Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/95TAPE #1344 UNAPPROVED DRAFT COUNCIL APPROVED JAN 10 1996 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 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, December 13, 1995, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Sherril Huff-Menees presiding. -Council members present were Bob Winters, Al Colvin, Morrie Dawkins, Carlos Montgomery, John Law, David Farr, Richard Neville, Lon Overson. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Huff-Menees and Invocation given by Pastor Ron Anderson of Manette Community Church. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes -- November 8, 1995 #AB95-268 #0006 M/S/C/U(Neville/Colvin) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24,090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. #0014 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on December 13, 1995, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 190237 through 190311 in the amount of $546,491.04. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Overson reminded everyone of the activities planned for downtown Bremerton on December 16. He was also glad to see that the City made it though the "terrible winds" of 1995, without any major problems. Mr. Farr thanked Mr. Brittian of Britt Signs, for picking up some of the political signs that remained in the area long after the election. He was happy to report his political signs were picked up within two days of the election. He was glad that Mr. Neville and Overson did not suffer any damage from the wind storm and wished he could say the same. The wind storm knocked down half of his fence into his neighbors yard and he and others in District #6 were still without power. The wind storm knocked out some of the traffic lights and while he was driving around the City he observed people were being very cautious and courteous to one another as TAPE #1344 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 13, 1995 Page 2 of 13 they travel through intersections. Mr. Law announced the next District # 3 Neighborhood Meeting will be held on January 16. He wished everyone a Happy Holiday. Mr. Montgomery reported as of 3:30 P.M. today his neighborhood was also without power; however, Puget Power workers were in their area trying to fix the problem. He hoped those without power were finding ways to keep warm. He noticed local restaurants were full earlier this morning. Mr. Dawkins reported today the Bremerton Central Lions Club hosted residents from local nursing homes at their luncheon meeting, and one of the ladies, Mrs. Shine McGowan, who is 99, served as Bremerton's City Clerk for many years. Mr. Colvin stated he was amazed how alert and interested the seniors were during the lunch meeting. Mr. Winters reported the wind storm blew down his fence, which he plans to replace with a cyclone fence. He also was impressed by the courtesy shown by members of the public as they traveled through intersections that had no functioning signal light. He commended the Police and Fire personnel for their efforts helping the public during the storm. He was pleased to report that Billie Middleton, a Kitsap Lake Resident, expressed her appreciation for the efforts by Tim Richard, Senior Engineer, Tim Hughes, Engineering Tech III and Maryellen Babbitt, Engineer Tech III on the Kitsap Lake Sewer construction project. She especially appreciated their being so nice during a difficult period of having their road torn up during construction. He extended his appreciation to those City staff members as well. MAYOR,8 REPORT Mayor LYnn Hotton reported A1 Duke, Assistant Fire Chief, has prepared a preliminary report assessing the December 12 wind storm. She passed out several photographs showing downed trees and power lines throughout the City. She felt the City was fortunate in that it seemed the storm--went around the City. The strongest winds report in Bremerton were gusts of 60 miles per hour; however, other areas experienced well in excess of that and up to 95 miles per hour. She felt the advance warning the Bremerton area and Kitsap County received about the storm was very beneficial. When the storm alert was received,she talked with staff about non-essential employees having the opportunity to leave their work early by either taking vacation time or making up the time sometime during the next few days. The intent was to not have employees driving home in the storm, so the administrative policy was implemented. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard allowed for early leave and the TAPE #1344 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 13, 1995 Page 3 of 13 Bremerton School District dismissed schools at noon, which she felt was a real help. At her Department Head meeting on Tuesday afternoon they discussed their readiness for the storm and whether or not to man the Emergency Operations Center. At that point, they decided not to activate the center, but would keep their options open. A generator was put in place at the Public Works Complex for the emergency Operations Center, A1 Duke stood watch at CENCOM until 2:00 AM and throughout that night he gave her update reports on the damage around the City and Kitsap County. Each Department prepared their vehicles, generators and necessary equipment to meet the emergency and for the most part the City was well prepared. She felt this was a good opportunity to evaluate the City's procedures for an emergency and Mr. Duke will include in his report some suggestions on how to be better prepared in the future. Fourteen wastewater pump stations were on emergency generators, with two stations having to be pumped by vactor and two that had some overflow. There was a temporary loss of commercial power at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, but there was back up generator power. A traffic light arm was damaged at BuNell and Callow and a traffic head was lost at 6th and Warren as well as losing 24 of the smaller traffic heads. Power was out at Casad Dam and at this point they were still having some problems reconnecting power. No water is being used from Casad Dam because of the tribidity of the water. There have been many power outages throughout Kitsap County and at present Puget Power reported approximately 45,000 customers were still without power. Power crews from British Columbia have come to assist with the restoration and the hardest area hit was Central Kitsap from Olympic View Drive to Seabeck. The estimated return of service in that area will be Saturday. Power outages were experienced in East and West Bremerton and some areas may be without power for 24 hours. There appears to be three areas with road closures due to downed trees - Arsenal and Marion, Harlow Drive and Corbet from 17th to 19th. Kitsap Lake Elementary School was the only Bremerton school that did not open due to power outage. There were 36 requests for assistance for downed trees and power lines and County wide there were reported 17 structures damaged by falling trees. There were three structure fires, one being in Bremerton, which was caused by improper handling of a candle. She urged the public to be more prepared for future storm events, especially having available a supply of water, extra flashlights for light rather than using candles and someone to check on them to make sure they are ok. The City received several calls from residents complaining the City did not know when power would be restored. She wanted the public to be aware the best the City can do is call up the County Emergency Department and try to interface with Puget Power. Mayor Horton offered her thanks to Merilynn Erhart, Council Legislative Assistance, for her willingness to be the City's TAPE #1344 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 13, 1995 Page 4 of 13 coordinator for the United Way Campaign. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Cecil McConnell announced the first District #2 Neighborhood Meeting will be held January 9, 1996, 6:30 P.M., at Fire Station #3 on Olympus Drive. Domee Dosso, 1563 Marine Drive, reminded everyone of the Festival of Music in downtown Bremerton on Saturday, December 16, which will include a Christmas Tree lighting at 4:30 P.M. 7A - PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC COUNTING EQUIPMENTAND SUPPLIES, #AB95-269 City Council authorized acquisition of traffic counting equipment in Budget Amendment No. 95-26 approved on August 2, 1995. The Engineering Division has evaluated similar devices and found the traffic counters and classifiers manufactured by Nu-Metrics will best serve the needs of the City. Benefits associated with this specific device are listed below. 1. All movements can be recorded in large intersections. Installation time reduced, no road tubes needed, safety for installer is enhanced. 3. Less possibility of being vandalized, as they sit completely in the center of travel lane. 4. Speed survey capability. The new traffic counters will provide data for pavement management, signal timing, traffic studies and neighborhood traffic control. The funds will allow for purchase of 14 units at a total price of $13,796.80. The remaining funds will be used to separately purchase a computer to download and process the data. Mark Souza, Senior Engineer, stated the Engineering staff recommends the VMI type equipment and the only manufacturer of VMI is Nu-Metrics. Public comment - none Mr. Dawkins questioned if this type of equipment would wear out and have to be replaced in the future? Mr. Souza explained the equipment should not wear out; however the batteries may need to be changed. Mr. Dawkins asked if the recommended equipment is an improvement over what the City is currently using? Mr. Souza stated yes, due to the fact the new equipment can be installed one lane at a time rather than tieing up both lanes. #0839 #0879 #0927 TAPE #1344 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 13, 1995 Page 5 of 13 Mr. Overson asked why do we need traffic counters? Mr. Souza stated they are needed in order to upgrade the signalization, timing of the lights; and this type of equipment will be used for speed counts, classify traffic, i.e. different kinds of trucks and vehicles. M/S/C/U(Farr/Montgomery) to request that City Council waive the call for bid requirement and authorize the Mayor to approve contract with McCain Traffic Supply to provide 6 Hi-Star Model NC- 40 Traffic Counters, and 8 Hi-Star NC-90A Traffic Classifiers and pertinent equipment as shown on Attachment A as manufactured by Nu- Metrics. 8A - ORDINANCE NO. 4538 (SECOND READING), AMENDING THE 1995 BUDGET (BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS #24, #25, #29, #30, AND ~32 THROUGH #46), #AB95-266 Public comment - none. M/S/C(Montgomery/Colvin) to pass Ordinance No. 4538, on second reading, amending Ordinance No. 4519 relating to the budget of the City of Bremerton for Fiscal Year 1995. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Law, Montgomery, Dawkins, Colvin, Overson, Neville, Farr, Huff-Menees Abstain: Winters 8B - ORDINANCE NO. 4539 (SECOND READING) ADOPTING THE 1996 BUDGET ANDREPEALING ORDINANCE NO. sS 4515, 4400, 4356, AND4231, #AB95-267 Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated the budget has been amended following first reading to make the adjustment that was included in the motion to approve the Budget Ordinance on first reading. Secondly, in a Study Session immediately prior to this meeting the issue of removing the position of Payroll Specialist from the Management and Professional group into the Teamsters represented group, was discussed and agreed to. Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Dawkins) to pass Ordinance No. 4539, on second reading, as amended, approving and adopting the financial budget for the several funds of the City of Bremerton for the fiscal year 1996, and appropriating the amounts set forth in each budget to each fund in accordance with RCW35.33,075; and repealing Ordinance No.'s 4515, 4400, 4356, 4231, 4160 and BMC 2.50.020(c). Vote on Motion: In Favor: Montgomery, Dawkins, Colvin, Overson, Neville, Farr, Law, Huff-Menees Abstain: Winters TAPE #1344 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 13, 1995 Page 6 of 13 Motion carried. 9A - PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISIONTO UPHOLD THE DENIAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION; APPELLANT: TODD & TERESA TENNYSON, #AB95-270 The appellant's application is for front and side-yard setback reductions for two retaining walls on the subject property. At the Planning Commission hearing of August 15, 1995, the application was denied. BMC 21.02,930 (2b) designates the City Council as the hearing body for appeals of Planning Commission decisions. When hearing an appeal, the City Council may take any of the following actions: UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision, DENYING the Special Exception; OVERTURN the decision, APPROVING the Special Exception. (The City Council must make specific findings and conclusions for approval); MODIFY the decision by adding or deleting conditions; REMAND the decision to the Planning Commission for further review of circumstances or impacts identified by the Council. (The Council should include specific issues to be considered). President Huff-Menees asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question. Mr. Montgomery asked to step down due to his being involved in discussions and recommendations to the Tennysons on this issue. President Huff-Menees announced all remaining Council members would be seated. Shane Jensen, Planner, provided a view graph showing the location of the subject property - on the east side of Marine Drive, which is a "flag lot". The exceptions being requested are for portions of retaining walls to be within the front yard setback and the side yard setback. Flag Lot setback issues - typically on most lots, the front yard setback is noted where the property has frontage on some type of street (public, private, or easement, private right-of-way or an extension of a driveway) that goes on the person's own lot out to the street. To be as close to that definition of a front yard as possible, they take a radius from wherever a street is located. Typically, Council will not see this type of application because these type of setback issues are handled through a "Special Exception" and normally handled administratively or through a Planning Commission hearing. Administrative processing requires the adjoining property owners affected provide the City with a statement that they have no objection with a proposed setback TAPE #1344 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 13, 1995 Page 7 of 13 issue. If the request is reasonable and there are no life safety issues or great nuisance problems and the most affected people give their concurrence, administratively they have a tendency to look upon that favorable. In this case, the applicants were not able to obtain the adjoining property owners' signatures until just recently, which he provided to Council just prior to this meeting, to support this Special Exception. However, his report this evening is the Planning Commission's findings. The Commission found that the applicant's request did not meet three criteria: (C) if the Exception will be applied in a manner that does not result in any health or public safety issues (staff had questions on those issues and asked that an Engineer inspect the retaining walls and provide a letter stating they meet the intent of the design. He noted that is new information and was not heard at the Planning Commission hearing as well as the letter that was submitted earlier. Criteria (E) talks about the proposal being compatible with surrounding areas and with developments already permitted under the General Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The original staff finding was there are similar retaining walls in the Marine Drive area. The Commission found that was not the case. Criteria (F), possibly the most pivotal criteria regarding special circumstances warrant this Exception and must be proved by the applicant. The applicant submitted a list of special circumstances and the Planning Commission did not agree with those reasons. Based on this, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application. Mr. Neville referenced the first item under SIDE Wall, on page 66 of the Agenda Packet (Misunderstanding of setback and permit requirements - though wall could be placed near property line.), and asked if this was miss information given to the Tennysons by staff. Mr. Jensen stated the Tennysons claim there was misinformation either by staff or misunderstanding from them as to the City's setback requirements. Mr. Neville stated he thought plans were reviewed at the Permit Center in order to answer all kinds of questions and prevent misinformation or misunderstandings. Mr. Jensen explained the retaining walls were put in prior to Planning staff's review of the plan. The City did an enforcement action on the site and to rectify that problem the Tennysons submitted engineering plans for the wall in order to prove they were installed correctly. Steve Dickson, Attorney representing Todd and Teresa Tennyson, explained there have been some significant changes in circumstances since this issue was heard by the Planning Commission. It was clear from the Planning Commission Hearing record that one of the foremost objections of the participants was that the wall had some characteristics that led some of the neighbors to believe it might not have been structurally sound. While the Tennyson's disagreed with that, they did admit the wall had never been engineered. As Mr. Jensen pointed out, since that hearing the wall has been TAPE #1344 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 13, 1995 Page 8 of 13 engineered and the Engineer has stamped a set of plans and written to the City informing the planning staff that the wall does meet the intent of the plans; and the wall has been properly permitted at this point in time. Mr. Law called for a point of order and asked if he understood correctly that Council could only hear what was heard by the Planning Commission? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated yes, according to Council's procedures only exhibits, drawings, pictures, etc., presented to the Planning Commission are to be presented to Council. It appears that the applicant wishes to change part of that testimony at this time. If that new testimony is relevant to the decision, Council can either go forward or it can be remanded back to the Planning Commission to hear that different testimony. As far as the argument of the parties or testimony from the public, we have not tried to control that because we don't have an exact record of those things. Mr. Dickson stated what he understood Mr. Sievers to say was Council does not have to accept new evidence and if they want to, in light of new evidence, they have the options to remanding back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings, or in the interest of expediency Council could determine the matter denoble and save the applicant one level of hearings. He urged Council to either consider it denoble and grant the Special Except in the interest of expediency or in the least remand it back to the Planning Commission so that the applicant can show the change of circumstance. Mr. Sievers added there is an element of good cause for a later presentation, which is similar to what is done in Court, if the parties were working on an agreement, but unable to conclude the agreement for the Planning Commission. Mr. Dickson stated one change of circumstance they would ask Council to exercise their discretion is the fact there is no question about the structural integrity of the retaining walls. The second major change of circumstance is that at the time the matter originally came before the Planning Commission the two neighbors,who were involved on either side of the retaining walls, were definitely against the granting of the Special Exception. The Tennysons, Bushnells and Williams were involved in some other legal disputes at the time, which resulted in some litigation that was pending over some fairly minor matters, but their attorney and he met at length on this date and entered into a written agreement that settled all the disputes between the three parties. At the current time, the Bushnells and Williams have dispatched their attorney to speak to Council at this hearing stating they no longer have any objections to the granting of the Special Exception. In fact, they are affirmatively asking that the Special Exception be granted in order that they can settle their neighborhood dispute. He emphasized there are no other neighbors to the Tennysons that would be affected by the setback requirements. The granting of the Special Exception would not violate the intent TAPE #1344 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 13, 1995 Page 9 of 13 of the Setback Ordinances or any of the policy reasons behind the Setback Ordinances. The Front Setback Ordinances, for instances, are generally set so there is a minimum of distance between structures and the street. The subject lot is not a typical lot, so it already sets well back from the street. The purposes of setback are to provide for an open neighborhood appearance. The record shows that open neighborhood appearance continues, there is plenty of room for trees and landscaping on either side of the retaining walls. In fact, the Williams and Bushnells have already done a nice job of landscaping around the retaining wall. One reason for setback requirements is to provide for visibility and what the flat map does not show is that the property slopes gently from a high point to a low point and there is no point where there is a loss of visibility from one end of the lot to the other due to the height of the retaining wall. He also pointed out this area of is comprised of small cul-de-sacs on either side of Marine Drive. He believed it was arguable that with respect to the front setback requirement that the front retaining wall is not violating the existing code. Section 60(c)(e) of the Ordinance says that free standing walls do not violate front yard setback requirements. Mr. Pratt and he discussed that point and Mr. Pratt disagrees with his interpretation, but he did acknowledge that it is ambiguous in this sense and maybe even conflict. He saw no reason from a health standpoint or policy standpoint in the Planning Staff recommendation that would seriously prohibit the City Council, in light of changed circumstances, from granting this Special Exception. David West, Attorney representing the Williams and Bushnells, stated he was asked by his clients to give Council their input. At the time this issue came before the Planning Commission there were various disputes among these parties and a lot of them involving their real estate. It was attempted to settle all of the disputes between the parties before this issue came before the Planning Commission, but they were unable to achieve that goal. However, he and Mr. Dickson have been working very diligently trying to resolve all of the differences among the parties without resorting to litigation. He was pleased to report they arrived at such an agreement earlier today. His clients would very much like to resolve all of their differences with the Tennysons without any need for litigation and the agreement made is conditioned on the Tennysons being granted a Special Exception for their rock walls. Mr. Dickson stated he was not present at the Planning Commission hearing, but Mr. West was and he heard all of the testimony, discussion and the voting and he could state his firm opinion that the decision would have been different had the neighbors not objected to the Special Exception being granted. One of his client's main concern was for safety and at that time the walls had not been examined by an engineer, now they have. In summary, he TAPE #1344 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 13, 1995 Page 10 of 13 asked Council not to say "no" tonight. If they do not feel comfortable in over ruling the decision of the Planning Commission, then he urged them to remand the issue back to them and have them look at it with the new evidence and possibly letting them remand it back to Mr. Pratt, if he feels it is appropriate for an Administrative determination. Mr. Colvin asked if there was any possibility that the City could be involved in a lawsuit if Council approved the Special Exception? Mr. Sievers stated no, the decision having to do with land use is in this case quasi-judicial because it affects a single party. The safety issues are not really involved since the walls would be permitted and he assumes they have been engineered and approved by the Building Department, which is were the liability may come from. The aesthetics is the issue to be dealt with on this decision. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read into the record a letter dated December 13, 1995: "Dear Madam Chairman and City Council Members, Since the Planning Commission meeting the Tennyson's engineer has guaranteed the safety of the walls, therefore we have signed the Special Exception. In addition, all of the neighbors involved in various disputes have reached an agreement that at the Tennyson's request it is contingent upon approval of the Special Exception by the City Council; therefore, to end the neighborhood conflict we respectfully ask that you approve the Special Exception. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. John Bushnell and Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Williams." Mr. Overson stated the Planning Commission identified three points to deny the Special Exception and he believed Council should remand the issue back to them to see if the new information would settle their concerns. Mr. Farr stated he had a question for Mr. Pratt... with the agreement of the two parties most affected over placement of the retaining walls and with the engineering aspects completed on the structures themselves, if this were to come to him today for a Zoning Exception could he approve it administratively? Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated yes, and just for clarification their role this evening is to represent the Planning Commission's decision, but the documentation provided included staff's recommendation for approval, which the Planning Commission did not agree with. This is very similar to the application they saw, except for the neighbor's agreement and is similar to others they have approved. Mr. Farr stated he appreciated the comments regarding the ambiguousness of the zoning requirements for retaining walls and setback areas and he is hopeful that someday that ambiguity can be corrected. Mr. Pratt stated that change along with other changes, including recycling centers, will be addressed in the proposed new Zoning Code that is being developed. #2183 #2254 TAPE #1344 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 13, 1995 Page 11 of 13 Mr. Farr stated this is one of the rare occasions he disagrees with Mr. Overson on his belief that it should be remanded back to the Planning Commission. He believes the taxpayers would get a better break if Council moved forward and approved the Special Exception. Mr. Law acknowledged the letter signed by the Williams and Bushnells; however, there are three other letters from a Mr. Holland, Mr. Rackley and Mr. Waldorf, who have not said they rescind their objection. He supports the proposal to give the Planning Commission the respect of having them get the same information Council has been given, which was not presented to them. Mr. Dawkins stated he supported Council moving forward and making the decision at this time based on the information presented. Mr. Colvin agreed with Mr. Dawkins that it could save the City money by Council approving the Special Exception. Mr. Law pointed out there should not be any additional expense to the City and Council will be showing respect to the Planning Commission, if they approve it. If the Planning Commission does not approve it, then they in their study, expertise and knowledge would have found a reason not to approve it. President Huff-Menees asked if there would be additional staff time required if the issue was remanded back to the Commission? Mr. Pratt explained there would be a public hearing and public notice would be given again. Public notice was given to everyone about this hearing as well; therefore there would be replication of that cost. Mr. Overson explained the reasoning why Council has set a policy that requires that they be presented the same information as the Planning Commission. M/S/F(Overson/Law) that the City Council remand this item back to the Planning Commission for proper dispensation. Vote On Motion: Motion failed. In Favor: Opposed: Winters, Overson, Neville, Law Dawkins, Colvin, Farr, Huff-Menees M/S/F(Farr/Dawkins) the City Council respectfully over turns the Findings Of Fact and Conclusions by the Planning Commission and award this Special Exception. Mr. Pratt explained a "no" action by Council leaves the Planning Commission's decision in tact, which was to deny. #2779 TAPE #1344 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 13, 1995 Page 12 of 13 Vote on Motion: Motion failed. In Favor: Opposed: Colvin, Farr, Dawkins, Huff-Menees Winters, Overson, Neville, Law Mr. Colvin stated he believed Council needed to come up with a recommendation that they could support. Mr. Neville stated it seemed to him Council was in question over the Engineer report as to the retaining walls. Council has not seen any documentation that the retaining walls are sound. He could not vote on hearsay and that is one of the reasons why he felt it should be remanded back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Pratt stated he had in his possession the Engineering document in which the Engineer takes full liabilitly for the design, as required by the City, to make it legal. Mr. Neville asked if the Planning Commission had seen that document? Mr. Pratt stated no, and the reason it was not provided to Council was whether or not it met the Building Code was not legal criteria for approving a land use issue, it happens in a different code. The rock walls were constructed according to the Building Code and the City is in possession of that certification, but it was not available to the Planning Commission. He was willing to share that information with Council; however from a very technical and legal standpoint it was not part of the record under which any decisions were made and cannot be considered part of the record. Mr. Colvin asked if Council approved remanding the issue back to the Planning Commission, would it have to come back to Council? Mr. Pratt stated no, only if the issue was appealed. The next available Planning Commission meeting would be January 16 and the only way it can get to the Commission is by an affirmative vote by this Council. President Huff-Menees recommended to Council that since they are seeing documentation that the Planning Commission did not see, that the appropriate action at this time would be to remand the issue back to the Planning Commission. M/S/C(Overson/Nevilte) to remand this item back to the Planning Commission for proper dispensation. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Opposed: Winters, Overson, Neville, Farr, Law, Huff-Menees Dawkins, Colvin With no further business meeting adjourned at 6:48 P.M. TAPE #1344 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 13, 1995 Page 13 of 13 KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, lerk S,S,S, SJERRIL HUFF-MENEES, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/SH-M/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault