apart as separate
requests. Mr. Clary has an easement between his property and the
#2171
#2193
TAPE #1413
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 2, 1996
Page 8 of 8
City limits. That easement belongs to Chuck Leonard, who has
already signed an annexation agreement. When Mr. Clary gets his
property in order, the city can do another annexation for that
site, or he could submit a letter of intent and Council could
reject that request.
M/S/C(Winters/Montgomery) to accept the annexation area as
proposed; require the applicants to undergo a pre-annexation
hearing to determine the appropriate comprehensive plan and land
use designations; and require the owners of real property in the
annexation area to assume a proportional share of existing City
indebtedness.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Opposed:
Winters, Montgomery, Farr, Neville,
Overson, McConnell, Colvin, Law
Huff-Menees
8A - ORDINANCE NO. 4573
2.88~ DISABILITY ACTION,
Public comment - none.
(SECOND READING)
~AB96-220
AMENDING B.M.C. CHAPTER
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to pass Ordinance No. 4573, reorganizing
the Disability Action Committee which will assist the city of
Bremerton's implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990.
President Law thanked the TV camera crew for their services:
Stephanie James, Erin Daniels, Robert Rupe, and Martin Stohs.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 6:45 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 CITY COUNCIL
1. ~3J]~!F.~_~: FOR AGENDA OF: October 23, 1996 /~
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney's Offi~
Amended Professional Services ORIGINATOR: Ian R. Sievers~ ~
Contract for Retained Counsel Bremerton City Attorney
DATE SUBMITTED: October 15,1996
2. ~,~(Comment on back if necessary) 3. ~1
,~ / ~' ~ Proposed Amendment
DIRECTO~)~IPL~ORKS & UTILITIES to Professional
~ I ~ Services Contract
FISCAL~BUDG~T COMMITTEE/~ D--~ . #//
ENDORSEMENT [] INFORMATION [] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESrDENT FOR SWBMITTAL:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~~
MAYOR
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City is involved in three lawsuits for which it currently contracts with th,
firm of Foster, Pepper & Shefelman for representation, at set fee amounts, a:
follows:
Charleston Beach Association, et al. v. City of Bremerton, et al.,
Kitsap County Superior Court Cause No. 94 2 02586 6 - $90,000.00;
The City of Bremerton v. Harbor Insurance Company, et al., Kitsap County
Superior Court Cause No. 94 2 02161 5 - $110,000.00; and
The City of Bremerton v. CH2M Hill Nor~hwesC, Inc., eT al.~ Kitsap
County Superior Court Cause No. 94 2 02364 2 - $90,000.00.
The proposed amendment combines total expenditures under the three cases since th,
level of expenditures in the CH2MHill action have been more than projected an,
expenditures in the remaining cases have been less. It is anticipated that th.
1997 budget and contract amendment will be presented with" 60 days.
:
Approve Amendment to Professional Services Contract.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
[] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED []
AGENDA BILL NO.: ~ (OVER)
2. CLEARANCES COMMENTS:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION CONTINUED:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Inability to perform ongoing defense of motions and discovery in CH2MHill actior
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCER:
Total contract amount remains unchanged for 1996 Utility budget.
7. ESE~ SOURCES:
FOSTER.AB - Agenda Disk - 9/24/96
SECOND AMENDED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT amends that Amended Professional Services Agreement
(hereinafter "Amended Agreement") between the CITY OF BREMERTON and FOSTER,
PEPPER & SHEFELMAN, Attorneys at Law, signed November 16 and 20, 1995 respectively.
WITNES SETH:
That in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as
follows:
1. Paragraph 2 of the Amended Agreement shall read as follows:
Paragraph 3 of the Professional Services Agreement is amended to read as
follows:
3. COMPENSATION: The City Attorney and Retained Counsel
agree that compensation for services rendered under this Agreement shall
be set at a rate of One Hundred Seventy-five Dollars ($175.00) per hour or
a lesser amount for work assigned to associates or employees of Retained
Counsel. All fees under this agreement shall not exceed the total of
amounts listed below, excluding costs and expenses, and including any
sums paid prior to the commencement date of this agreement:
Ao
Charleston Beach Association, et al. v. City of Bremerton,
et al., Kitsap County Superior Court Cause No. 94 2 02586
6 - Fees ,,or to e~¢ccd Ninety Thousaud Dollars
($ 90,000.00);
The City of Bremerton v. Harbor Insurance Comt~any, et
al., Kitsap County Superior Court Cause No. 94 2 02161 5
- ,,~c~ ~,~, lo exceed One Hundred Ten Thousand
Dollars ($110,000.00);
Co
The City of Bremerton v. CH2M Hill Northwest,/nc., et al.,
Kitsap County Superior Court Cause No. 94 2 02364 2 -
and American Economy ]t~snrance Compat~y v. Agri-Tech,
Inc., et al., Circuit Court for the State of Oregon, Benton
County Superior Court Cause no. 96-10078 - Fees hot tu
e~t~ed-- Ninety Thonsand Dollars ($90,000);
Case status shall be reviewed and compensation limits amended if needed
prior to January 1, 1997.
Retained Counsel shall submit to the City Attorney's Office a
monthly statement describing the services rendered xvith time expended for
each activity as authorized under this Agreement. The City upon receipt of
the statement, shall promptly process said claim for payment.
2. The remaining terms of the Professional Services Agreement and that Amended
Professional Services Agreement not inconsistent with this Amendment shall remain in full force
and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Amendment the date and
year indicated.
FOSTER, PEPPER & SHEFELMAN
Date:
By:.
By:
CITY OF BREMERTON
Date: By:
APPROVED AS FORM:
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
IAN R. SIEVERS, City Attorney
RECEIVED FOR FILING:
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK
SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - 2
FOSTER2.AMD - Disk 13 - 9/25/96
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Confirmation of Building
Development Permit Manager
(Building Official)
Appointee - Judith M. Johnson
FOR AGENDA OF: October 23, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Dept. of Comm. Dev.
ORIGINATOR: Mayor
DATE SUBMITTED: October t 7, 1996
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary)
Dir. of Comm. Dev.:~,~-l~'~-~
Human R e s o u r ce s~,//z~4 ¢',~--q~L,
3. EXHIBITS:
A. Resume of Judith M. Johnson
B Job Description
C. BMC Chapter 29 Non-Union
Management Personnel
ENDORSEMENT ~ IN F/O?ATION
MA OR ,¢.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRF..SID ~E-~T FOR SUBMITTAL:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT----~i'~
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The Building Development Permit manager position includes Building Official
responsibilities. The BMC requires City Council confirmation of the Building
Official. An assessment center process, which included neighborhood
representatives, construction trade professionals, and City regulatory staff was
used to screen the applicants. The Mayor's appointee is Judith M. Johnson.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Confirm Judith M. Johnson as Building Official.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Donald L. Pratt
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED __
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED __
AMEN[
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5, IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Interim Building Official appointment of Donald L. Pratt will continue.
Building Development Permit Manager position will remain vacant.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS1 FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The budget includes this position and salary.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
BMC.
JOB TITLE=
CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATION
BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PEP. MIT MANAGER
MAY 1996
GENERAL FUNCTION
Under general direction; manages, directs, plans and coordinates
the city's development permit system in a manner consistent with
good customer service. Administers and has signature authority
for all building codes as assigned.
REPRESENTATIVE ESSENTIAL DUTIES
Manage assigned operations to achieve objectives within budgeted
funds and available personnel, plan and organizes workload and
staff assignments, review progress, directs changes in priorities
and schedules as needed.
Develops, monitors and modifies, as necessary, a system to issue
all applicable development permits within the City.
Recommends, establishes and implements Citywide customer service
oriented policies, procedures, and standards for the efficient
and effective operation and maintenance of assigned programs.
Explains and interprets all applicable codes to architects,
engineers, building contractors, property owners and others.
Suggests design changes to assure code compliance.
Exercises signature authority for assigned building codes in
approving or disapproving commercial and residential
construction.
Identifies training needs of all City staff involved in
development permit processing; recommends, coordinates and/or
conducts necessary training.
Prepares division budget based on objectives, staffing and
resources. Monitors and documents division expenditures. Assists
in the preparation of the department's annual budget.
Directs the resolution of problems or emergencies affecting
availability or quality of customer services. Personally responds
to the most sensitive or complex public inquiries or service
complaints.
Prepares necessary correspondence, notices, reports, records and
other necessary documents.
Perform related duties as required.
BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MANAGER
Page Two
WORKING CONDITIONS
Work is generally conducted in an office setting. Occasional
field inspections and/or meetings are required with exposure to
traffic, weather conditions, irregular terrain and obstacles
common found at construction sites.
REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS
SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES
Good skills in the use of computers and related equipment.
Good skills in making presentations to various audiences.
Skill in working in a political environment.
Good knowledge of all aspects of the permit process, with
emphasis on codes related to building construction, materials,
methods and the stages of construction.
Good knowledge of communication principles, methods, strategies
and techniques.
Good knowledge of computer operation as it applies to the permit
process.
Knowledge of applicable federal, state, local laws, the
functioning of local government and the political process.
Knowledge of management principles, including team, coaching,
training and motivational techniques.
Ability to work in an understanding manner with diverse
individuals and/or groups advocating various points of view and
agendas.
Ability to resolve conflict, make decisions, solve problems,
collaborate and negotiate, both within and outside the City's
organization.
Ability to analyze and evaluate operations and develop and
implement corrective action to resolve problems.
Ability to set objectives, influence and motivate staff and
others.
BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MANAGER
Page Three
Ability to listen effectively.
Ability to utilize computer technology to
permit process.
improve the City's
QUALIFYING EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
Any combination equivalent to: College level course work in a
pubic administration related field, I.C.B.O. certification in
Building Inspector and Plans Examiner, plus three years
experience in the construction or developmen~ field and three
years of supervisory experience.
LEGAL AND REGULATORY EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT: The classification is exempt under the
laws of Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage and overtime
provisions.
REPRESENTATION: The classification is not included in the
bargaining unit.
CIVIL SERVICE: The classification is not included in the City's
Civil Service System.
JUDITH M. JOHNSON
N. 36720 H~ 101 LillBvaup, Wa. 98555 Telephone (360)491-5642
OBJECTIVE
To secure a program position Utilizing excellent communication and coordination
skills. Wish to apply current knowledge, skills and abilities to new career path.
- EDUCATION
THE EVERGREEN STATE COLLEGE
BACHELOR OF ARTS DEGREE 1995
Liberal Arts Mth emphaxis in Public Administration
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Conmtunity Service Award in 1994 from City of Lacey and North Thurston School
District for Public Service
Ci~ of Lacey Employee of the Year 1994
President AFSCM E 618-L 1994, 1995, 1996
Upward Action Vision Bui__~_lding Task~Group 1986, 1987, 1988
Expanding Your Hqnzons Speaker 199b'T'~99r'477i_99.?
I.C.B.O Building Certification # 12974 continuously since 1984
Member e[ C_?_m_¢?~l~!ty Crisis Clinic ·
Member of the Safeplace Building Task Force
Have held a position in every level of"Pemtit Processing"
EXPERIENCE
CITY OF D\CEY
Building Codes Specialist II, October 1990 to present
Coordination of commercial and residential plan reviews and inspections. Primao,
responsibility for large commercial projects. Requires working with contractors,
architects and other professionals to plan, develop and build large scale commercial
developments. Work closely with permit counter staff to develop necessary permits
and permit tracking information. Involved in transition from manual to Tidemark
pemtit tracking system.
CITY OF EI.ND\
Assistant to the Mayor, ]anua~ 1990 to October 1990
Performed vadety of superx, isory and administrative tasks including Director of
Planning, Building Official and Chief Council to the Mayor and staff advisor to the
City Council. Planned, developed and implemented new permit process.
SKILLS
CITY OF TUMWATER
Building Safe{y Q~SciaI, January 1988 to January 1990
Responsible professional and supervisory tasks in review of commercial, residential
and industrial plans and specifications for conformance with applicable codes.
Required close work with City Council, Mayor and Special Interest Groups. Had
final responsibility for all building related activities and staff, including permitting
process. Helped transition from manual to computer sysrem.
City of Ol~npia
Code £,~orcernent O.~crr, August 1983 to Jamta~y 1988
Progressively responsible code enforcement regarding all types of proiects including
commercial, residential and industrial projects. Was involved in transition from
manual to computer tracking system. Started as the primary counter person for the
Building Department.
SunWest Associates
O}w~er, Januaq 1980 to August 1983
Responsible for designing and building alternative energy homes and small
commercial proiects as a general contractor. Responsible for staffing, budgeting,
accounting, scheduling, purchasing and administrarion. Employed greater than 25
people at various times. Created a retail store for alternative energy products in
downtoxx-n Olympia.
Excellent communication skills, both xvritten and oral
Cooperative team player
Observant, technically competent and retentive learner
Able to motivate others to maximum productivity
Maintain accurate records
Ability to work within as well as develop budgets
Enjoy statistical analysis and strategic planning
Knmvledge of a variety of inventory control methods
Ability to coordinate varied schedules
Additional training:
Negotiation Techniques
~4/ord Peorect
Basic Computer Skills
Leadership Train
Public S?eaking
Managing Onflict, Criticism and Anger
Problem Soh,ing Skills
Confrontation Skills
Sendin£ Clear Messages
(;il,ing Positive l-'eedback
5'es aad No Strategies
How to ask Effectil,e Qiwstions
Coqflict Resolution
_.2-ArS.0TC~ RESERVE DEE~ ACYrVE b.i&~For th,e,
purposes'~~~ming, to any cit.~
employee who ~...h.~reserve forces of any branch or
depart~th~al services in the United
State~~~ theZ~'a',-i~l Guard, shall be
deem.wd active duty. (Ord. 1337 {}3, 1940).
CHAPTER 2.49
NONUNION MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL
Sections:
2.49.010 Confirmation of appointees to nonunion
management positions.
2.49.020 Confirmation standards.
2.49.030 Qualifications and functions.
2.49.040 Time limit on provisional appointments.
2.49.050 Management contracts.
2.49.060 Removal.
2.49.010 CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTEES TO
NONUNION MANAGEMENT POSITIONS. Pursuant to tbe
Bremerton City Charter, the City Council will confirm the
appointment of all regular administrative heads of the City and
the City Attorney. For purposes of this chapter, administrative
heads are the following nonunion managers as noted: fire chief,
police chief, director of community planning and economic
development, building official, director of administrative
services/city clerk, personnel director, parks department
superintendent, street department superintendent, city engineer
and/or public works director, water superintendent, wastewater
compliance officer and support services director. (Ord. 4005 {} 1,
1985).
2.49.020 CONFIRMATION STANDARDS. Prior to
Council confirmation, the personnel director shall have sought
applications from nonemployee as well as employee applicants.
114-7
Provided, however, That this requirement may be waived by the
City Council in the event an employee has been performing as
an administrative head and is being appointed to a similar
position pursuant to a city's reorganization. This section shall
not apply to any civil service positions. (Ord. 4005 .,52, 1985).
2.49.030 QUALIFICATIONS AND FUNCTIONS.
(a) Position descriptions shall be established by the
Personnel Department for each nonunion management
employee. These position descriptions shall include:
(1) An outline of the employee's job showing his or her
designated responsibilities and limits of authority.
(2) The special skills, knowledge, education and/or
experience the manager shall possess as a prerequisite to being
considered for the position.
(b) Prior to the hiring of any nonunion management
employee, the position description set forth in subsection (a) of
this section shall have been reviewed by the personnel director
and the City Council, and approval acknowledged with the
signature of the Council President. However, this section shall
become null and void and have no effect if and when an
organizational ordinance for the City is approved by the Mayor
and City Council. (Ord. 4005 §3, 1985).
2.49.040 TIME LIMIT ON PROVISIONAL
APPOINTMENTS. No provisional appointment to a position
requiring council confirmation shall extend beyond one hundred
twenty days from the date of appointment without the consent
of the City Council. This does not apply to positions subject to
civil service rules. A copy of the provisional appointment shall
be sent by the Mayor to the City Council at the time of the
appointment. (Ord. 4005 §4, 1985).
2.49.050 MANAGER CONTRACTS. All regular, as
opposed to provisional civil service exempt nonunion
management, personnel employed by the City from the date of
the passage of the ordinance codified in this chapter forward,
shall sign a management contract. The standard form of the
management contract shall have been approved by the City
Council and shall contain, at a minimum, a provision for
termination of the employee without cause. Nothing in this
115
section shall be construed to require council confirmation of
individual management contracts after the form of the contract
has received council approval. An informational copy of all
standard management contracts shall be forwarded to the
council budget and finance committee after execution. (Ord.
4122 §I, 1987; Ord. 4005 §5, 1985).
2.49.060 REMOVAL. All nonunion management personnel
who are exempt from the operation of civil service shall be at
will employees and the Mayor may terminate them without
cause at any time, with no notice or hearing required. (Ord.
4005 §6, 1985).
Chapter 2.50
2.50.
2.50.030
2.50.031
2.50.032
2.50.040
2.50.050
2.50.060
2.50.070
2.50.080
2.50.090
COMPENSATION PROGRAM
statement.
~licability, exclusions
of salary levels.
Actual rate.
Work benefits.
Deferred options.
Retirement
Medical insurance benefits.
pay.
2.50.010 STATEMENT.
(a) It policy of the City
mana and professional
enables City to employ staff who possess
and to effectively:
manage the delivery of existing City ces and the
pro.~.~.~f essential municipal government
to provide a
Program which
necessary skills
116
Ho¢l Construction Company
~l 3703 FULLER ~NE S.E, · OLYMPIA, WA 9~01 * (206) 456-1~3
~L ~'~K4
Oc[ober 18,1996
Honorable Mayor Lynn Horton
239 4th Street
Bremer~on, WA 98337
Honorable Mayor Lynn Ho:ton:
Judy Johnson is a well respected knowledgeable Building Inspector who has proven herself to
be a valuable asset to the building community. Over the past years I have built in
jurisdictions where Judy was a Building Inspector, and in others where she setwed as the
Building Official. She has proven herself to be very knowledgeable, faa, and a good
communicator. Judy is a valuable resource in any assignment she would be given. As a
builder and representa6ve of Olympia Master Builders, I recommend Judy Johnson, with no
reservations, as head of your Building Department.
Sincerely, ~
~tary/Owner
Hocl Construction Company
~O0'd OZ~ IBP 0~ u°~lanalsu°o
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Resolution
No.: c~'d.; y'
FINAL PLAT for 42 lot single-family residential
subdivision on two adjoining parcels totaling 3.7
acres.
APPLICANT: FPH MANAGEMENT CONST.
INC.
LOCATION: West end of East Bread Street
FOR AGENDA OF: October 23, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT.: DCD - Planning
ORIGINATOR: Jack Allingham, Sr. Planne~
DATE SUBMITTED: October 17, 1996
2. C,EA. NCES ,
Director DCD:~~_,.j/
Director Pub.
City Attorney: ~.~-,~---.'-~. ~
Opperations Com~~Z~/~
ENDORSEMENT~ INFORMATION _ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FO~UBMITTAL:
MAYOR ~
COUNCIL PRESIDE~_T
3. EXHIBIT:
"A": RESOLUTION NO.
"B": Final Plat Map
"C": Conditions of Approval
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The Preliminaqz Plat for Broadmoor Village, a 42 lot planned unit development and subdivision allowing
relatively small lots with reduced setbacks, was approved by the City Council on August 31, 1995 subject to
conditions (see Exhibit C. with statements of compliance). Improvements necessary for road access, utilities,
and fire protection have been constructed in compliance with the preliminary plat approval. Now, a plat map
prepared by a licensed surveyor has been submitted for council approval. If approved, the plat will be
recorded with the County Auditor.
Title 58 RCW Boundaries and Plats requires Final Plat approval by the City Council.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Resolution No.: ~.~"~/' , approving the Plat of "Broadmoor Village".
Requested Motion:
"Broadmoor Village".
I move to approve Resolution No.:
and hereby approve the Plat of
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Donald L. Pratt
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: N/A
PULLED
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO,:
AMENDED
DATE:
BREMERTON CITY cOUNCIL AGENDA BILL (CONT.)
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
· Applicant: Approval of the Plat will be denied..
· City: Additional future residential development will not occur.
11. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
· Additional staff time will be required to process and review future building permit applications.
12. RESEARCH SOURCES:
RCW 58 Boundaries and Plats
File #'s: PUD-01-95 and LP-01-95
Zoning Ordinance
Site visits
RESOLUTION NO.:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FINAL PLAT OF "BROADMOOR VILLAGE",
LOCATED AT '1000 EAST BROAD STREET, BREMERTON, KITSAP COUNTY,
WASHINGTON.
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 58.17, FPH MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
proponent for the proposed subdivision, comprising 3.7 acres and located at 1000
EAST BROAD STREET within the City of Bremerton, has made application for approval
of a PRELIMINARY PI_A T containing 43 lots; and
WHEREAS, an environmental checklist has been prepared and considered
by the responsible official and a mitigated determination of environmental
nonsignificance issued, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing concerning this
matter on August 15, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the Council that the
"Broadmoor Village" Subdivision Preliminary Plat be accepted subject to certain
conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council held public hearings on September 6,
1995, concerning the preliminary plat with mitigating conditions; now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
That the "Broadmoor Village" Subdivision FINAL Plat presented for approval is
hereby accepted, approved, and ordered filed. Property in the City limits of
Bremerton included in this FINAL Plat is described as follows:
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS:
Parcel I:
The West 165 feet of the East half of the South half of the
North half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of
Section 2, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., Kitsap
County, Washington, except described as follows:
Beginning at a point 65 feet East of the Northwest corner
of the East half of the South half of the North half of said
subdivision; thence South, parallel to the West line of the East
half of the South half of the North half of said subdivision, 210
feet, more or less, to the North line, extended West of Broad
Street, as platted in said Plat of Olof Linne's Home Tracts,
according to the Plat recorded in Volume 8, Page 18, Kitsap
County, Washington; thence East along said North line extended
West of Broad Street, 100 feet, more or less, to the Southwest
corner of Lot 9, said lat of Olof Linne's Home Tracts, according
to the Plat recorded in Volume 8, Page 18, Kitsap County,
Washington; thence North along the East line of the West 165
feet of the East half of the South half of the North half of said
subdivision, 210 feet, more or less, to the Northeast corner of the
West 165 feet of the East half of the South half of the North half
of said subdivision; thence West along the North line of the South
half of the North half of said subdivision 100 feet, more or less,
to the True Point of Beginning.
Parcel II
The East 3/5 of the West haIf of the South half of the North
half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section
2, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., in Kitsap County,
Washington.
PASSED by the City Council this
day of September, '1995.
APPROVED this
JOHN LAW
President, City Council
day of September, 1995.
ATTEST:
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
SUMMARY
Applicant:
Applications:
FPH MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Kitsap Way, Suite D
Bremerton, WA 98312
FINAL PLAT [42Lots]
Location:
West end of East Broad Street
The Preliminary Plat for Broadmoor Village, a 42 lot planned unit development and
subdivision allowing relatively small lots with reduced setbacks, was approved by the City
Council on August 31, 1995 subject to conditions. Except for completion of some
landscaping all other road, utilities, and fire protection provisions have been constructed
in compliance with the preliminary plat's conditions of approval. The applicant has posted a
maintenance bond guaranteeing the functioning forwater ,sewer and street improvements
as well as the remaining landscaping.
PRELIMINA R Y PUD/PLA T CONDITIONS:
1.
The existing proposal does not comply with the current City standard& Stre~
improvements will meet approved City Street Standard& The applicant has been
informed that the City is currently revising its street standards and that the
proposed road system will have to comply with those standard&
The existing pavement and the proposed extension of Broad Street are not
aligned Thetransltlonfromtheexistingpavementtotheproposed
roadway shall meet the City's standards for horizontal alignment- This
includes a minimum curve radius of lOO feet and a minimum curb radius
of 25 fee~ at intersection& The Broad Stree~ extension must be extended to
the west property line and dedicated as public right-of-way to provide
adequate access to the adjoining lot to the west A right-of-way permit will
be requlred for this connection.
The 30foot wide utility easement which has been proposed as an access
route to the property to the south must be dedicated as public right-of-way.
This easement does not meet the current standards regarding width. The
¥7
allowable width for this right-of-way will be contingent on the adopted
road standards,
c)
The proposed one-way street geometry must be adequate for fire vehicle
accesa The proposed turning radii are currently too tight to allow
unobstructed accesx
d) All sidewalks shall be handicapped accessibla
e) Street lights shall be required per City Standard&
compliance: The plat has been designed, approved and constructed to city
standards, including roadway width, radii geometry, street
lights and sidewalks..
The storm drainage system shall be designed to meet the requirements of the most
current edition of the Department of Ecology's Storrrnvater Management Manual
for the Puget Sound Basba
.4 Large Parcel Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan shall be required
per BMC Section 15. 04. The Plan shall be implemented prior to any
grading or construetiota
compliance: The plat has been designed, approved and
constructed in compliance with the Stormwater Management Manual for the
Puget Sound Basin. An approved erosion control plan was implemented
prior to grading and construction.
Fire hydrants will be required and located as per the requirements of the
Bremerton Fire Department The hydrant shall meet the requirements of the
Bremerton Water & Fire Departmenta
compliance: Fire hydrants have been located as per the requirements of the
Bremerton Fire Department- They meet the requirements
of the Bremerton Water & Fire Departments
The applicant will provide emergency vehicle access roads to the requirements of
the Bremerton Fire Department
compliance: All roadways meet the requirements for etnergency vehicle access of
the Bremerton Fire Department-
7.
Water and sewer service is available upon obtaining necessary easements and
extending the utilities to the subject property as per City of Bremerton standard&
Waterlines to this site need to be upgraded to supply adequate domestic &fire
flowx Submit site plan & specification showing proposed water, sewer & storm
plans for review and approval before construation.
compliance: The facilities for water, stormwater, and wastewater have been
designed, approved and constructed to city standards.
The applicant shall document adequate maintenance of common areas (open
space) and streets, identifying the responsible partiex
compliance: The applicant has established easements, covenants, conditions and
restrictions which identify successive owners as
responsible parties for maintenance of common areas and
facilities.
9. A subdl tston plats shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor.
compliance: The plat has been prepared by a licensed surveyor.
10.
The applicant will design the plat to incorporate either varied front setbacks, an
undulating interior driveway to vary lot si~e (depth) and thus, the front setback, or
alternate Type "A " and Type "C" lots in at least pairs, to produce a varled front
building line to avoid the barracks-like effect of the buildings all at one or two
setbacks in two large groups (as currently proposed).
compliance: The final PUD was approved with plans for varied building setbacks..
11.
The applicant will document contact with Kltsap Transit as to identifying possible
transit access to the development or pedestrian access from the development to the
nearest transit stop.
compliance: The final PUD documented nearest transit location within 200yards
to the eas~ A school bus shelter is proposed. No further
provisions for transit access are proposed..
12.
Developers agree to a continuous "man-proof'fence along the common property
line with the adjoinlng parcel to the north (to keep children out of commercial
compliance: An eight foot high wood fence has been constructed along the north
property line.
13.
Agreement between developers and Robinson that their common property line shall
be that shown on the Kitsap County Assessor's Tax Parcel Map.
compliance: Recording the plat with the County Auditor will establish the property
line. FPH believes and recognizes that Robinson will
gain land and that no agreement is required
14.
The City of Bremerton agrees to impose no additional conditions or limitations on
Robinson's commercially designated and zoned property as a result of this change
in the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map designations, and subsequent
"Broadmoor Village" PUD, and will require that property owners in the PUD be
so advised
compliance: The City has granted a variance to Robinson allowing reduced
setback and buffer for the area abutting Broadmoor
Village. An addendum to the sales agreement warns
perspective buyer of the commercial zoning of adjoining
property.
15.
Developers agree to provide appropriate roadwa, v/utillty access across their
development to the Edward's property to the west.
compliance: The plat has been designed with a dedicated public street to the
Edward's property. The applicant has also constructed a
driveway for the Edwards.
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: October 23, 1996
Resolutio~$~'~ ORIGINATING DEPT: Executive
supporting Veterans
ORIGINATOR:
request to obtain USS Missouri DATE SUBMITTED:
Mayor Horton
October 17, 1996
2. ~: (con%ment on back
if necessary)
ENDORSEMENT ~f INFORMATION __ APPROVED BY COUNCIL P3~E~DENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMM/uRY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Local veterans' groups are requesting, through a long standing
federal statute, that they be granted ownership of the surplussed
battleship USS Missouri. This resolution supports their efforts.
8. RECOM~{ENDATION:
Motion to pass Resolution No. ~j~j--'
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10'. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
DATE:
AMENDED __
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
7. C SOUR :
SO U ION ,2, S'-O S
WHEREAS, on June 11, 1944, the battleship USS Missouri (BB63) was commissioned and served
in the battles that culminated the end of World War II; and
WHEREAS, the unconditional surrender by the Imperial Japanese Government ending hostilities of
World War II was signed aboard this distinguished naval vessel on September 2,1945; and
WHEREAS, the 50th Anniversary ceremony was conducted aboard the battleship USS Missouri on
September 2, 1995 at Bremerton WA; and
WHEREAS, this location has been renowned as the site where millions of American citizens have
been afforded the opportunity to witness this symbol of American heritage and freedom; and
WHEREAS, Galen G. McGlaughlin Post 3694, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States have
claimed this intrinsic historical landmark as their Post home;
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton:
The City of Bremerton, Washington supports the proposal and claim of Galen G. McGlaughlin Post
3694, Veterans of Foreign Wars, to establish their Post home aboard the battleship USS Missouri (BB63) as
a domiciliary for their headquarters and further that the vessel will be made available for the general public
to visit aboard to perpetuate our American ideals, American heritage paid for by American patriots whose
names are etched in crimson on the battlefields around the globe.
PASSED by the City Council of Bremerton this day of
1996.
JOHN LAW
Council President
SIGNED and APPROVED by the Mayor for the City of Bremerton on this
~ 1996.
day of
ATTEST:
LYNN S. HORTON
Mayor
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY
City Clerk
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Closed Record Public Hearing
to hear appeal of a Planning Commission denial
of an application for a Zoning Ordinance Special
Exception.
APPELLANT: Paul & LG. Gaddis
FOR AGENDA OF: October 23, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT.: DCD, Planning
Commission
ORIGINATOR: James Coombes, Land Use ~"
Specialist
DATE SUBMITTED: October 17, 1996
2, CLEARANCES:
DCD:Director of
Attorney:
Operations
Cmte:
3. EXHIBITS:
"A": Appeal 96-0005
"B": PC Finding of Facts & Conclusions
"C": PC Transcript of Hearings
"D": PC Minutes of 8120196
ENDORSEMENT/V~_ INFORMATION _ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~OR-$UBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The applicant is appealing a Planning Commission decision to deny (vote: 7 to 0 against) an application for a
Zoning Ordinance Special Exception (ZOSE) to construct a carport or garage in the front yard setback. The
applicant had failed to meet all six cdteda essential for approval of the ZOSE.
Note: This is a Closed Record Public Hearing. There will be no public testimony taken.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Requested Motion: I move to DENY Appeal No.96-0005 and uphold the Planning Commission's Decision
denial of a Zoning Ordinance Special Exception to construct a carport in the front yard setback,
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Donald L. Pratt
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED__ TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED
AMENDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
DATE:
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL (CONT.)
12. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
13. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
14. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCE,~:
15. RESEARCH SOURCES:
CEIVED. CITY COUNCIL OFFICE"
CITY
OF
BREMERTON
,,
REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DECISION OF DIRECTOR OR PLANmtr~G COtvi.viiSSiGN'
REFERENCE: ZONING CODE SECTION 21.02.930
(Your Name) 4/t,~.1 ~
~o~ Mailing Ad~s)
(Telephone N~r)
DECISION BE~G ~PE~ED: ~l~ ~tl~¢~,~l~~i4~~
Please pro,de a concise statement of the spec~c ~ding(s) or conclusion(s) to be renewed,
together with material facts cl~med to suppo~ your contentions. Use additional paper if
necessary.
Please provide a brief statement of the relief sought and the reasons why the decision/action
should be reversed, modified or remanded. Use additional pages if necessary.
'~ff~..g~u~n.l(? ~t-?t~ e--~!c.-/_q 4'7 p,~--'zq .c---/~r/
Appellant's Signature
Fee: (Due with Request for Review) Review of Director's Decision - $47.00
Review of Planning Commission Decision - $59.00
Reviews will be scheduled to be heard before the Bremerton City Council as soon as possible,
allow/ng for adequate preparation and notice. You will receive written notification of the Council
hearing date mailed to your address given above. The City Council decision is the final legislative
decision.
Revised July g, 199~ f0~;~-~*%~
CITY of BREMERTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION:
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
REGARDING:
BASED ON THE RECORD DEVELOPED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED ON AUGUST 20,
1996, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENTERS THE FOLLOWING:
SUMMARY
The applicant seeks exception to the 15 ft. front yard setback requirement at 2411 N.
Wycoff Avenue for a one car garage built to the property line.
FINDINGS
1. Applicant:
2. Location:
3. Attachments:
Paul & L.G. Gaddis
2411 N. Wycoff Avenue
Bremerton, WA 98312
2411N. Wycoff Avenue
o Application & Site Plan
o Vicinity Map
o ZoningMap
Tax Lot No.: Kitsap County Assessor's #: 3720-003-013-0002
Comprehensive Plan Map: Low-Density Residential
dwelling units per acre.
Zoning: Single-family Residential (SF-3)
Surrounding Land Uses:
Single-family Residential in all directions of the surrounding area.
Property Description and Access:
3 to 8
The subject parcel is a 0.11 acre lot with the main access along N. Wycoff
Avenue frontage to the east. Additional access is available from the alley
adjacent to the west property line.
9. Purpose & Application of the Special Excpetion:
As stated in Chapter X, Section 10-A of the Zoning Ordinance, the Special
Exception process is intended to permit relief from zoning requirements that may
cause undue inconvenience or irritation, but are not so severe that they would
warrant a Variance on the basis of hardship.
When this section was drafted, the City was looking for a way to approve
common-sense good ideas in unique situations that were not technically
possible under normal provisions.
10. Requested Special Exception:
A Special Exception is requested for attached garage in the front yard
setback, built to the front property line. This exception would allow secure,
additional vehicle storage in a weather protected structure.
11. Comments Received:
The application was routed for review and comment to various city departments.
The following comments were included:
Planninq Manaqer:
An undesirable style of development that has been discussed many times
is the placing of garages in front of houses. A more desirable design
would increase the garage setback or place the garage behind the house,
if an alley is available. When the Zoning Ordinance standards were
recently modified, residential setbacks were reduced in several zones, but
garages and carports were required to maintain at least a 20 ft. front
setback. This was intentional. People will continue to park in their
driveways. That's fine. But garages, carports and other buildings are
clearly not allowed within the front setback.
Buildinq Official:
Structure has already
inspections performed.
notice.
been placed. No permits were issued, no
Building has been posted with an abatement
Enqineerinq:
No comments.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
Bremerton Zoning Ordinance Chapter X, Section 10-C includes the criteria for approval
of Zoning Ordinance Special Exceptions. The Director of Community Development
may approve this request only if all of the following are true:
Ao
Is the proposal substantively consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan?
NO. The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in either
the Land Use Element (Supporting Policies #2 & CfA on page 4) or the
Housing Element (Item D, point four on page 7), which pertain to the goal
of maintaining a consistent neighborhood character.
Is there a clear relationship to the public interests and well-beinq of
the nei,clhborhood or community?
NO. There is no clear relationship to the public interest or well-being of
the neighborhood by developing a garage in the front yard setback.
Garages are accessory structures to the principal residential use, and as
such, should not be the dominent element along the street frontage.
Will the exception be applied in a manner that will not result in a
hazard to health or public safety?
NO. There could be a hazard to health and public safety related to a
vehicle backing out of the garage with no setback from the street frontage
property line. This could potentially cause personal injury to vehicle
passengers, pedestrians, and/or vehicular damage because of the short
sight lines between the garage, sidewalk, and street..
D=
Is it clear that this proposal is NOT a hardship situation that should
be considered for a variance?
YES. This is clearly not a hardship that would justify a variance. Other
less conspicuous, alternatives locations for a garage exist on the
property. A garage could be located in the rear yard area which is
accessible to the alley.
3
Is the proposal compatible with surroundinq areas and with
developments already permitted under the General Provisions of the
Zoninq Ordinance?
NO. With one exception, no other garages on the block have been built
to the front property line. The Zoning Ordinance recently reduced
building front setbacks, but specifically excluded garages from this
provision.
F. Do exceptional or special circumstances exist that warrant an
exception from the zoninq restrictions?
NO. There are no obvious special circumstances that might warrant this
exception. Personal security, prowlers, theft, vandalism, or other illegal
activities, are not valid reasons for granting this request.
CONCLUSIONS
1. This proposal is not in the public interest,
2. Special circumstances have not been shown that warrant an Exception.
3. The application does not meet the necessary tests for approval of a
Zoning Ordinance Special Exception.
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Based on the record developed, the Bremerton Planning Commission DENIES
the application for a Zoning Ordinance Specia[ Exception carport or garage in
the front yard setback.
Wayne Olsen. Chair
Bremerton Planning Commission
Donald L. Pratt, Executive Secretary
Cii'y of ~remerton
Application for
Zoning Ordinnnce
_SPEOI^L 5)(Ol::P¥1Ohl
'""~ranning Commission
A Zoning Ordinance Special Exception may be approved by the Bremerton Planning
Commission or, in some cases, by the Dire~or af Community Development ta grant refief
from requirements that may be inappropriate in specific unique situations or that may cause
undue inconvenience or irritation to the owner or occupants of affected properties, but that
are not so severe that they would warrant a Variance on the basis of hardship.
'Fo apply for a Special Exception, please complete this application form with as much detail
as possible about your proposal and submit it along with the application fee.
APPLICJLNT:
Name:. Pgu]/ T,G, Gn44in
Address: 2k!l N, WTcoff Avenue
City:_ Brem.
State: Wa. ZIP: 98312
Telephone: WOPdK: ~ HOP[E: R77-0~22
CONTACT PERSON: (If other than applicant).
Name: P~UL GADDIS
Telephone: WORK: ~ HO~rE:
TITLE ~DER: (If other than applicant).
Name: same
$77-a)22
Address:
City:. State: ZIP:
Telephone:_.( )
PROPERTY LOCATION:
Address: Phi1 North '~coff Avenue
Assessor,s Acct. No: ~720-003-01~-0002 -
Legal Description: (Attach extra sheet if necessary)
Brookvlew Lot 1~
1
· XCEPTION R~QUESTED:
I am requesting a Special Exception to the following
Section(s) of the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance:
Bu~ld~n~ within the P~ft. ~etbac~
PROPOSAL:
Please describe your proposal as clearly and specifically as
possible. Attach separate pages if necessar~ and attach any
maps, sketches, or other illustrations that will help
describe your proposal.
Place ~ weathe~ n~otect~v~ cover om R~ eX~t~n~ ~nn~
driveway. Frontg~e: N.W¥co£f. Usage: so!~ veh!cTe in~ress/
egress,parking. Drivew~w exists with ~ft. retgininr wall
sides 12ft. ~p~rt tie-ln~ ~nto ~ft. wail which runs N,~coff
from 24th to26th st. ~t ~ .qft. ~et-back.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL:
Your requested Special Exception can be approved only if
of the following criteria can be answered "YES":
all
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
ls the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
Is there a clear relationship to the public interests and well-being of the
neighborhood or community?.
Will the exception be applied in a manner that will not result in a hazard to
health or public safety?.
ts it clear that this is NOT a hardship situation that should be considered for a
Variance?
Is the proposal compatible with surrounding areas and with developments
already permitted under the general provisions of the Zoning Ordinance?
Do exceptional or special circumstances exist that warrant an exception from
the zoning restrictions?
Please provide below (or on separate paper) detailed
explanations or other information that will assist in the
review of your request and that will hel~ ~how that your
Rro~qsal meets ~hese tee+s: · ~
CoverinK the area will ~Iscour~e p~owlin~, theft ~nd' ~andals.
Secure ~ehicle entrance/exit a!~9.. ~egvrlt7 is high pri~tt~e~
thi ~lderlv ~r~domln§nt area. ~l~nt ~lne ~syes.sr? ncnb. ~ ~ -
tat~o~ ,lre~dv "hide~ the ~rea abd will no5 be d2snuroed, uovers
ore-i ~t~llgd,to ~Ur~ent zonin~ ordlnonce are comoatible and go
un-non,ced ~n thi~ ne%~hborhood due to the 5ft. r~taintng w8lI
running from 2kth to 2~th St. on t~e entire west side of Wyeoff.
This wAIl is at a "0" set-b~ck. '
(Cont'd.)
~9. ATTAC~Y_EA~S:
Notification List: Typed name/address labels for the
owners of all property within a radius of 300 feet of
the subject property are required. These may be
provided by the applicant, or the City Planning
Division will assemble the labels at a cost to the
applicant of $2 per label, at the applicant's option.
Site Plan: The applicant sha~l provide a Site Plan,
drawn to scale, showing the following information:
Dimensions of the property or total project area.
· Locations of existing and proposed structures cn
the site and all adjacent properties.
Distances between structures and property lines.
A~I access streets and driveways.
· Shorelines, bluffs, wetlands and other
environmental or topographic features.
· Other information that may be applicable.
Pre-application Conference:
The Planning Division should be consulted to discuss
the proposal and specific information needs prior to
submittal of the application.
!0. PL]tNNING COlfMISSION REVIEW & DECISION:
The Zoning Ordinance Exception Request will be scheduled for
a public hearing before the Bremerton Planning Commfs$ion.
Following the hearing, the Commission will (1) approve, (2)
approve with conditions, or (3) deny the request.
1!. ADMINISTRATIVE R~VIEW OPTION:
A Zoning Ordinance Special Exception may be approved
administratively by the Director of Community Development,
using the criteria listed above, provided the owners of all
adjoining properties hav~ indicated in writing that they
have no objections to the requested exception. A form
entitled "Adjoining-Owners Statement" is attached for this
purpose.
(NOTE: The administrative option and the signatures of all
neighbors does not guarantee approval of this request.)
12. APPLICA/9~f'S STATEMENT:
I hereby certify that the statements contained herein are
correct. I understand=that conditions of approval may be
required to adequately protect the zone or neighborhood
within which the subject use is located, and I agree to
abide by those conditions.
I understand that the decision on this application may be
appealed and possibly overturned, i also understand that an
approved Zoning Ordinance Special Exception is subject to
Planning Co~ission or City Council review and could be
terminated for violation of terms or limitations.
I understand that approval of this Special Exception may be
appealed and possibly overturned by the Planning Com/nission
or City Council.
I have read, understand, and agree with all of the above
statements.
Applicant Date
The City of Bremedon does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color,
religion, national origin, age, or disability in the provision of services, in
programs or activities, or employment opportunities and benefits.
'1
i I
SITE PLAN ....
./4
1
ZONING MAP
I
PUGET
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
August 20, 1996
Chairman Olsen called the meeting to order at 6:05 PM.
The meeting began with the Secretary calling the roll: Those present were: Chairman Olsen,
Vice-Chairman Stone, Commissioners Hancock, Dingfield, Adams, Boyd and Robinson.
Staff Present: Donald Pratt, Ron Hough, James Coombes, Kay Wilson, and Marylyn Waibel.
Chairman Olsen asked for approval of the agenda. Donald Pratt outlined some suggested
changes:
i. Discussion on the last meetings motion to make a recommendation to the Council
on the Administrative Chapter, Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Should be
inserted in the Agenda as Item 1 under Old Business.
2. The Charleston Community Plan which is listed as Public Hearing #4 should be
be listed as Item #1 under New Business.
3. The Resolution concerning the budget could be introduced as Item #2 under New
Business.
Chairman Olsen stated that also under New Business should be the rules of the Commission.
Commissioner Dingfield moved for approval of the agenda, revising it by deleting Item
#4 on the Public Hearing, the Charleston Community Plan, adding the Zoning Chapter
10 discussion under Old Business and under New Business, putting the Charleston
Community Plan and the budget recommendations. Seconded by Commissioner Hancock.
Approved unanimously.
HEARING//1-Paul and L. G. Gaddis
Chairman Olsen asked the conflict of issue questions.
Commissioner Robinson stated that he would like to be excused from the hearing because he
had an unplanned conversation with one of the neighbors.
James Coombes presented the staff report. The hearing tonight is a Planning Commission
Zoning Ordinance Special Exception Application. There are two ways to get a special exception,
PAGE -1-
one is administrative which requires the signatures of the adjoining property, owners and the other
alternative is to come directly to the Planning Commission and forego the acljacent property
owner signatures. The applicant seeks an exception to the 20 toot front yard setback
requirement at 241 l N. Wycoff Avenue for a one car garage built to the property line. Zoning
is Single-family residential (SF-3) and there is single family residential in all directions of the
surrounding area. Maps of vicinity, zoning and the site, which are in the packet, were shown on
the overhead. Six zoning criteria for approval were reviewed. Slides of the property, were
presented. Staff recommends denial of the application.
The secretary read the following correspondence:
Letter from Leslie Taylor, no address given, stating she is against approval, mainly because of
the precedence that would be set.
Letter from Clay and Judy Henderson, 2707 24th Street, stating they are against approval of
the variance. Stated the current garage is unsightly.
Letter from Leo Westermann, 2425 N. Wycoff, stated that he is against a garage in the front,
but would support a garage on the back side.
Paul Gaddis, resident of the property, stated he had never asked to build a garage. Wanted to
put a cover over the driveway, and received a green card from the City. When he received the
card from the City, went downtown to work with the City. Stated that there is not room in the
backyard to build a garage. Feels there is a great deal of misinlbrmation regarding this issue.
Kevin Skelly, agent for Paul Gaddis, requested a continuance. He was told there are two types
of special exceptions: administrative and planning commission. Feels that the City has changed
their permit application.
Donald Pratt stated that the discussion to continue or not is a Planning Commission decision.
Suggested that Mr. Skelly make a case for the continuance as opposed to just asking for one and
allow the staff to respond.
Commissioner Dingfield questioned the statement regarding the change on the application.
Kevin Skelly stated that the City marked the Planning Commission box on the application. He
thought they were going to have an administrative decision, not before the Planning Commission.
James Coombes stated that there are two ways to handle this, administrative and the Planning
Commission. In order to proceed with the administrative, you must have the signatures of the
adjacent property owners, without the signatures, it must go to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Stone asked if any permits were obtained for the current structure.
PAGE-2-
James Coombes responded no.
Commissioner Adams asked if the cover was on the property at the time of the abatement'?
James Coombes stated it was on at the time of the abatement.
Commissioner Dingfield questioned the status of the signatures.
Kevin Skelly stated that the staff is making mistakes in their statements. Stated they were told
to get the signatures and those they could not get, the City would get Ibr them. They were never
told that if the signatures could not be obtained that it would kick it into the Planning
Commission process.
Chairman Olsen asked if all of the neighbors had signed.
Kevin Skelly stated no. He reiterated that the process has been totally confusing and feels a
continuance would help. He stated the signatures were given to the City.
Chairman Olsen questioned James Coombes regarding the signatures. Mr. Coombes indicated
that they were unable to get one signature and proceeded with the only process available, which
is before the Planning Commission.
Paul Gaddis stated that at no time was he told that it would go to the Planning Commission.
Was told that the City would get the signature that they were unable to get. Stated there is
absolutely no room in the back to put a garage.
Discussion followed regarding the process if the application were remanded back to the Planning
Department for an administrative decision.
Donald Pratt stated that the City is comfortable with the process and outlined options available
to Mr. Gaddis. Stated that because all of the signatures were not available, Mr. Gaddis would
not qualify for an Administrative decision. Also, if all of the signatures were available, it would
probably still be denied, unless things dramatically changed.
Commissioner Boyd suggested that we proceed with the regular process and continue the
hearing.
Kevin Skelly continued with the applicants presentation. Went over each criteria for approval
and disagreed with the staff findings. Submitted pictures, Exhibit A-G, for the Planning
Commission review. Feels he is being treated unfairly and have been getting mixed messages.
James Coombes clarified the rear property setback is 3 feet, not 15 feet. Also, no to any one
of the six criteria, constitutes a denial of the special exception.
PAGE -3-
Commissioner Boyd moved that be it resolved, the Bremerton Planning Commission, after
considering oral and written testimony, and staff report, hereby denies this request for
a Zoning Ordinance Special Exception based on the following: it does not meet any of
the criteria, which would allow us to approve it and therefore we are obligated to deny
it. Seconded by Commissioner Stone. Question called. Stone, yes; Adams, yes;
Hancock, yes; Dingfield, yes; Boyd, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes.
Donald Pratt outlined the appeal process.
Commissioner Robinson rejoined the meeting.
HEARING #2-Ernest T. Mock
Chairman Olsen asked the conflict of issue questions.
James Coombes presented the staff report. The hearing tonight is an appeal of a Cease and
Desist Order issued to stop illegal land use. A junk yard use is not allowed in the single family
zone. Attachments from the staff report were presented on the overhead. Slides of the area
were also shown.
Ernest Mock, appellant stated that he does not feel his property is a junk yard. Most of the
material was brought to the property by a house guest. There is some construction material.
Originally he was sited for having a consUmction yard with equipment. He appealed that order.
Stated that the City felt they did not have a strong enough case with the construction yard so
changed it to a junk yard. Stated he is a general contractor and some of the material was picked
up from one job and waiting for another job. Is in the process of remodeling the inside of the
house and had to move some items out of the house. The van is used strictly as a storage shed.
James Coombes stated that you do not have to be running a business to be classified as a junk
yard.
Commissioner Stone asked to see the slides of the property again.
Ernest Mock clarified the items on the property.
Chairman Olsen asked if everything had been picked up? Ernest Mock responded that some
had been picked up and more had been moved on to the property.
Commissioner Hancock asked how the van could be removed? Ernest Mock responded that
it can be taken around the front of the house.
Commissioner Robinson asked how long the material covered by the tarp had been there.
Ernest Mock responded over one year.
PAGE -4--
Commissioner Boyd asked when will it go away. Ernest Mock stated it will eventually go into
the house.
Commissioner Hancock asked what the time schedule is? Ernest Mock indicated he is trying
to get the house done before the end of September.
Commissioner Robinson asked when the pictures were taken? James Coombes responded they
were taken August 15, 1996.
Discussion followed on the complaint process to date.
Commissioner Robinson discussed the definition of junk yard. Stated he is satisfied that the
subject property is a junk yard.
Motion by Commissioner Stone to uphold the Director of Community Development's
action. Move the Bremerton Planning Commission uphold the Director's decision to issue
the cease and desist order requiring the discontinuation of a junk yard use at the subject
property, since it's an illegal land use in the SF2 zone. Seconded by Commissioner
Ding, field. Question called. Robinson, yes; Adams, yes; Hancock, yes; Dingfield, yes;
Boyd, yes; Stone, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes.
Donald Pratt outlined the appeal process.
HEARING #3-Don Holtz
Chairman Olsen asked the conflict of issue questions.
James Coombes presented the staff report. The hearing tonight is an appeal of the denial by
the Director of Community Development for Short Subdivision Approval to divide one lot into
three lots. Presented overheads of the maps that were in the packet. The application meets all
of the requirements for a short plat; minimum lot size, water, sewer, etc., however on Lot 1,
he does not have 20 feet of direct access to a street.
Discussion followed regarding the current use of the easement for Lot 1.
Don Holtz, appellant, stated that the 15 toot easement which services the two existing houses
on Lot 1, it has been access for those properties for over 50 years. It is a legal recorded
easement. This easement also accesses three other parcels that he does not own. Stated when
he purchased this property, met with the Planning Department and was told he could divide this
piece of property into tour lots. Approximately two years ago, met again with the Planning
Department and was again told that it could be divided into ~bur lots. He hired Parametrix, to
provide service for the short plat. He submitted the four lots and was told that it would not
work. He then went back to Parametrix and had them design it into 3 lots. The Planning
Department then looked at it and discovered the 20 foot issue.
PAGE-5-
He went ahead and submitted the short plat to the City, and was told by Donald Pratt that the
plat could not be approved because of the 20 tbot of road frontage. Mr. Holtz stated that the
two houses currently on Lot 1 are using the existing access and will continue to use that access
whether the short plat is denied or approved. Lots 2 and 3 will access North Wycoff. Stated
he feel that Planning Commission should approve the short plat, because it makes sense, it will
improve the neighborhood and it will have no impact on existing roads or right of ways.
Commissioner Stone had some concerns about the Lots accessing on Wycoff.
Don Hoitz stated that those lots will require Engineering and Geological studies. The builder
has been out there.
Jim Meek resident of the area stated he opposes the short plat. Feels there is enough population
on the hill.
Don Holtz responded that the proposed lots are consistent with the neighborhood.
Discussion followed regarding the easement being used as the turn-around.
Motion by Commissioner Stone to overturn the decision of the Director and grant a, if
we have the power to do so, grant a short plat subdivision request. Seconded by
Commissioner Dingfield. Question called. Adams, yes; Hancock, no; Dingfield, yes;
Boyd, no; Stone, yes; Robinson, no; Olsen, yes. Motion passes.
Donald Pratt outlined the appeal process.
Review/Approval of July 16, 1996 Minutes.
Commissioner Stone requested clarification on the last page, regarding the dock resolution.
Commissioner Robinson stated that if detail study was needed on the dock resolution it would
need to be a budget item to allocate staff time to do the work.
Motion by Commissioner Stone and seconded by Commissioner Dingfield to approve the
minutes as presented. Question called. Hancock, yes; Dingfield, yes; Boyd, yes; Stone,
yes; Robinson, yes; Adams, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes.
Director's Report:
Donald Pratt stated that the City Council agreed to reduce the size of the Planning Commission
to seven members from nine. Most of the discussion was centered around limiting the
membership to Bremerton residents. You must be a resident of the City of Bremerton to be on
the Planning Commission. The budget process has started. Input from the Planning Commission
is needed by the middle of September. Discussion followed regarding Growth Management with
the County in regard to sewers in the Gorst area.
PAGE -6-
Old Business:
Discussion tbllowed regarding 1724. Chairman Olsen stated that at the last Study Session a
motion was passed referring to a Public Heating--should have been called a Meeting.
Ron Hough discussed the differences between the various decision types. Type II decision are
proposed to be administrative with no predecision public hearing required. If the Planning
Commission gets the open hearings on these application, the open hearing would be at the appeal
only. A second appeal could be filed in Superior Court. City Council wouldn't be involved.
Type III decisions are clearly City Council decision. Earlier draft proposed that the Planning
Commission conduct a "meeting" and make a recommendation. The Commission's current
proposal would give the open predecision public hearing to the Commission. The record would
be made at that hearing and a recommendation would be made to the City Council. The Council
would then consider all the information in the record and the Commission's recommendation and
make the t-mM decision without a second public hearing. An appeal would go to Superior Court.
The change would move the predecision public hearing from Council to Planning Commission.
Council would still make the final decision.
After lengthy discussion, Commissioner Boyd moved, be it resolved that, for Type I! and
Type II, the Planning Commission prefers to hold the open record public hearings on
project decisions, and if this proposal is not acceptable, to take the Planning Commission
out of the project review process completely. Seconded by Commissioner Adams.
Questions called. Boyd, yes; Stone, yes; Robinson, yes; Adams, yes; Hancock, yes;
Dingfield, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes.
Chairman Olsen stated that Commissioner Hancock will be gone from September 10th to
October 10th.
Chairman Oisen appointed the Budget Committee to be Commissioner Dingfield,
Commissioner Robinson, and Commissioner Stone. The Rules Committee to be
Commissioner Stone, Commissioner Adams and Commissioner Boyd.
Kay Wilson, staff, presented the Charleston Community Plan-Citizen Involvement Strategy.
Requested input from the Commission on their desired role in the Charleston Plan. Would like
to have two or three Commissioners appointed to represent the Commission at the community
meetings. Would like to have a Commissioner appointed to conduct the Community meetings
and appoint a Commissioner to be a member of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
Chairman Olsen appointed Commissioner Robinson, Commissioner Adams and
Commissioner Hancock--Commissioner Robinson as Chair. Commissioner Robinson will
also be on the TAC. Commissioner Dingfield was appointed to be on the Committee to select
the Consultant for the Plan.
PAGE -7-
Kay Wilson, announced the first meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 3rd. 7-9 PM at
the School Administration Office on Burwell and Montgomery.
Discussion followed regarding the public participation in the Plan.
Commissioner Dingfield moved for adjournment.
Meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved: 0~
h '
Wayne 0lsen, Chairn~, n
Bremerton Planning Commission
August 20, 1996
Public Hearing
Chairman OIsen: The hearing Number 1, is an Zoning Ordinance Special Exemption-Gaddis; Does
any member of the Commission have a potential conflict of interest.
Commissioner Robinson: Yes, Mr. Chairman I Do. I had a unplanned ex parte conversation with
one of the neighbors concerning this issue. I don't feel comfortable hearing this and l would like
to excuse myself.
Chairman Olsen: Okay, Bill Robinson is excused from hearing Number 1. Does any member of the
public object to the participation by any member of this Commission. Hearing none we will go to
the staff report.
JamesCoombes: I work in the Land Use Department and Community Development and this is a
Planning Commission, Zoning Ordinance Special Exception Application. As you know there are
two ways that you can get a special exception, one is an administrative and that requires the
signatures of the adjoining property owners and the other alternative is to come directly to the
Planning Commission and forego the requirement of the adjacent property owner signatures. Mr.
Gaddis has chosen the Planning Commission. What he is asking an exception to is the 20 foot
front yard setback that is required for all structures in that zone. It is a single family (SF-3)
residential zone. I will show it to you on the overhead in a moment. There is single family
residential in all directions. SF-3isthe zone. Here is a closer view of the sight.
Commissioner Dingfield: Excuse me Mr. Coombes, could I ask you to grab the microphone as you
are talking so that we can...Thank you.
JamesCoombes: 2411 N. Wycoff; it has an alley behind the property as you can see and I have
a picture of that
Commissioner Olsen: May I interrupt again, too. Would you want to identify these; would you
also put an exhibit number to them.
Commissioner Dingfield: These are in the packets
Chairman Olsen: Are they in the packets?
James Coombes: They're in the packets. I have shown the vicinity map, the zoning map, and this
is the site plan.
Chairman OIsen: Okay, thank you.
JamesCoombes: I'll leave that there and go on here. In order to get a Zoning Ordinance Special
Exception the applicant must,,~eet 6criteria for approval. I'm go,.:,j to go through those 6 criteria
of approval and then give the conclusions and staff recommendation, item Number 1 is A): The
proposal is to be substantially consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Staff has determined that
no the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in either the Land Use Element, and
we sight two examples of that, or the housing element, and we sight an example of that, which
pertain to the goal of maintaining a consistent neighborhood character. B): Is there a clear
relationship to the public interest and the well being of the neighborhood and community? Staff
is saying no there is no clear relationship to the public interest or well being of the neighborhood
by developing a garage or carport in a front yard setback. Garages are an accessory structures
to the principal residential use and are and as such should not be a dominant element along street
frontage, item C): Will the exception be applied in a manor that will not result in a hazard to health
or public safety? No there could be a hazard to health and public safety relative to vehicles
backing out of the garage with no setback from the street frontage property line. This could
potentially cause personal injury to vehicles, passengers, pedestrians, and or vehicle damage
because of the short side lines between the garage, sidewall(, and street, item D): Is it clear that
the proposal isn'ta hardship situation that should be considered for a variance? Yes, this is clearly
not a hardship that would justify a variance. Other less conspicuous alternative locations for a
garage exist on the property. Agarage could be located in the rear yard area which is accessible
to the alley. Item E): Is the proposal compatible with surrounding areas and with developments
already permitted under the general provisions of the zoning ordinance? No, with one exception
no other projects on the block have been built to the front property line. The zoning ordinance
recently reduced building front setbacks that specifically excluded garages from this provision.
Finally, item F): Do exceptional or special circumstances exist that warrant an exception from the
zoning restrictions? No, there is no obvious special circumstances that might warrant this
exception, Personal security, prowlers, theft, vandalism, or other illegal activities are not valid
reasons for granting this request. And as for conclusions Number 1, this proposal is not in the
public interest, 2, special circumstances haven't been shown that warrant an exception, and 3,
the application does not meet the necessary test of approval of the Zoning Ordinance Special
Exception. The staff recommendation planning staff recommendation, recommends denial of the
application based on the findings and conclusions contained herein. I have two slides of the
property front and rear thatlwould like to show. This is the front view of the property from North
Wycoff, you can if you look closely you can make out the retaining wall which exists and the drive
way is where the plywood is and the corrugated roof. This is the alley behind the house which
is the one possible alternative for a Iocation of an additional garage that would conform to the
current zoning ordnance.
Commissioner Boyd: Is the lot where that tree is...
JamesCoombes: The lot starts just beyond the tree, but as you look at the sight plan he has very
adequate frontage on the alley and open area where he could locate a garage.
Chairman Olsen: May the records show that Barb Boyd asked a question.
,lames Coombes: Mr. Chairman, that concludes the staff report.
Chairman OIsen: Thank you, at this time I forgot to mention at the first, this hearing is called a
public hearing it will be the only hearing the applicant will get. It will then go in front of city
2
council in a closed hearing.
Unidentified Commissioner: If it is appealed.
Chairman Olsen: If it is appealed so what evidence will essence be it, and the council, if it is
appealed, will review the minutes, tape, and other types of evidence that they have on file. Okay,
do we have any written testimony?
Secretary: Yes we do
Chairman Olsen: Okay will the secretary please read that into the minutes.
Secretary: Members of the Planning Commission: No doubt that the 20 foot setback was
established originally for good reasons. Sadly the city is over run with extra cars, boats, trailers,
campers, motor homes, you name it which do not fit on present lots. My opinion with that
respect is if one can not house such vehicles, one should move to property which can
accommodate them or simply don't have them. My observation at 2411 N. Wycoff is probably
the current garage is under the house and there are high cement retaining walls which hold earth
at the sides of the driveway. Many of these arrangements can no longer accommodate newer
styles of cars. It seems that bulkheaded area has been crudely enclosed and is used as a
workshop. My basic objection to the 20 foot setback exception is if it is granted for one, there
will soon be a block or blocks of everyone creating their own version of what is appropriate for
them. Just look around the city and it becomes clear this isn't a satisfactory solution. Yours truly,
Leslie Taylor.
Commissioner Body: Is there an address on that?
Secretary: No
Secretary: This one is from Clay and Judy Henderson, 2707 24th Street. The applicant keeps a
very unsightly garage out of which seeps grease and oil from the junk and fixer up cars that are
always piled around. The City has removed some of the junk already. This garage needs to be
returned to residential use and cleaned up. We strongly support denial of any variance by this
property. Somewhere the city has to take strong stands on the decline of properties in West
Bremerton. Under this Mayor, City Council, and Chief of Police, the West Bremerton neighborhood
has fallen into terrible condition. America's most livable city? Not a chance. What a sad joke on
us that have to live here now. Do you people ever drive around the City? What do you see?
Junk cars filling residential lots, campers and trailers allowed to sit on paths that are built on
parking strips in neighborhoods, homeless teenagers allowed to camp all night on Callow Avenue
in plain sight and with the litter to prove it blowing around the next morning. They shout
obscenities at people that dare to question their right to litter and urinate in a business district.
It is impossible to route out of town guests to our house now with out having them be shocked
at the condition of our town. The St. Vincent dumping ground on Callow is only exceeded in filth
by Chico Towing and Wrecking Yard. Why, by the way, are they not required to have a fence that
shields the wrecks from street view? I challenge the Council and the Chief of Police to drive
around this neighborhood and to list the violations that they see. The Mayor is already familiar
with the conditions because she lives here and chooses to ignore them.
3
This one is from Leo Wes~ermann, 2425 North Wycoff. T,,.d letter is an objection to the
construction of a garage extension on the front of the house located at 2411 North Wycoff,
Bremerton, Washington. Would support the addition of a garage on backside of residence if
required. Thank you.
Chairman Olsen: Okay we now go to the applicants if you would like to make a presentation at
this time.
Paul Gaddis: I'm Paul Gaddis and I lived there most of my life. I have been there the last 3 or 4
years because my father is in the rest home and I have been staying there with my mother cause
she is pretty much getting up to where she is not so much capable of being there by herself, but
it would be in anyone's best interest, hers or any of the rest of the families, and the rest of the
families got their own families to deal with now and I'mthe only one that doesn't. I have been
there, it will be 4 years this November that I have been. It's been about 15 years away from
there. I still have quite a few things there, but Idon't expect them to be there much longer. Only
since, like February, this came about and I started out I didn't I still haven't ever asked to build a
garage there. All was informed that I couldn't. It started out as putting a covered, just a covering
over the driveway that is not even secured down, is what it started out to because they put up
a green sign saying stop unsafe conditions and it has progressed to this. I still don't want to build
a garage there and I never wanted to build a garage there. If you will look at those sight plans we
submitted with the what - after the green sign was put up, they went down to the City and started
going through due process. At no time did it ever get to this point. They looked at what we had,
told a friend and I, who was standing there at the time, that he was having marital problems or
whatever, where he was staying and I have known him most of my life, I have worked for him
and with him at different times and because of his background in the past he had more than a little
bit to say about what might be possible and has helped me quite a bit in how to go about this.
At no time, did - well the main thing is that no time did we want to build a garage or even right
now want to build a garage there. It looks the way it does right now, not the fixing around it but
the plywood on the front of it, and I never got a chance to get it raised up high enough to get the
one vehicle in there that I wanted to. I need a flat surface to put together when all this started
from the winter time, rain, and everything. I expected to be out there by now but I haven't got
the chance with what has been going on. To even get more than about a week's peace without
something else coming up that takes anywhere from a month to three months just to get it going
and wait for__. The main thing it was from day one was stop don't do anything you have to
do this. I have been in the process of trying to do that and it has taken an exceptional amount of
time on both sides. But at no time that we in anyway unaccessible to for comment to anything
much less from day one we were told that it looks like you are going to have a problem with that,
and what ever it has nothing to do with building a garage. Which is what this has turned into
which, Imeanlwould, yes there is only one garage like that. There is many driveways down the
front street and many different times there has beenovers them and or not. They're very feasible
and I'm sure they're not very appealing looking out of the own persons front window as much as
anything, but the trees are growing up there over the years there isn't much you can see. You
used to be able to see the whole east side beagle field and everything and you can't even see to
the water in the bay through the cracks in the trees anymore. Which it has nothing to do with it,
but, the main deal is this is never intended or started out to be a garage you see there on the wall
the deal we submitted a bunch of the criteria A put out there is not room in the backyard. You
4
can see from their pictures ,nat the garage is in plain sight a,,~vn the alley of the next door
neighbors next to the vaoant lot is encroaching on the 20 foot setback on the alley way. They
went through a big deal back in the late 60's to get their garage and carport put up because it was
too close to the alley that is never been a possibility. And it for the faot that you can't see
anything. It makes no difference driving up the street. The oar port there is a fence there has
always been a fence between the property adjacent to the vacant lot and a 4 foot cedar fenoe on
the lot in between. There is absolutely no obstruction of view driving up and down the street even
though it goes up the hill the gray changes about 3 fold as you past the front of our house and
head up by the next pie shaped lot. The stop sign along__ never used to be a stop sign there
before other than in the past 3-,$ years and I don't know what to say. It totally amazes me at this
point that it stops where it is at this point from what I was told from when I started this whole
deal. Soldon't know what to say, other than all I wanted was covered because it rains around
here quitea bit. It has already started raining again and it has started in February and it has gotten
absolutely no where much less extremely back words at this point in time and now it's means of
the winter and I really see no purpose and there has been a whole lot of time and a whole lot of
money wasted in the process.
Chairman OIsen: Okay thank you, Paul Gaddis. Do we have your card here so we could
PaulGaddis: I have my friend here, Kevin, who would like to say something to you more on the
stand point to deal with it and he's the one that has helped me just in going about the due process
and I have been trying to take care of things at home and you know, my brother is, one that lives
in Seattle and the other lives in Port Orchard and maybe spends I would say, between the two of
them other than the once that lives in town is in Port Orchard, comes up by the house and has
been helping me with this stuff and my dad and everything. But, as far as around the house is,
he has absolutely nothing to do with that and hasn't for the last 15 to 20 years.
Chairman Olsen: Okay thank you.
Commissioner Dingfield: Are you opening it up to people speaking for or against it.
Chairman Olsen: Oh, excuse me, thank you. We'll go now to testimony for those in favor of the
proposal.
PauIGaddis: Well, I really don't think it's fair when it has not been addressed yet.
Unidentifiable tall¢ing
Chairman Olsen: Yes Mr. Pratt?
Mr. Pratt: I think an agent for Mr. Gaddis would be considered part of the presentation.
Chairman Olsen: Okay then we will allow Mr. Gaddis's saying the gentleman now speaking will
be an agent for him?
Kevin Skelly: I think first of all I would like to ask that we continue this a when we entered into
doing the permit process here, we were told it required a special exception and that there was two
5
types administrative and I thir,,( what we have here, what I have r~iewed and seen in the records,
is that Mr. Coombes or one of his agents has changed our permit application. So I would like to
ask that we stay on this to address that I don't think were here or anybody's here to waist your
time I know there is a lot of important things going on throughout the city we would like to ask
for that first. Is that something that the council or the planning commission can address? Because
we have a problem with the application.
Chairman Olsen: I will have to this is a legal matter our council is Mr. Pratt.
Mr. Pratt: I guess the process would be the decision is whether or not to continue it as a Planning
Commissions alone. I suggest that Mr. Skelly make a case for requesting the continuance rather
than simply asking for it there may be a response from the city staff that you'd like to hear before
you make a decision. Which means basically asking Mr. Skelly what he is referring to and asking
Mr. Coombes what his response is.
Chairman Olsen: Mr. Skelly before you talk Joan Dingfield do you have a question?
Commissioner Dingfield: I guess I don't understand they say the application has been changed
from what to what now?
Kevin Skelly: I think from don't being real good on the verbiage I think you can see the start of
the application which would be farther down in the packet page with the fee schedule on it.
Commissioner Dingfield: Okay with a protective cover that is what the application is?
Kevin Skelly: The City of Bremerton application for Zoning Ordinance Special Exception then it has
a two check boxes one is checked for planning commission
Commissioner Dingfield: Right
Kevin Skelly: administrative
Commissioner Dingfield: Right
Kevin Skelly: What happened here was that the structure went out as a carport type situation.
City came by and said that you can't do it this way at that point and time we got in touch with
the city and they said that you need to do file for a special exception. So talking to people talking
with the people at the city which have noted said that you do an administrative application and
we went forth and did such. And now we find that on the mailing I think it was August 9th or
August 20th when Jim Coombes to the Gaddis residence shows a planning commission being
marked as far as how the application was submitted. And that's the reason that
Commissioner Dingfield: So you wanted an administrative hearing
Kevin Skelly: Right
Commissioner Dingfield: Rather than a Planning Commission
6
Kevin Skelly: Well they ...it ~vastold to us that the first thing we uo is do the sight plan and turn
it in for an administrative go to the administrator because that keeps it in house. It keeps the cost
down and this and that. That way it's a informal we'llldon't know if informal is the right word
but it stays in there, there is a lot the communication is a lot more tightly nit so on and so forth.
Plus by going the other way was quite costly cumbersome as far as time and money to go that
way. Now we come to find out being here that we're not getting what we asked for. There is
nothing to hide, we're happy to be here but submitting the things that are put in here as we were
explained about the initial application at the administrative level is that there would be that we
could go back and forth. Which we don't really have the ability to do here, nor have we even been
advised that administratively there is a problem with it.
Commissioner Dingfield: Okay, could we hear from Mr. Coombes? That would be great, because
this is highly, this is not -
Chairman Olsen: Joan has asked Mr. Coombes to make a report to that question.
JamesCoombes: Aslstated at the very beginning, they're two ways to do it administratively and
planning commission. In order to do the administrative, which was explained to Mr. Gaddis that
at the time we handed him the application, you must get the signatures of the adjacent property
owners. Without one, if you have all but one, it ca not be done administratively. Therefore it
could only be processed through the Planning Commission. The cost to the applicant is the same
regardless, it's $139.00. The only difference to the applicant is the time frame. It takes longer to
get scheduled at the Planning Commission -vs.- Administratively, we can usually do these in a
shorter period of time.
Commissioner Dingfield: Thank you.
JamesCoombes: As far as their description of the garage as the covered area, whether it was a
car port, covered area or garage, it would all fall under the same zoning ordinance designation.
It isa structure built in the setback. What he describes on the second page of his application, Item
Number 8 is criteria for approval at the bottom where he has provided a detailed explanation of
what he was attempting to do. Iwould point out that covering the area will discourage prowling,
theft, vandals, secure vehicle entrances and exits atso. Security is a high priority. I interpreted
that to be a garage -vs.- a carport and based on what I observed upon the property I interpreted
that to be closer to a garage than a carport.
Unidentified Person: Is this because there is a door on front of it.
James Coombes: Yes.
Unidentified Person: Along with a lock on the door?
Chairman Olsen: You have to identify yourself please.
Unidentified Person: John Hancock at Mr. Coombes! The question?
Unidentified Person: How long has the door been on there?
7
Chairman Olsen: We can't take testimony from you. We can only, we have to call Mr. Skelly
back.
JamesCoombes: But I would like to just say, finally, that remember whether its a covered area,
carport, or garage it doesn't change the affect that it's a structure in the front yard setback.
Chairman OIsen: Larry Stone?
Commissioner Stone: James am I correct in the impression that the process is to bring under a
sight plan - you tell them that you'll require this action, that action and, but then there had to be
permits issued for a structure?
James Coombes: Yes that would be a subsequent process to this.
Commissioner Stone: Were permits issued on the structure?
James Coombes: No, none were applied for and none were issued. The property was under
abatement for the structure existing without permits.
Chairman Olsen: Donna Adams
Commissioner Adams: l just wanted to know if a cover was on There at The time that the stop
order was posted? Or the
James Coombes: Yes
Commissioner Adams: And then the cover went on after that. Is that right? Or I'm not
understanding.
JamesCoombes: It's my understanding what I showed and slot slide if you'd like to see it again
I could show it to you. Is what was being abated and at that has existed since the time the
abandonment order was issued,
Commissioner Adams: So a cover just a cover isn't allowed either.
James Coombes: No
Commissioner Adams: Okay
James Coombes: Any structure at all
Commissioner Dingfield: Mr. Chairman
Chairman Olsen: Yes Joan.
Commissioner Dingfield: I would like to thank Mr. Coombes reason for that but I would like to get
back to the issue cfi know Mr. Skelly raised the issue of the application being changed. Do you
8
have a response to the issue of the signatures around the ne, ghborhood. The neighborhood
signatures which cause the application to move from an administrative one to the planning
commission because there were no neighborhood signatures in the application for an administrative
thing was incomplete.
Unidentified Person: Do I have a response to that?
Commissioner Dingfield: Just so we can deal with the issue of the change.
Kevin Skelly: Okay first of all can I get the floor back?
Commissioner Dingfield: You bet
Kevin Skelly: First things first, not to be rude. I will address that. The reason for the continuance
is due to the fact there is, you can see we have disagreement and also find if the record is
researched that Mr. Coombes is making mistakes just by his response just previous to my coming
back to the floor. The- and Ito have to, how dol say it nicely? Mr. Gaddisand I were both in
front of Mr. Coombes more than one time; also we spoke with Mr. Pratt more than one time, all
with documentation on my side, and that is in going back to the continuance side, is that to maybe
get to a point of resolution other than having to be right here which seems to have some finality
to it. We were told and that we were very well aware and the first thing Mr. Coombes talked
about was those signatures of the neighbors and I myself went to the neighbors and talked with
them and gave them paperwork and received signatures and I've seen Paul do at least one of
them, so I can't testify for him, but I will testify for myself, and that testimony is that we were told
to get the adjoining, get the adjoining neighbors and that if we couldn't get the adjoining
neighbors, the City would. We were also never told that that would kick it intoa planning process,
which would change the level of it. We were told if we did get kicked into a planning type deal
that it would be a cost here I don't know if that could be reflected in the fee schedule or what.
I don't want to turn this thing into a legal battle or just whatever what have you. I just want to
go back and, as far as my position I am not to sure if Paul's substantiates that but it's possible but
that's the reason for the continuance is to get this all straightened out, I think its getting into a big
mess. I know that I have the documentation that totally says other wise. At Mr. Coombes, Mr.
Coombesalso stated that to not try and show. I think he does hisiob and I'm not up here to try
and cut him down or say that he is not unable to do his job, but we will find out that the carport
type top went up. Astop work order, or something of that nature from the City was issued, and
then at that time we contacted the City at that time there was no abatement, there was nothing
of such. Simply that,"hey you don't have a permit you need a permit," so we called up and said,
"hey we didn't think we needed a permit." He said "no, you need one" so we said "okay what
do we do?" They said "well, you can't get a permit," "well why is that," "well because what
we've seen you are too close to the setback." "Okay what do we do?" and then they said "you
need to go to the" ... I don't think they told us a Special Exception Permit at that time. But what
I'm trying to get at is that Mr. Coombes states you know shows his error right there. I'm not here
to try and show error that's not I don't think any of us want that I mean and that's what the
reason for the continuance. So that's why I asI(ed for one so that some of this stuff could be
straightened out. If it can't be so be it. I just want to go on the record and show, you know, the
error is obvious and can be substantiated on our side.
9
Chairman Olsen: Mr. Skelly, Wayne Olsen, did you get all the neighbors to sign?
Kevin Skelly: Did we get all the neighbors to sign?
Chairman Olsen: Yea that needed to be.
Kevin Skelly: No, No we didn't because when we went to the City, the City brought out their
paperwork and said that there's a person across the street that they said owned a piece of
property that we didn't realize existed, if you look at the sight plan here you can see the Gaddis
house and then there's two lots right there and across the street exists a situation of such that
resembles that. So we were under the across the street we thought we had all the signatures but
then come to find out we have a lot like this. And that was at a time once again that we went
back to the city and at that time there was no mention again then that that would change you
know change to the would change the permit. Nor did we ask to change the permit.
Chairman Olsen: So you have three signatures or three lot owners.
Kevin Skelly: I think the number one, two, three, I think there is more than that.
Chairman Olsen: And has the city got that on record, is it ...
Kevin Skelly: I do not know what the city has on record.
Chairman O[sen: In the file?
Kevin Skelly: The file doesn't showl wasn't that was another reason for the Administrative side
was that there was a lot of this stuff going back and forth because there wasn't we went down
there and took approximately four visits just to hammer out what was needed to fill out the permit
and that wasn't coming from our side. I mean we came in as layman as far as the City of
Bremerton not totally ignorant or whatever I have done a lot of work that involve issues of such
that to make sure that we cross the I's and dotted the T's you know of course I'm saying that
backwards but like I said it tool( four times to get that out we were denied turning in, you know,
the application. A couple times there was time constraints that we were I wouldn't say forced
upon us but we were asked to meet so
Chairman Olsen: Did the letter or signatures you have already gathered have you got them
somewhere? Or where are they now.
Kevin Skelly: They were at the city, asked that they be forwarded to them.
Chairman O[sen: Okay, thank you. At this time I'm going to ask Mr. Coombes to step forward
again. To clarify in my mind Mr. Sketly has stated that he has gotten signatures on three sides but
not the fourth.
JamesCoombes: As I recall they did attempt to get signatures from the adjacent property owners
but were unable to get at least one. At that point they elected to go the only way they could with
the application and that's the Planning Commission. And as far as any testimony on the part of
10
the existing structure I mu~. also state that that's not my are.. That was something initiated
through the Building Department. And the issue under consideration tonight is only the Special
Exception request for application.
Chairman Olsen: If they got the fourth person then it would go into the Planning Department itself
without coming to us.
.lames Coombes: It would be an administrative decision made by the Director of Community
Development, Don Pratt. Don Pratt is staff you have already got the staff recommendation that
I gave earlier.
Commissioner Dingfield: Is there a time issue we're running into with the permit that it's
automatically kicked to us because of that or did they proposed to
JamesCoombes: Mr. Gaddis came in one day, said "we can not get at least one of ... I can not
recall it was at least one and said that we got no choice but to go with the Planning Commission."
Commissioner Dingfield: Okay, thank you.
Chairman Olsen: Okay, one moment please yes do you want to step forward.
PaulGaddis: I have a direct comment to that, we
Chairman OIsen: Can you identify yourself again.
Paul Gaddis: I never spoke to this man Mr. James Coombes been there while
Kevin Skelly talked to Mr. Pratt, at no time were we ever told of anything to do with the Planning
Commission. They told us if we could not get the signatures that they would. There is a lot
across the street that through the county and through the city that they get nobody but the person
that is paying the taxes on it. It's beyond me why they don't know who owns it where they are
or whatever. I couldn't find it out through the county, Kevin couldn't find it out through the
county. Idon't know what the city tried to do. At that point still we were never told that it had
anything to do with the Planning Commission. We were told at that point they couldn't just give
it out that it would go administrative. Only one of those two boxes would even be checked up
there. And the only one they were talking about was the administrative one if we could not get
all the adjacent property owners. There's two of the three
end of tape I side I
Paul Gaddis: that owned the lot next door there is one behind, one on the North side, or on the
South side, the North side is ours, the East side is the one that I don't know why nobody knows
the contact the person who pays the check for the taxes every year. But they do not have any
idea how to get a hold of the owner which is the only people that they care about I guess. So
that's the only reason we didn't come up with the __ there's only two people in question here.
The third one's my parents and the fourth one is across the street that supposedly doesn't exist.
The lots never had anything done on it as long as I've been alive and I don't know about beyond
forty years ago. And this is getting very ridiculous in we got documentation to the totally different
11
than what is being presenteu ,n front of you here today.
Chairman Olsen: What Mr. Gaddis what you're, what you are saying is you'd rather have an
Administrative discussion made on this prior coming to the Planning Commission.
PauIGaddis: We were told by the administrative head himself that he didn't see a problem with
it as long as the proper paperwork was taken care of. And now we're at this point. This is
absolutely ridiculous.
Larry: Mr. Chairmanl have a question for Mr. Gaddis.
Chairman Olsen: Yes Larry
Commissioner Stone: Mr. Gaddis is the property owner to the south of you between your property
and the corner have you contacted has he signed the letter?
Paul Gaddis: Italked to him the other day yea
Commissioner Stone: And he sent a letter in saying that he supports this?
PaulGaddis: He didn't think he needed to send aletter either way we were never informed, I was
told word for word by both of these gentlemen right here today that involved in the Building
Department deal that adjoining people had absolutely nothing to do this is word for word that it
is not up to your neighbors or anything else that as to what goes on here from what we see that
you are doing. We have to make this known to the public so that if anyone has something to say
they can. For 300 feet away we were notified of that
Commissioner Stone: Okay, what about the property owner to your North?
PauIGaddis: To the North side is my parents
Commissioner Stone: Okay and to the north of that one?
Paul Gaddis: To the North of that one is Mrs. Jordan who has cancer. She hasn't been around
there very much. But yet her sons are the age of my older brothers, and no one around there has
any problem with it that I was aware of. Nobody has come up and said anything to me. In fact,
in the last week, because of these letters sent out there has been four people stopped out in the
street and totally to the opposite of the letters that you have read. Which I have no idea where
they came from and I know Leo Westermann, and I have tall<ed to him several times recently and
I had no idea that, you know, he sent in a letter like that which doesn't apply to me one way or
the other. I can understand why he wouldn't want a garage being put up there. Nobody is
attempting or ever intended to put upa garage there. Iputthe plywood on the front of it because
I had things stolen out of there twice. We contacted the cops, the police, two weekends in a row
and they told me that unless than I had somebody by the neck there wasn't nothing they could
do. And it was quite obvious to them.
Commissioner Stone: I have one other question too Mr. Gaddis. On the back of your property
12
what's the distance between, you show a handicap access, what ~ the distance between that and
the alley way?
PauIGaddis: Okay the handicap access okthere was a distance there in the line. Okay yea the
deck and that there is what you can see from the picture. That apple tree you saw in the picture
is dead center it's about 6 feet off of that sidewall( a double line where the 50 foot penciling is
right above it. About 6 feet off the sidewall( it is almost dead center of that part of the lot. From
the alley way to where the little deck arches about 2 feet retaining wall is, I would say, no more
than 30 Feet. There's no way between the, lets say the apple tree was planted there when my
oldest bother was 2 years old, there's no way to put anything on either side without taking that
tree out not that that tree means that much. It might to my mother I've heard her say something
about that more than once but the adjoining lot is totally unimproved. They would never put
anything so much as a carport up on it because the taxes would go up what ever. There's no
more than 30 feet probably less than 30 feet from the edge of the pavement to the handicap
access. There is room I had cars parked in there and the noses of them, where they, a friend of
mine, the only reason that I trying to do some work there, started stealing from me when they
were out in the central valley road and I ended up, they were out there for two years and yet they
did anything, and stuff started disappearing and that's how I wound up in the situation I'm in right
now,
Commissioner Stone: So in your opinion there is not room for a garage there
PauIGaddis: There is not. There is simply not room, in no way for room. You go out there with
a tape measure you won't come within 10 feet of there being room in any way to put anything up
there.
Commissioner Stone: Thank you
Commissioner Dingfield: Mr. Chairman
Chairman Olsen: Yes, Joan
CommissionerDingfield: Ithink before we continue on with any of the hearing and hear this you
know any one speaking for or against for the rest of the hearing, I just, I guess I'm confused on
this one thing. If we were, to Mr. Gaddisand Mr. Skelly if you understand, if we were to remand
this back to the Planning Department to finish out the administrative process, you understand, that
we normally, if we like, lets say if this were an appeal we would have this packet. It would
include as a part of your application all of those signatures from the surrounding property owners.
So we would know that all of the surrounding property owners have said yes or no and whether
that part of its complete. If it were a normal, no if this were a normal application that would be
included in here and if we were hearing that on a appeal. So you understand that if we were to
choose, say let's not continue this hearing, let's remand this back to the Planning Department so
you can, so through the administrative process that you would have to get those signature, you'd
have to get signatures of all the surrounding property owners and complete that whole application
process before you go into the administrative
PauIGaddis: That's what we did in the first place
13
Commissioner Dingfield: a~ ~nistrative process
Paul Gaddis: Yes
Commissioner Dingfield: Okay cause It just sounds like well
Paul Gaddis: Okay now say you don't remand it back to the them, and we substantiate that
somewhere along the line we've been some how or another set aside. Whatever it got passed on
other hands for whatever reason on their part because there is a whole lot of missing information
being displayed here today already. And so I say we don't want to go back to them and that's
already in front of you guys. That's where they sent us because obviously they didn't want to
deal with it cause they told us they would. Now so if you guys, get if we bring the adjoining
property owners to you which they say they couldn't get and they say we couldn't get, then it still
stays in your hands and they have nothing to do with it. Other than they have their
recommendation from their office to you guys. But if their office already has misrepresented the
situation in the first place I wouldn't think you guys would need any assistance around here would
really take much of their recommendation and when their,ecommendations. I mean they already
totally miss represented themselves to you on our behalf. I don't understand really what's going
on here. But I mean your trying to ask if it is all right with me if you send this back to them-
Commissioner Dingfield: No. What I'm asking- no, No- No- No. What I'm asking is: What Mr.
Skelly asked for some kind of continuance here because -
PauIGaddis: That's right
Commissioner Dingfield: because of- because of a - because of- let me finish. So what I'm
asking you is that you and Mr. Sketly, as your agent, is as long as you understand should we
choose to do you know what you like and it sounds like you have some more work you'd want
to do with the Planning Department on the Administrative side, *
Paul Gaddis: Not necessarily.
Commissioner Dingfield: Do you understand that you need, you know, that you would need to
have that whole application process? Cause it sounds like there is some confusion.
PauIGaddis: We went through the whole application process and they never told us that it would
send us here, number one, and number two, which Tells me I really don't want to go back to them.
So, no, I don't think that would - -
Commission: Then you--
PauIGaddis: In front of you know...
Commissioner Dingfield: Okay.
PauIGaddis: Iwould more or less rather stay in front of you causel've already seen that. I don't
get any, I'm not being told the truth here.
14
Commissioner Dingfield: O.. cthen you and Mr. Skelly are say g two different things here.
Paul Gaddis: Not necessarily.
Commissioner Dingfield: Well, I need to- I need to-
PauIGaddis: We would likea continuance. Yes to resolve the misrepresentation factor right now
and then, at that time, we will decide. I mean, well at that time you guys will decide where we
have to go because we're in front of you now.
Commissioner Dingfield: Mr. Skelly?
Paul Gaddis: It's not for us to say where we go. I mean what part of the City we gotta go,
wherever the City sends us.
Commissioner Dingfield: Okay. Mr. Skelly. Paul-
Kevin Skelly: l am offering this along with Paul that I do understand what you asked for I myself
understand that we do need those signatures. I'm sure at any time I could possibly be removed
as agent by the Gaddis family and I'm not bringing that point up at all, but what l'm trying to say
is yes, we do understand the signature process in relation to the administrative type.
CommissionerDingfield: Ol<ay great. It sounds like, Mr. Chairman, there is some areas here that
can be worked, that it looks like you can move toward a resolution or something and complete if
you want to complete it on the Administrative side. It sounds tike this might be pre-mature in
coming to us. If you would like - what I would lille To suggest here is that we remand this back
to the Planning Department. If I could make a motion here that we remand this back to the
Planning Department for completion of that process and then if you.
PauIGaddis: ldo have a question.
Commissioner Dingfield: Certainly.
Paul Gaddis: If we are not satisfied with their situation then we wind up here again?
Commissioner Dingfield: What happens is if you choose the administrative side and then you're
not satisfied with their decision, you then have the option to appeal their decision.
PauIGaddis: Ol<ay. That's what I was wondering. That's what it sounded like you were implying
and I just wondered.
Commissioner Dingfield: Yeah, no.
Unidentifiable talking between Commissioners
PauIGaddis: If we already came here and went bacl~totherel was wondering what my recourse
is.
15
Commissioner Dingfield: Yc do have, if you finished the adm, strative side and you don't like
their decision you have the right to appeal.
PauIGaddis: Okay, right to appeal?
Commissioner Dingfield: Yes.
Chairman Olsen: Before we coordinatea motion, Mr. Pratt would you liketo make a comment on
this.
Don Pratt: As far as the administrative side is concerned, one, we're comfortable with the process
that we ran and if Mr. Gaddis has further complaints about how he was treated and what's going
on, he can discuss it with the, he can either go to Superior Court for failure to provide him with
due process or he can discuss it with the Mayor about how we are conducting ourselves.
Secondly, at this point, he does not qualify for administrative approval of this because of the
inability to obtain adjoining property owners. I, at one time, offered to help identify and get
adjoining property owners. My understanding is that, for whatever reason, all of those signatures
were not forth coming and he doesn't even qualify for an administrative decision under that
circumstance. Thirdly, I would point out, even with adjoining property owners signatures, he is
not guaranteed of approval of that and you have a recommendation in front of you this evening,
that is a denial. So unless things dramatically change with property owners, adjoining property
owners, it is likely he still would get a denial in the administrative process. At which point he
would come back to you somewhere on appeal. So I guess the issue is yours.
Commissioner Boyd: Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Olsen: Yes Barbara.
Commissioner Boyd: I move we go through the rest of the }rocess and see if there is anybody
who wishes to give testimony against it or for it.
Chairman Olsen: Does that meet with the rest of the Commission?
Commissioner Stone: Oh, yeah.
Unidentifiable answers
Don Pratt: That was a motion that would require a second.
Commissioner Boyd: Well, Itakeit back as a motion. That's a suggestion, do we go through the
regular process to see if anybody in the audience is opposed to it or approves it?
Chairman Olsen: Yes, Mr. Pratt.
Don Pratt: One of the options you have after you go through the process is a remand option.
CommissionerBoyd: Yeah, lunderstand that, but we haven't finished. I mean why do we make
a final decision before we finish the hearing process.
16
Unidentifiable talldn9
Chairman Olsen: Okay we'll go ahead with the rest of the presentation. Pardon, Joan?
Commissioner Dingfield: I'min favor of that also.
Commissioner Boyd: Didn't we hear that?
Commissioner Dingfield: No we didn't.
Chairman Olsen: No we haven't heard just that.
Commissioner Boyd: Maybe there is somebody in the audience
Chairman Olsen: Okay at this time we will go ahead and continue the hearing and testimony of
those in favor of the proposal. Please step forward to
I(evin Skelly: Mr. Chairman, is there a point of order? I was at an continuance was I denied to
request a point of order on this? Due to the fact that I brought upa continuance and we stopped
the proceedings and considered the continuance, without being able to present the side, I
understand the right to continuance isn't going any where at this time and that the council asked
to move on with the presentation.
Commissioner Dingfield: With the hearing yes.
Chairman Olsen: Do you want to step Mr. Skelly, do you want to step in front of the mike and ask
that question again. In case it didn't get recorded.
Kevin Skelly: Yeah, I had earlier had the floor and brought up a request for a continuance due to
the - our contention that the permit application was changed by the City to go straight to the
Planning Commission, and that what we were provided with for information was continually
ignored, and that basioally the floor was still mine to present the oase. It appears, but I'm not
sure, I think I was answered to by Mr. Olsen that Ms. Dingfield's motion for continuance never
went anywhere?
Commissioner Dingfield: If I could answer that, and Mr. Chairman I would like to offer my support
for the continuing with the hearing. Ithinkthatl didn't move to remand it back. What I was doing
in my questioning was trying to find out if you understood what would happen if we choose to do
that. Having said that and hearing that you have made an attempt to get signatures and have been
going through all of that process and that it's here, I think we should go ahead and continue with
the hearing because the steps have been outlined to you and you did make an attempt to do that.
So knowing that, that's why this has been giving to the Planning Commission for our
consideration, I think we should continue with the hearing.
Commissioner Stone: Point of order Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Olsen: Yes, Mr. Stone.
17
Vice Chairman Stone: I thi, . we need to point out to Mr. Sk~. and Mr. Caddis, there maybe
others in the audience who have an opinion on this issue. We want to proceed and let everybody
talk. Then the process is to close it for our discussion then we make a decision. There are no
decisions being made at this point. We're trying to proceed with the hearing and let everybody
speak their piece, and that's what were trying proceed with now. Nothing's been killed, nothing
at all.
Kevin Skelly: I understand that very well and I came up here a little bit more technical side to-
the City brought a - I wouldn't say a case they brought their side in and Paul brought parts of the
side to you people and then I came up and stated talked about the continuance and we have gone
to and fro on that and it's been a little bit inflammatory, and we stopped at that time as far as me
being able to bring out our side of the case. And that's whatl'm getting at, that's why I'm asking
for the floor back.
Chairman Olsen: Mr. Pratt can we- he's requesting, Mr. Skelly is requesting the floor to continue
his argument on a continuance of this application.
Don Pratt: If there are no limits on how much time an applicant has to present his or her case
whether it's for the merits of the case of for procedural request such as a continuance, the floor
is his basically until the chairman decides things are being repeated.
Kevin Skeliy: The whole point is that I ~ it has nothing to do with The continuance and I'm sorry
for not making myself clear. I wanted, we went to the merits of what I felt the technical merits
were in reference to what Jim Coombes brought to you people and that's what I was - that is what
I'masking get back to do. Because of what, he brought came up and brought his case first and
then I got up and the first thing I asked for was a continuance. I think we have addressed that and
its gone it's way and now I want to address as an agent for the Gaddis's.
Chairman Olsen: Yes?
Unidentified talking between the Commissioners
Kevin's Skelly: Sorry for the wait. This is Kevin Sketly again addressing on the Caddis issue. We
have a criteria - excuse me Mr. Chairman, am I?
Chairman Olsen: One moment, one of the questions was, we would like to make this a short as
possible and still be fair to you and to the Caddis as to present all facts that you have, but we
have wasted a lot of time on one part of this -
Kevin Skelly: Yes.
Chairman Oisen: Well, go ahead.
Kevin Skelly: So we're all ready?
Chairman Olsen: Yes.
18
Kevin Skelly: We have a crit~,,a for approval and you have hearu ,Fir. Coombes. It started out as
is proposal substantively consistent with the comp plan? They answer no, that's not consistent.
Well, I think - Why would we be here if it was consistent when I think it wouldn't be any issue.
As far as really being able to answer that, it kinda goes back into the sight of the not being fully
being prepared to come here and answer to that. Due to what we feel we been in - agreed or
whatever by the City and how we have been answered to. Like I say I feel it's redundant and
moot and that's why you're asking for a special exception.
As far as public safety, I'll have to disagree. I think that if you can get rid of the crime and
improve the neighborhood and do anything of such, whether it be by building or just whatever, I
think it's all of our responsibilities and that's what this project is trying to do. I mean it was stated
in the letter that everything is a dump, the place looks terrible this and that. Well yeah, it certainly
doesn't look too good and that's because the top was thrown on the thing and that was a
temporary deal and that we've been - the City's told us that we have to come up with a building
plan and we understand we need to do that, but that is after we receive permission to submit a
building plan. Aisc, that brings in some redundancy of the abatement that they've asked for. The
neighbors call for the City and the people of itself to clean up their act and look around and that's
exactly what we are trying to do here. The public interest with the garage, whether it's a garage
or if it's a covered area or if it's part of the house or just what it is, I have to totally disagree in
answer that. Hey, this is an enhancement. Aisc, it's stated that a dominant element along the
street frontage, says its a dominate element. There is a five foot high retaining wall that goes
along the whole front of the street. I mean the parking is already there. All were doing is throwing
sides and a roof on it. We tried to do it temporarily, but we can't, so we need to do it in a
professional and law abiding manor and that's all we have ever asked to do. So l think that, as
far as being dominant, lthinkthat the dominance of a garage is totally in error. And, as far as
dealing, with the City will the exception be implied in the manner that will not result in the hazard
or health or public safety? The reply is "no", there coLlld be a hazard to health and public safety
related to a vehic[e backing out of the garage. Well, as you see in further on, engineering doesn't
have any response, it has no comment. I would hope that the City engineering would have some
type cfa comment to a car backing out of a garage. Well, maybe, is it possible that the lack of
comment from the engineering is that- you know that that, is a redundant statement. I certainly
think so because if a car is in there or whatever is in there that comes out of that area, I mean
whether there is cover or not, you are still backing out. If you take the garage away, you have-
still have a parking area, you still have a - as stated in the record earlier by Mr. Coombes, there
is a so-called one car garage in the house but, like he said, due to the cars or whatever that stuff
just doesn't fit. So you take away that, the statement itself totally almost is back to redundancy
or moot. Idon't understand how the garage would make it any different no matter what and that
point isn't brought up by the city in any way and neither does engineering and I think that they're
the entity that by law gives the - that looks into that so, of course, engineering doesn't have any
comment.
Is it clear that this proposal, in moving along to the deed, is it clear that this proposal is not a
hardship situation that should be considered for a variance? Well, as far as the people I've talked
to within the department, and I'm not perfect and I'm still happy to work with all the people the
City Council, the Planning Commission, the Mayor, Don Pratt, Jim Coombes, I'm, let me put it right
now I'm not in an expedient fashion and I'm sorry for all this, we're happy to work with them any
day and everyday of the week. And the hardship occurs due to the fact that if you go in the
19
backyard it looks like, sure., looks easy on paper, to go in th~, ~)ackyard and possibly put in a
garage. But if you, IthinkMr. Stone asked earlier about measurements and such, the scale, the
drawing is to scale and the alley is to scale, there is a possibility - a remote chance that there could
be a garage put in the backyard. But getting a car in would possibly, more than Iii(ely, take the
car beinglifted up and put on a turn style type of situation like a railroad car. I don't know if the
City owns 15 feet in there or what they own, but what there is is there is 10 feet and I think if you
were to ask engineering what 10 feet can give you for turning into a garage when you have about
-I think it's about 24 feet of yard - I think that your faced with something that's not really going
to work, and I think that's where we might run into a hardship area and that's the reason why the
front yard - the front setback came into question here. That's why we thought that our
discussions you know reflected that at the administrative level. We thought that because of the
fact that all there already was an existing driveway, an existing bulkhead, and so on and so forth,
that, you know, that's the easiest place to go. And we're not going easily to the front yard we
are - we can't go in the back yard, l mean you just can't go in the back yard. I think that you
might be able to go in the backyard if you went on a transverse angle like the -, there's a line on
the drawing, there is a pointer there, if you went in at such a weird angle, but I don't know if that
would scale in or not due to the - sometimes you think its a lot easier to go that way, but to get
a rectangle into something that might not work. I don't think it will. So, yeah I do think there is
a hardship there. I think that, as far as covering that area, due to the fact that the vehicles can't
get into the garage that is there. -And we're not. Like I said, were not asking for a garage, but
I'm arguing garage because I think that I have to argue what I've been told I have to argue and the
way Mr. Coombescal[sit, and that it is a garage. So I'Il argue the fact that if Mrs. Gaddis, an 84
year old lady, were to come into a garage with a garage door opener and pull into that garage and
open and shut that, remote controlled which is kind of a standard, that she could drive into that
garage, and not the garage that exists but one that would be would be built in front, and she
would have the safety of that garage provided to her. She can not bring her vehicle into that into
the existing garage into the house due to size and so I have to say that that is definitely a
hardship. I know that currently that they have been using parking to the north, but I don't know
tax laws or what, I guess - I don't know if the City or Planning Commission wants Gaddises to,
you know, to develop that lot north of them. I don't know the codes on that, but as far as
addressing the - the hardship does exist and I've given reasons and the location of the garage in
the backyard I don't think simply because one says that it can I in a professional capacity, says
that it can't.
Which brings us to E, is the proposal compatible with surrounding areas and with developments
already permitted under the general provisions of the zoning ordinance? No and, once again, If I'm
understanding the question right or the statement, it says with one exception no other garages in
the block have been built to the front property line. Well this is kinda - it easily looks good on
paper, but if we were able - I do have some pictures, the whole west side of that street has that
5 foot retaining wall. Most of that 5 foot retaining wail the only openings in that retaining wall are
steps into the peoples' property. Probably out of 20 houses in there, and I'm not being arbitrary
but I can't pin-point it, there are probably three openings in that in that wall that run all the way
down run-down that street. One of them has a garage, so l think what were dealing with, and that
garage does go to the- right to the side. Whether that's exactly property tine, I don't know. [s
it close? Yes. So l feel that the compatibility Ithinkis already there. Ithinkthat for us, and also
on the other side of the fact, that the building that's of it is totally, as far as it sits right now, is
nothing to resemble. We are required and we understand that if we are allowed to build that we
2O
need to build to code and ~.~ have no problems with that, anL ,ve also have no problems with
tieing into the esthetics of the house or this or that. And also on the third side of that, as far as
building there we - the permanency of it is in question on our side, but due to the law we have to
build in a permanent fashion. We are happy to do that and we are also happy to build to code.
But, at this point in time, we have no ability to do so due to the permit process.
And finally on that, F, do exceptional or special circumstances exist that warrant an exception from
the zoning restriction? It says no there are no obvious special circumstances that might warrant
this exception. Personal security, prowlers, theft, vandalism, or other illegal activities are not valid
reasons for granting this request. Well I think if you were going to take the request on it's own
without the other merits of this case, I think that this is a very valid statement, but I think it's
being taken out of context and being put toa misuse here. Due to the fact of that 5 foot retailing
wall, the height of that retaining wall, it totally almost builds the garage in itself, it doesn't take
away or really add to any of the esthetics of the neighborhood. The thing's almost invisible. The -
ldo have some pictures if they could be submitted to the record. There is no site restrictions, you
can't even - as matter of fact the pictures do show that you can't even hardly see the garage due
to the fact of theGaddises and their love of plants. And also, due to that same retaining wall that
runs the whole length of the street, it hides the garage from the site line of the road. And also that
- the edge of the asphalt to the front of the garage - there is 12 feet of parking strip to the edge
of the asphalt and then you also have 18 more inches to the fog line of the street. As far as the
rebutting of the criteria for approval I think that we meet those. I think that we are obliged to try
and improve. Imeanthe place was not in so much disrepair, but had the look of ajunkyard, and
the reason for this garage structure, however it's put, is to rid the place of this I think that no
matter what you're going to have people bringing vehicles onto their property and I'm not talking
extra car or what. I think that you're in a ofd neighborhood and I think the City needs to
encourage people to update, modernize, protect, be a part of the movement that rids the crime,
improves the neighborhood, and works along with the City itself and their neighbors, and that is
what we're trying to do.
Like I say, we have some other points that were brought in, like I said engineering made no
comment and so I - and that is part of the City's assertion that they have none and I can reflect
to that to - well because obviously they, more than likely, I would hope that they were diligent in
doing their job and found that there isn't any problems with it. Ithink Mr. Pratt had a-madea
statement, not knowing he's the planning manager, he has a statement in here. "An undesirable
side of development that has been discussed many times is the placing of garages in front of
houses." "A more desirable design would increase the garage setback or place the garage behind
the house." We've addressed that. If an alley is available. Yes, there is an alley. I'm sorry that
-that hind sight or whatever foresight wasn't given to provide a bigger alley. Besides the
constraints of the alley, you also have utilities that are back there including Puget Power. I don't
know who owns the telephone and the cable and the gas company, but the gas company is
underground so it's not a constraint, but there's power poles in the way that cause a problem in
the back. I'msorry, I didn't or we didn't, we are just trying to easily work within the perimeters
of what would be brought on. Also the setback of the house was put in and the whole
neighborhood is flavored with the - the houses are all set in a straight line and the garage would
not change any of those sight lines, would not change any of those esthetics and neither would
one in the back yard, but back again, we can't go there.
21
The Building Official, which : don't know who that is says th, [he structure has already been
placed. Yes, it has. No permits were issued no inspections were performed, this is true.
Building has been posted with an Abatement Notice. I think it appears or it might be part of the
-if one is to think of this if someone goes in and puts up a shotty structure and doesn't take it
down and is issued an Abatement Notice one would think that they're irresponsible and there is
a point of irresponsibility that we feel is ours and that was that when we put that carport-type top
on there and we were immediately notified of that and then, from then on, we've been working
through this permit process and answering to everything the way in which we think and the way
our paperwork shows. So, as far as the abatement deal, I think that it gets I<inda- painting at the
wrong picture here. If we- need to the thing will be torn down and if it needs to be torn down,
it will be. If it needs to be rebuilt differently, it will be and that I think that pretty well covers.
I'm sorry for the time issue, but the fact that the City brings up all these was the reason for myself
asking for the continuance. It was my contention, to state again, that we're being treated unfairly
due to the fact that the City department, in the administrators side, did tell us that if we were to
go to a Planning Commission situation like this, it would be in our best interests to hire a totally
professional. I'm not - I've been involved in a lot of this, but I'm not a professional at doing this.
I know that we would of hired a professional and I think that Mr. Gaddis and Mrs. Gaddis and the
rest of the family would have done the same. I can only say-
end of tape I side 2
KevinSkelly: that all we're trying to do is to work with Mr. Pratt, Mr. Coombes and all you people
on the Council and for your time, I thank you and as far as wasting it I hope that nobody thinks
it is a waste.
Chairman Olsen: Thank you. We will now go to testimony of those in favor of this proposal.
Hearing none, we'll go to testimony of those in opposition to this proposal. Being there is no
testimony in favor or in opposition, the rebuttal is back to Mr. Skelly. Because there is none do
you want to rebuttal?
Kevin Skelly: No.
Unidentifiable tall¢ing between the comrnissioners
Chairman Olsen: Now when you submit those pictures, they become property of- you don't get
them back. Because there was no opposition, there really is no rebuttal.
Commissioner Dingfield: There is a series of seven pictures here, do you want these
Mr. Pratt: If you would look at them and then hand them to us and we'll marl< them as exhibits
and put them in the record.
Chairman Olsen: Okay there is seven- as stated by Joan, seven pictures, we'll call that Exhibit
Mr, Pratt: They will be Exhibit A-B-C-D-E F-G.
22
Chairman Olsen: Okay beinb,~o rebuttal, this hearing now is cl. ed to public testimony. Would
the staff like to clarify any of the issues that were made at this time?
.lames Coombes: I would just like to make two clarifications; one it was stated that the rear
property setback for structures is 15 feet and that was incorrect, it's 3 feet for a detached
structure, so a garage could be built within 3 feet of the alley. The final point I would like to make
is that - make it clear that "no" to anyone of these 6 criteria constitutes a denial of the special
exception. They must satisfy all six criteria.
Chairman Olsen: Does any of the commission have any questions?
Commissioner Boyd: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Olsen: twas going to pass the pictures around before first before we have any motions
or-
Commissioner Boyd: Okay.
Chairman Olsen: All the Commission members have reviewed the exhibits referred to as seven
pictures. Dol hear any other discussion? I do not hear any other discussion, is therea motion?
Commissioner Boyd: Mr. Chairman be it resolved the Bremer~on Planning Commission, after
considering oral and written testimony and Staff Report hereby denies this request for a Zoning
Ordinance Special Exception, based of the following: it does not meet any of the criteria, which
would allow us to approve it and therefore I think that we are obligated to deny it.
Commissioner Stone: I second the motion.
Chairman Olsen: Motion has been made and seconded. Discussion? Questions?
Secretary: Stone?
Commissioner Stone: Yes.
Secretary: Adams?
Commissioner Adams: Yes.
Secretary: Hancock?
Commissioner Hancocl(: Yes.
Secretary: Dingfield?
Commissioner Dingfield: Yes.
Secretary: Boyd?
23
Commissioner Boyd: Yes.
Secretary: Olsen?
Chairman Olsen: Yes.
Secretary: Motion passes.
Don Pratt: Mr. Chairman the Planning Commission action to deny can be appealed. The appeal
must be made originating at the Department of Community Development office within 14 calendar
days of this action. An appeal would bring this issue before the City Council on a closed record
hearing. Closed record means no new testimony, no new witnesses.
Chairman Olsen: Does the applicant understand what was just said? I would like to thank you all -
ones who participated in our discussion of this. We will now go onto hearing two an appeal Mr.
Mock?
24